Integrating Inquiry-based Learning into Undergraduate Geology Xornam S. Apedoe

Learning Research and Development Center, Room 818, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O'Hara St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, [email protected]

Sally E. Walker

Department of Geology, 320 Geology/Geography Building, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, [email protected]

Thomas C. Reeves

Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, 604 Aderhold Hall, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, [email protected]

ABSTRACT Despite robust rationales for using an inquiry-based pedagogy in university and college-level science courses, it is conspicuously absent from many of today's classrooms. Inquiry-based learning is crucial for developing critical-thinking skills, honing scientific problem solving ability, and developing scientific content knowledge. Inquiry-based pedagogy provides students with opportunities to participate and practice the activities involved in science. There are a number of dimensions that are integral to the creation of an inquiry-based learning environment that are applicable to the geological sciences. We considered these dimensions in the design of an inquiry-based undergraduate geology course and collected quantitative and qualitative data that documents the successful implementation of this redesigned course. Our findings show that when appropriately structured, inquiry-based learning can help students develop critical scientific-inquiry skills, suggesting that inquiry-based learning is essential for teaching geology at the university or college level. With the proper alignment of course objectives, content, pedagogical design, tasks, assessment strategies, and instructor and student roles, geoscience instructors at the university or college level can create inquiry-based learning environments in which students are able to successfully develop skills in scientific inquiry as well as geological content knowledge.

INTEGRATING INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING INTO UNDERGRADUATE GEOLOGY [G]eology is both a body of knowledge and a way of thinking and doing things. That is, there are things that we do operationally as well as things we know. Often in undergraduate education there is a tendency to emphasize the knowledge but not the way of thinking and doing. (Buchwald, 1997, p. 327) Blueprint for Change: A Report from The National Conference on the Revolution in Earth and Space Science Education (Barstow and Geary, 2002) details a new vision for teaching and learning in the earth sciences. Blueprint for Change advocates adopting a 'science-as-a-verb' perspective that emphasizes the human elements (e.g., successes, failures and emotional dispositions) that are associated with engaging in science as inquiry (Yore et al., 2002). This is in direct opposition to the 'science-as-a-noun' perspective, which stresses textbook knowledge, lists and procedures about scientific processes. Geoscience education should help students develop thinking skills such as inquiry, visual literacy, understanding of systems and models, and the ability to apply knowledge and problem solving to a range of substantive, real-world issues (Barstow and Geary, 2002). To accomplish such goals, Blueprint for Change recommends that science educators use inquiry-based learning and visualization technologies in the classroom, 414

laboratories, and other environments to promote understanding of the earth as a system of processes. The purpose of this paper is to provide practical guidelines to instructors of undergraduate geoscience courses who wish to integrate inquiry-based learning into their teaching. We begin with an overview of inquiry-based learning, followed by a framework that can be used to design a course or laboratory that incorporates inquiry-based learning. Lastly, we describe a specific case of integrating inquiry-based learning into an undergraduate geology course as well as the results and lessons learned from the experience.

BACKGROUND Inquiry-based Learning and Teaching - The use of inquiry-based learning has received much attention since the National Research Council (NRC) released the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) for K-12 education. Inquiry-based learning refers to the activities of students and how they develop understanding of scientific ideas and how scientists study the natural world (NRC, 1996). Using inquiry in the classroom as an instructional method can help students achieve understanding of scientific concepts by having students practice and participate in the activities typical of a working scientist. When students are engaged in inquiry-based learning they should (NRC, 2000): (a) be engaged in scientifically-oriented questions; (b) give priority to evidence, allowing them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientific questions; (c) formulate explanations from evidence to address scientific questions; (d) evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those that reflect scientific understanding and evidence; and (e) communicate and justify their proposed explanations. These five elements are essential characteristics of an inquiry-based learning environment. A number of studies have reported the benefits of inquiry-related teaching approaches, suggesting that these techniques foster students' understanding of scientific processes, scientific literacy, and critical thinking (Cavallo et al., 2004; Glasson and McKenzie, 1998; Haury, 1993) among other competencies. Inquiry-based teaching can also improve students' understanding of the scientific method and its strengths and weaknesses (Keller et. al., 2000). These and other studies imply that the use of inquiry-based learning is an effective approach for teaching science at all levels ranging from K-12 through undergraduate education (NRC, 2000). There are a number of undergraduate geoscience educators that have utilized inquiry-based teaching methods in their courses (Keller et al., 2000), but integrating inquiry-based learning activities can be challenging. For undergraduate geoscience instructors, integrating inquiry-based approaches raises issues of (1) finding time to shift pedagogical styles, (2) choosing content to exclude to accommodate time-intensive inquiry approaches, and (3) developing the background and skill with using inquiry-based instructional strategies (Field, 2003). Despite these challenges,

Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 414-421

Dimension Course Objectives

Course Content

Pedagogy

Task Characteristics

Instructor's Roles

Students' Roles Technological Affordances

Assessment Strategies

Characteristics Knowledge, skills and attitudes that students should develop as a result of participating in the course. Ideally stated as measurable outcomes ranging from discrete knowledge to higher order thinking. The information and data that encompass the subject matter to be taught, studied, and learned in the course. Includes the format information is presented in (e.g. highly structured formats such as textbooks). The instructional approach or methods used in the course. Can range between direct-instruction with a heavy emphasis on lecture, to constructivist approaches with an emphasis on problem/project-based learning. The strategies used to engage students in meaningful learning activities. The mode of interacting with students. May range from a didactic teaching mode where instructors deliver prepackaged information to students, to instructors providing scaffolding (or support) functions while students are engaged in tasks. The active cognitive, psychomotor, affective, and conative (Snow et al., 1996) interactions that engage students as they grapple with tasks, content, co-learners, the instructor, and other components of the learning environment. The interaction possibilities posed by technology used to support learning in the learning environment. The methods used to estimate student accomplishment of the course objectives.

Characteristics within an Inquiry-based Pedagogical Framework Students should develop knowledge of scientific ideas and the scientific process. Students should develop the skills necessary to participate in scientific activities. Within an inquiry-based course, content should be accessible in real-world formats such as the data from remote sensing satellites.

Provides learners with the opportunity to: engage in scientific questions; gather evidence, formulate explanations, evaluate alternatives, and justify explanations. Spells out the nature of the inquiry activities that students are to complete with respect to their investigation of an authentic scientific problem. May engage students in inductive problem-solving akin to the work of scientists. Instructors provide scaffolding (or support) while students are engaged in realistic inquiry. Instructors resist the urge to jump in and complete tasks for students as students grapple with complexities of authentic inquiry tasks. Requires students to be active participants in their learning. Typically involves collaboration among students, just as science requires teamwork. Technology can provide students with access to the types of tools and data that working scientist typically use. Assessment is based upon observations of student engagement and analysis of documents such as research reports. Requires the assembly and critical analysis of multiple forms of evidenceto demonstrate that learning outcomes have been attained.

Table 1. Critical Pedagogical Dimensions within an Inquiry-based Science Course

engaging students in inquiry activities throughout their undergraduate careers is of utmost importance if students are to graduate with the 21st-century outcomes that are expected, such as robust scientific-mental models, the capacity for solving ill-structured problems, sustained intellectual curiosity, and a commitment to lifelong learning (Hersh and Merrow, 2005). Engagement in inquiry at the undergraduate level promises to help prepare students for further education experiences such as graduate school or later professional opportunities (Field, 2003).

how each dimension can be characterized within the context of an inquiry-based pedagogical framework. When utilizing an inquiry-based pedagogy that supports the five essential characteristics of inquiry-based learning (i.e., learners engaged in scientific questions, giving priority to data, formulating explanations, considering alternatives, and justifying explanations), it is of utmost importance that the seven remaining dimensions are in alignment with this pedagogical design. Failure to align these dimensions will undermine the successful design and implementation of an inquiry-based pedagogy into an undergraduate geoscience course or laboratory. To DESIGNING AN INQUIRY-BASED illustrate the successful alignment of these dimensions, a UNDERGRADUATE GEOLOGY COURSE description of an undergraduate geology course taught Aligning Critical Pedagogical Dimensions - There are during the 2004-2005 academic year follows. multiple dimensions that must be aligned when designing any learning experience (Reeves, 1994; Wang Context and Setting - During the 2004-2005 academic and Reeves, 2003). At a minimum, these dimensions year, a doctoral student in instructional technology (first include: course objectives, course content, pedagogy, author and primary researcher) and geology professor task characteristics, instructors' roles, students' roles, (second author) at a large research university located in technological affordances and assessment strategies. the Southeastern USA collaborated in the redesign of an Table 1 provides a description of each dimension, and undergraduate geology course. The impetus of this Apedoe et al. - Integrating Inquiry-based Learning into Undergraduate Geology

415

Laboratory Activity

Concepts Geological problem solving using maps and samples; Review of rock types; minerals; depositional environments; rock cycle Recognizing life on earth; biogenicity criteria; debate skills and critical-thinking skills using Schopf vs. Braiser papers concerning earliest fossil evidence for life Endosymbiosis; evolution of eukaryotes; comparisons between prokaryotes and eukaryotes Single-cell grade of evolution; forensic geology using foraminiferans; environmental applications using coccolithophorids, radiolarians and diatoms Body-plan evolution and preservational states (taphonomy) Biodiversification and the Paleozoic revolution in major invertebrate body plans; Cambrian and Paleozoic fauna Mesozoic faunas after the Permo-Triassic mass extinction; Predator-prey evolutionary paleoecology

