John A.

Dunkhase

The Coupled-Inquiry Cycle: A Teacher Concerns-based Model for Effective Student Inquiry
The science education reform movement that emphasizes student-centered construction and meaningful understanding of science concepts, has identified inquiry teaching and learning as an effective strategy for student learning.
The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) has become, arguably, the most important single influence in reshaping K-12 science instruction in the United States during the past several years. Central to their vision of effective science teaching and learning