*Laboratory 1: Rocks as Guides to Tectonics and Environments Laboratory 2: Biogenicity and Earth's Earliest Life Laboratory 3: The Protozeroic Revolution: The origin of Eukaryotes Laboratory 4: Micropaleontology: The single-cell grade of evolution (Foraminifera) *Laboratory 5: Skeletons and The Perils of Preservation *Laboratory 6: Paleozoic Revolution *Laboratory 7: Mesozoic Marine Revolution *Laboratory 8: Major evolutionary trends in deuterostomes: echinoderms and vertebrates, with special emphasis on the Cenozoic Era

Deuterostome evolution; vertebrate paleontology; macroevolution in echinoderms

Table 2. Laboratory activities and concepts, * indicates a 2-week laboratory activity.

redesign was two-fold. First, the professor of the course expressed a concern about previous students' performance on her inquiry-based exams. After meeting and discussing the components and goals of her course, we (the professor and primary researcher) determined that a redesign of the laboratory component of the course was necessary to be more consistent with the inquiry-based outcomes the professor expected from the course as a whole. The professor, who was familiar with inquiry-based approaches for teaching and learning, had been utilizing inquiry-based exams, but had not frequently engaged her students in inquiry-based activities prior to the exam. Thus, students typically performed poorly on the exam, likely because their prior experience with inquiry was insufficient, leading them to experience difficulty ascertaining task requirements. Second, the research team was interested in investigating how a digital library developed specifically for earth science could be used by instructors and students to support teaching and learning in an inquiry-based geoscience course. Two members of the team (first and third authors) were already involved in an evaluation of the Digital Library for Earth Systems Education (DLESE www.dlese.org), and accordingly it was decided that DLESE could be incorporated into the redesigned laboratory component of the course. The Design Process - The professor and primary researcher met regularly throughout the summer of 2004 to plan and design the laboratory-based course, which was implemented in Fall 2004. The design process began with a discussion of the professor's goals for the course. Each of the laboratory assignments that the professor had used in previous years was reviewed and prioritized based on the topics the professor believed most important for hands-on inquiry experience. Then, each laboratory revision began with the professor envisioning what her 'dream lab' might involve. What activities would she engage students in if there were no constraints? What would she want students to learn from the laboratory activity? Then, after discussing the essential characteristics of inquiry-based learning activities, the professor either redesigned a laboratory activity that she had used in the past, or created a new activity to address the learning goal she deemed important for students to learn. Thus, the professor was the primary designer of the laboratory activities, while 416

the primary researcher served in a consulting role, providing feedback and suggestions for creating activities consistent with inquiry-based learning goals and dimensions outlined earlier in this paper. This design process was used to create a set of eight laboratory activities, requiring students to engage in various levels of guided and open inquiry activities. Although all laboratory activities were designed prior to the start of the semester, the research team agreed that the laboratory activities could, and should, be adjusted as needed based on student performance and feedback throughout the course. Course Description - The course was an upper-level undergraduate geology course consisting of two hours of lecture and three hours of laboratory per week for fifteen weeks. The course is built around the laboratory, such that the lectures support the material explored in the laboratory, and the laboratory is designed to apply lecture information. Lectures were held twice a week, with the laboratory occurring directly after the second lecture meeting. Course Objectives - The learning goals as stated on the course syllabus were: To understand the major events in biotic evolution from Precambrian to Phanerozoic time and learn applied aspects of paleoenvironmental analysis and relative age-dating using fossil organisms. To achieve these goals, scientific critical thinking, presentation and writing skills will be emphasized. To this end, it was expected that students would (a) develop the skills necessary to participate in scientific processes related to geological inquiry, and (b) develop a deep understanding of the relevant geology content (e.g., to help students learn the applied aspect of paleoenvironmental analysis and relative age-dating using fossil organisms). These goals would be achieved through students' active participation in both the lecture and laboratory components of the course. Course and Laboratory Content - The course focused on principles of paleobiology, including biostratigraphy, paleoecology, taphonomy, and macroevolutionary dynamics. The content for the course and laboratory was

Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 414-421

Laboratory Exercises

2003

2004

1

The Perils of Preservation (Taphonomy)

2

Earth's Earliest Life Forms

3

5 6 7

Multitudes of Multicellular Evolution (Vendobionts; Trace Fossils) Organization of Invertebrate and Vertebrate Baupläne (Body Plants), Species and Systematics Fossil Protistans Colonial Life and Evolution of Reefs Lophophorates (Brachiopods and Bryozoans)

8

Paleoecology of Arthropods

9 10

Evolution of the Mollusca Evolution of the Echinoderms

4

Where in the World is Carmen Miranda? (Major Rock Types and Biofacies Applications) Earth's Earliest Archaean Life and Biogenicity Debate (Schopf's vs. Brasier's Science articles) Proterozoic Innovations in Body Forms, including Trace Fossils The Smallest Shells on Earth: Foraminifera Skeletons and the Peril of Preservation (Taphonomy) Paleozoic Evolutionary Groups Mesozoic Marine and Terrestrial Evolution Major Trends in Cenozoic Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems

Table 3. Comparison of laboratory exercises used during 2003 and 2004. In 2003, the labs averaged one week per lab, with a focus on classic paleontology (i.e., fill in the blank; draw specimens with a few application questions); in 2004, the labs were two weeks per lab covering more material in a synthetic manner (i.e., taphonomy, systematics, and environmental information covered in lab; each lab was a problem to solve).

presented in a manner consistent with inquiry-based pedagogical approaches, that is, in the form of real data such as rock and fossil samples, stratigraphic columns and maps, with which the students interacted during the process of solving an applied geology problem. In addition, the redesigned course focused less on taxonomy and more on concepts with an evolutionary/ environmental focus. To support our goal of having students focus on the process of science rather than the products of science, for example, students were not asked to label parts of invertebrate fossils unless it was to be used as data for answering a question in relation to body plan evolution or complexity in body form. In these cases, students were also required to support their answers, using information either from their textbook, course notes, or Internet resources such as DLESE, that were available to them throughout the class. Table 2 provides a listing of concepts addressed in each inquiry-based laboratory assignment. Table 3 provides a listing of laboratory activities used in 2003 (traditional approach) versus 2004 (inquiry-based approach) Pedagogical Design - As described above, the primary pedagogical strategy for the laboratory component of this course was hands-on inquiry based learning activities wherein students were challenged to solve authentic geology problems. Tasks - The redesigned laboratory tasks were structured according to guidelines for creating inquiry-based learning environments suggested in the NSES. The inquiry-tasks used in this course were more "guided' than "open" inquiry tasks, in that students were provided with an inquiry question to pursue and provided with a multitude of data from which to formulate their explanations. Unlike traditional 'cookbook' laboratory activities in which all the important decisions such as what data to collect, how to analyze the data, how to interpret the data, etc. (Clough, 2002), these inquiry tasks were designed to encourage students to actively engage in cognitive activities that are integral to engaging in inquiry (e.g. developing alternative explanations, interpreting data, selecting among alternative hypotheses; Clough, 2002). Previously, the professor's laboratory activities were organized such that the students were guided through a very structured sequence of questions and activities that

culminated in addressing a larger scientific question at the end of laboratory activity. The professor decided that laboratory activities involving extended fill-in-the-blank answers, labeling of morphological parts, and memorization of different taxonomic groups of organisms should be dropped from the course in favor of process-oriented questions that closely mimic scientific inquiry. With the redesigned laboratory activities, students were given a major scientific question to investigate and were required to determine for themselves the necessary procedures to address the question. Students were encouraged to gather information from various sources (e.g. rock and fossil samples, peers, DLESE) to help address the scientific questions. Students could have varying answers to geologic problems, but they had to justify their answers logically and with evidence that they had collected. Previously, questions had one correct answer and students did not necessarily have to justify their answers. Contact the authors for a comparison of two laboratory exercises from 2003 and 2004, with comments from the professor discussing content changes. Instructors' Roles - Creating an environment conducive to engaging in inquiry requires that an instructor learn among other skills: how to ask effective questions, incorporate appropriate wait time, listen carefully, acknowledge and play off student ideas, exhibit positive nonverbal behavior (Clough, 2002), answer questions with questions, encourage students to think on their own, and supply students with the tools to solve a problem, rather than solving the problem for them (Glasson and McKenzie, 1998). Thus, instructors need not only subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge of how to teach the content), but they also need pedagogical content knowledge for disciplinary practices if they are to effectively facilitate student engagement in inquiry activities (Davis and Krajcik, 2005). That is, instructors need to develop the skills and knowledge for helping students understand the ways that knowledge is generated in a discipline, as well as the beliefs that represent a deep understanding for how the discipline works (Davis and Krajcik, 2005). The professor for this course was very familiar with inquiry-based teaching practices, and thus felt very comfortable acting as a facilitator for students learning

Apedoe et al. - Integrating Inquiry-based Learning into Undergraduate Geology

417

through inquiry. However, the teaching assistant (TA) for the course had very little prior experience facilitating student learning in an inquiry-environment, and thus was less comfortable and skilled in the process. The impact of the facilitation skills of the instructors is discussed in more detail later in the paper. Students' Roles - Students accustomed to more passive roles in the college lecture hall may initially resist the active requirements of inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based learning environments require students to be active participants in their learning, sometimes collaborating with others to complete authentic tasks, just as science in the real world requires teamwork. Students must adjust to the challenges of engaging in inquiry tasks and to a different system of teacher-student interaction. Many students are accustomed to interacting with their instructors and TA's in particular ways, i.e., asking a question and receiving a direct answer; when the rules of interaction change, students may become resistant to it. Resistance to inquiry-based learning may be especially strong by those students most often rewarded with high grades within the traditional teacher-text-test-centered pedagogy. Students in this geology course were required to actively engage in inquiry processes (e.g. formulating explanations from evidence, evaluating explanations in light of alternatives). To facilitate the sharing of knowledge and information, students were encouraged but not required to work collaboratively with their peers. Technological Affordances - As computers have become integral in most forms of scientific practice, the science-education community has come to view computer technology as essential for supporting inquiry-based learning (Edelson et al., 1999). Digital libraries, such as DLESE, provide instructors and students with access to the same types of data and tools commonly used by scientists. These libraries are an especially promising new technology that presents unique opportunities for learning in inquiry-based learning environments. In the redesigned course, students had access to DLESE (and the Internet) in the laboratory, and were encouraged, but not required, to use it as an informational resource while completing their inquiry assignments. In previous years, students did not have direct access to Internet resources in the laboratory.

You - a noted paleontologist/geologist - have been helicoptered into Dante's Island, a remote island in the Hagen-Das Ocean. You have drawn a map of the island, collected samples from the island (samples 1-10) and have constructed lithologic columns for each locality. Your task is to reconstruct the history and paleoenvironments of Dante's Island. Don't forget to include sediment analysis (if applicable), the rock name (if applicable - don't forget the major rock types and the specific rock name), the fossil name (if applicable, as scientific as possible) the interpretation of lithologic columns, and resultant geological report: the historical reconstruction of Dante's Island. This type of assessment item is well aligned with the objectives of the course as well as its pedagogical design. It presents a relatively authentic problem that students cannot solve with a memorized concept. Instead, the question requires the application of scientific-inquiry skills. Students should do well on such an exam given that they have had ample opportunities to develop and practice inquiry skills throughout the semester.

THE STUDY Research Design and Data Collection - This qualitative study utilized a layered case-study design (Patton, 2002), wherein the undergraduate geology course was studied as a whole, along with the analysis of several individual students' learning experiences. Consistent with case analysis approaches (Patton, 2002) multiple data collection procedures such as observation, document analysis, and interviews were used. The results reported in this paper primarily focus on the geology course as a whole. The results of the case studies of individual students learning experiences are reported elsewhere.

Participants - Participants in the study included students, the teaching assistant, and the professor. All students were invited to participate in the study, but participation was voluntary. A total of 8 students were enrolled in the course, of which 7 students agreed to participate in the research. With the exception of one student (a non-traditional student) the study participants can be characterized as being representative of the typical type of student that enrolls in this course, with respect to age, major, and prior geology experience. In the previous year (2003), 11 students were enrolled in Assessment Strategies - In accordance with inquiry- the course. Thus the sample size for this study is also based pedagogical approaches, multiple assessment representative of typical classroom composition for this strategies were used in this course, including laboratory course. reports and inquiry-based exams. Final grades in the course were based upon: two in-laboratory quizzes; one Data Collection - During the implementation phase of inquiry-based midterm in-laboratory exam; one the research, both process measures and outcome inquiry-based final take-home exam; one field trip measures were collected. Process measures consisted of: research paper and presentation; one individual project; (a) interviews with the professor and teaching assistant one in-laboratory debate; and eight laboratory reports. about their experiences facilitating inquiry, (b) student Although the laboratory activities changed interviews and questionnaires about their learning significantly through the redesign process, the exams did experiences, and (c) observations of classroom activities. not. As stated earlier, previous students' poor Outcome measures included professor-created materials performance on the professor's inquiry-based exams was (e.g., inquiry assignments, worksheets, lecture notes), as one of the motivating factors for the course redesign. well as student created materials (e.g. completed inquiry Thus, the laboratory activities were redesigned to create assignments and exams). a closer alignment with the assessments (exams) that Student participation involved completion of three were currently being used by the professor. The midterm questionnaires and three interviews, throughout the exam used in 2003 and 2004 was similar with regards to semester. In addition, student participants provided the the concepts and organisms included, however the primary researcher with access to copies of their questions were slightly modified. The final exam used in completed assignments and exams, and agreed to be 2003 and 2004 was identical with respect to the content, observed as they completed inquiry-assignments during however, the questions were presented in a different laboratory periods. Participation by the professor and order. The following represents the type of questions teaching assistant primarily involved completion of students encountered on their inquiry-based exams: three interviews throughout the semester. In addition,

418

Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 414-421

the professor provided the researcher with access to science and felt it was a worthwhile approach, as is copies of all her instructional materials. evidenced in one student's reflection on the course: Analysis - Data-analysis procedures consistent with …We were being prepared for applications of our qualitative case-study approaches were used to analyze knowledge as opposed to just spilling it out like as if we the interview, questionnaire and observation data. were taking a test on the lecture. I think that it was Thematic analysis, an inductive procedure in which definitely more appropriate that we have a final like categories are derived from data (Ezzy, 2002) to create a that, because that's what we do more. That's more of 'master list' of codes reflective of the recurring themes what, from what I understand, geologists are expected and patterns in the data (Merriam, 1998), was used to to be able to do in their jobs, as opposed to just being analyze interview and questionnaire data. In addition, able to like regurgitate like loads of information on the the constant comparative method of analysis in which paper… instances in the data and categories of data are compared to each other, and to other instances (Merriam, 1998), was Pedagogical Design - As noted earlier, the professor used. Classroom observation data was used as a source was already open to inquiry-based learning strategies, to validate and crosscheck findings (Patton, 2002). but had not previously incorporated these strategies into her course in a comprehensive manner. Through the redesign and implementation experience, the professor FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION was able to develop her skills in designing and Successes and Challenges in Integrating implementing inquiry-based activities. For example, the Inquiry-based Learning - Overwhelmingly, the professor learned to be very patient and not to give in to professor was pleased with the changes to the laboratory student's complaints of not knowing what to do, as there and students’ performance in the course. Students also were no "fill-in-the-blank" questions. The professor responded favorably to the laboratory, despite some found that it was difficult to watch the students, as they initial difficulties adjusting to the inquiry-based learning would complain or sit passively at first, not knowing approach. Based on professor, TA, and student what to do when given a paleobiological or geological responses, the successes and challenges in aligning the question to solve. The students tried to get answers from critical dimensions of an inquiry-based learning the professor and the teaching assistant, but to no avail. Gradually, after about four intensive inquiry-based environment are discussed below. projects (approximately by the mid-term of the course), Objectives - The objectives for this course were to help students finally became comfortable with inquiry-based students (a) develop skills necessary to participate in learning, and really started to enjoy trying to solve an scientific-inquiry processes related to geological inquiry, unknown problem. The professor was confident enough and (b) develop deep understanding of the relevant after her experiences with this geology class that she geology content. To accomplish these goals, the redesigned the laboratory activities for a paleoecology redesigned laboratory activities needed to be carefully course she taught the following semester. constructed to promote both the learning of scientific-inquiry skills and the understanding of Tasks - With regard to the inquiry tasks, students were geology content knowledge. For the most part, the quite apprehensive when they were presented with their inquiry-based activities that we designed were quite first inquiry assignment. It should not be surprising that successful at helping students achieve the goals of the students initially show resistance to inquiry-based course. However, reflecting on the experience, the learning approaches given that relatively few professor has considered making the following undergraduate science courses expose them to this adjustments to promote a closer alignment between the pedagogical strategy. However, given the opportunity to course objectives and activities: (a) include fewer engage in inquiry, it seems likely that students will samples to relieve student anxiety about completing quickly adapt and get engaged in the activities. This was laboratory activities and to encourage students to think indeed the case as students quickly became attuned to about and discuss their data, (b) include more map the requirements and expectations of the tasks. Overall, students' reactions to the laboratory information to provide a regional perspective, (c) maintain variation in the tempo and mode of laboratory activities were overwhelmingly positive. Students activities so students do not become bored (e.g. vary the reported enjoying many of the laboratory activities final product students are required to produce), (d) because the activities allowed them to investigate topics include more videos, and (e) include additional content in depth and develop greater understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Students particularly (e.g. vertebrates and plants). enjoyed the activities in which they were given the Content - Like many other college and university opportunity to represent their knowledge in creative professors, it was difficult for the professor to reconcile ways, such as drawing a pictorial geological timescale. the desire to teach a large amount of content with the Although students were initially apprehensive about the desire to engage students in authentic inquiry activities. inquiry-based approach used by the professor, by the Thus, it was a challenge for the professor to change her end of the course, the challenging and stimulating nature teaching methods because utilizing an inquiry-based of the activities was part of the reason why students approach meant sacrificing content. However, for the enjoyed the course: professor, having students learn ways to approach …It's just a really interesting class- it's probably my problems, how to ask questions, make hypotheses and favorite class I've taken in school so far. It's not just test them, how to collect data and write about their regurgitating information on what the fossils are. It's a findings in a coherent manner, all became important nice change. I'm no good at rote memorization anyway. goals. Rather than having students focus on the It's something you actually had to work at but it wasn't 'products' of science, the professor began to believe that grudging boring work, I guess you could say. So that's the process of science was much more important for why it was so nice. I guess it's one of the best courses I've students to learn. taken here so far. That's all I can say about it. It's nice to Students became quite proficient at engaging in the do something that isn't you know 'here's some process of scientific inquiry, as is reflected by their information - repeat it back to me.'… performance on the inquiry-based assessments. Students were aware of this emphasis on learning the process of

Apedoe et al. - Integrating Inquiry-based Learning into Undergraduate Geology

419

Instructor Roles - For the professor, utilizing an inquiry-based teaching approach required much more work and time. It took 23 weeks to change this core-major class into an inquiry-based class (8 weeks during the summer, and 15 weeks during the semester the course was taught). The professor and primary researcher updated and revised laboratory activities and lectures as needed throughout the semester. The roles of both the professor and the TA evolved as the semester progressed. In the past, the course TA was responsible for setting-up the laboratory, guiding students through the laboratory, and grading all laboratory reports. However, with the implementation of the redesigned laboratory activities, the professor became very involved in the laboratory component of the course. Prior to the midterm, the professor was present the entire time the laboratory was running to help students with inquiry-based learning, until the TA became more adept at handling this type of learning. The professor also initially assumed responsibility for grading students' inquiry reports because she wanted to monitor how students were adjusting to her new teaching approach. In addition, because the redesigned laboratory activities were concept based, they could have multiple answers, making them more challenging to grade. The TA was not able to handle the grading of the laboratory activities until near the end of the semester, and to facilitate this process the professor provided the TA with a key of acceptable alternative answers. Prior to this course, the TA had very little experience facilitating student engagement in inquiry activities. The TAs experience with inquiry-based learning was limited to his participation as a student in an undergraduate genetics course. Thus, initially the TA reported that he was not comfortable with facilitating students learning in this inquiry-based laboratory. However, as the semester progressed and the professor delegated more responsibility to the TA for the laboratory, the TA gained some confidence and skill in facilitating students' learning. By the end of the semester, the TA reported that he had learned valuable lessons about facilitating students' inquiry experiences, such as appropriate ways of questioning students to probe their thinking. Student Roles - Turning to the ways that students adjusted to their new roles in an inquiry-based science course, initially students appeared to be relying on their old schemas of teacher-student interaction. Many students are accustomed to a relationship wherein the professor is the primary source of knowledge, as was the case with these geology students. Despite the fact that the majority of students (except for two) worked collaboratively to complete inquiry tasks, the students initially actively pursued obtaining answers from the professor, asking questions such as "What is the name of this rock?" However, supportive of an inquiry-based pedagogical approach, the professor encouraged students to seek answers from other sources (e.g. peers, the Internet). The professor also frequently reminded students that they were engaged in learning the process of science, while offering positive reinforcement by making comments such as: "You're right on! We're trying to get you to be geologists here." The one major concern students expressed was with the lack of support they felt while engaging in inquiry activities, especially with respect to their interactions with the TA. At the beginning of the semester students reported feelings of being lost and feelings of frustration. It may be the case that not enough guidance was provided for these students at the beginning of the course, leading to unnecessary feelings of frustration with learning and the course's TA. For many students, an inquiry-based learning approach may be a new and uncomfortable experience, thus more scaffolding and guidance may be required at the beginning of a course than at the end of a course when students have become 420

Exams Midterm Final

2003 (avg/med/std. dev.) 0.76/0.76/0.9 (n= 11) 0.64/0.62/0.15 (n=10)

2004 (avg/med/std. dev) 0.85/0.85/0.10 (n = 8) 0.74/0.77/0.15 (n = 7)

Table 4. Comparison of midterm and final exam grades for GEOL 4010 (2003 vs. 2004).

familiar with inquiry. However, perhaps a certain level of discomfort is inevitable and even desirable if it shakes students out of their typically passive stance. Helping students move from passivity to activity remains a major challenge for any geoscience instructor wishing to foster inquiry-based learning. Technological Affordances - The pedagogical dimension that was most misaligned within this inquiry-based geology laboratory was the technological affordances provided by DLESE. Despite the proclaimed potential of digital libraries to transform education (Marchionini and Maurer, 1995), the introduction of DLESE in this geology laboratory did not provide any substantial support for student learning. The functionality of the DLESE search mechanism proved to be cumbersome and confusing for some students. In addition, the lack of relevant or useful search results provided no impetus for students to continue to make use of DLESE. When students did make use of Web-based resources, they found it much easier to utilize traditional search engines such as Google or Yahoo to find information. Additionally, some students had already compiled an extensive list of Web-based resources that they preferred to use when seeking additional geological information. In any case, aligning the features of digital libraries with inquiry-based learning remains an important challenge. Assessment Strategies - For the professor, one of the most positive outcomes of utilizing inquiry-based teaching approaches was demonstrated in students' performances on the midterm and final exams. Previously, the professor utilized inquiry-based exams, but did not engage her students in inquiry-based activities in an organized manner. Student performance on previous years exams indicated that students had difficulty with the inquiry-nature of the exams. However, performance on the exams for this redesigned course, increased dramatically. See Table 4 for a comparison of student performance (2003 vs. 2004) on the inquiry-based exams. Lessons Learned and Future Directions Proper planning for inquiry-based learning is labor intensive for the course instructor, teaching assistants, and even the students. A great deal of effort must go into preparing experimental materials, critiquing protocols, supervising students, and mentoring teaching assistants to be good scientific inquiry coaches. (McIntosh, 2001, p. 3) A number of lessons related to teaching a geoscience course using inquiry-based methods can be drawn from this experience. The first relates to instructors' roles in the course. The importance of having an instructor who is comfortable and skilled in facilitating and guiding inquiry is clear. Without appropriate instructor guidance and facilitation, students may become frustrated because they are unable to reach understanding of the scientific concepts on their own (Clough, 2002). However, some level of discomfort is inevitable and perhaps even desirable when transitioning between dramatically different pedagogies.

Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 414-421

These students experienced some frustration at the beginning of the course while engaged in inquiry, which they attributed to the lack of guidance they were receiving. Based on classroom observations as well as discussions with both the professor and TA, some of this frustration may have been avoided if the TA had been more experienced with inquiry-based learning approaches. This is an important factor that needs to be given due attention when one considers implementing inquiry-based activities. Instructors must learn to walk a fine line between providing too much support and thus maintaining the teacher-centered nature of traditional science courses at the undergraduate level, and too little support that would leave students floundering without sufficient scaffolding. Instructors can begin to do this by introducing their students to new ideas or tools when and where necessary, but also by listening and diagnosing the ways that their students are interpreting the instructional activities (Driver et al., 1994). The second lesson learned relates to the misalignment of the technological affordances dimension. The rationale for deciding to incorporate a digital library into classroom use needs to be considered carefully, because like many technological innovations we must consider not only the potential benefits the technology can bring, but also how the learning tasks must be changed to take advantage of such benefits (Hoadley and Bell, 1996). Geoscience instructors wishing to incorporate use of a digital library into their course may need to design the learning tasks in such a way that it requires use of the digital library for completion of the task.

FINAL WORDS We hope that sharing our experiences designing and integrating inquiry-based learning activities in an undergraduate geology laboratory will inspire other geoscience instructors to incorporate these methods into their own teaching. For the most part, the students in this course appeared to truly engage in the inquiry activities, and were then able to demonstrate their skills on inquiry-based exams, thus lending support to the notion that inquiry-based approaches can, and should be utilized in undergraduate science courses. More research and development is strongly recommended, but instructors should be encouraged to take the plunge into inquiry-based instruction. With careful attention to aligning the critical dimensions for inquiry-based learning environments that we discussed in this paper, geoscience instructors can successfully create an inquiry-based course of their own. Instructors who take this initiative should expect some resistance from students, peers, and even administrators. There is always some risk involved in change. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

REFERENCES Barstow, D., and Geary, E., editors, Blueprint for change: Report from the national conference on the revolution in earth and space science education. Cambridge, MA, Technical Education Research Center, 100 p. Buchwald, C. E., 1997, Undergraduate geology education: The Carleton College experience, Journal of College Science Teaching, March/April, p. 325-328. Cavallo, A. M. L., Potter, W. H., and Rozman, M., 2004, Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors, School Science and Mathematics, v. 104, p. 288-300. Clough, M. P., 2002, Using the laboratory to enhance student learning, in Bybee, R. W., editor, Learning science and the science of learning, Arlington, VA, National Science Teachers Association, p. 85-96.

Davis, E. A., and Krajcik, J. S., 2005, Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning, Educational Researcher, v. 34, p. 3-14. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., and Scott, P., 1994, Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom, Educational Researcher, v. 23, p. 5-12. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., and Pea, R. D., 1999, Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, v. 8, p. 391-450. Ezzy, D., 2002, Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation, Crows Nest, NSW: Routledge. Field, J., 2003, A two-week guided inquiry project for an undergraduate geomorphology course, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p. 255-261. Glasson, G. E., and McKenzie, W. L., 1998, Investigative learning in undergraduate freshman biology laboratories, Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 27, p. 189-193. Haury, D. L., 1993, Teaching science through inquiry, http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/inquiry.htm Hersh, R. H., and Merrow, J., 2005, Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 256 p. Hoadley, C. M., and Bell, P., 1996, Web for your head: The design of digital resources to enhance lifelong learning. D-Lib Magazine, v. 2, http://www.dlib. org/dlib/september96/kie/09hoadley.html Keller, C. K., Allen-King, R. M., and O'Brien, R., 2000, A framework for integrating quantitative geologic problem solving into courses across the undergraduate geology curriculum, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 48, p. 459-463. Marchionini, G., and Maurer, H., 1995, The roles of digital libraries in teaching and learning, Communications of the ACM, v. 38(4), p. 67-75. McIntosh, W. J., 2001, Teaching Standards. In Siebert, E. D., and McIntosh, W. J., editors, College Pathways to the Science Education Standards Arlington, VA, NSTA Press, p. 1-24. Merriam, S. B., 1998, Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.), San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. National Research Council, 1996, National science education standards, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 253 p. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 224 p. Patton, M. Q.,(2002, Qualitative research and evaluation (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Reeves, T. C., 1994, Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. In Wild, M., and Kirkpatrick, D., editors, Computer education: New perspectives, Perth, Australia, MASTEC, p. 219-246. Snow, R. E., Corno, L., and Jackson, D., 1996, Individual differences in affective and conative functions, In Berliner, D. C., and Calfee, R. C., editors, Handbook of educational psychology, New York, Macmillan, p. 243-310. Wang, F., and Reeves, T. C., 2003, Why do teachers need to use technology in their classrooms? Issues, problems and solutions, Computers in the Schools, v. 20, p. 49-65. Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., and Weaver, A. J., 2002, Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language, Paper presented at the International Conference on the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.

Apedoe et al. - Integrating Inquiry-based Learning into Undergraduate Geology

421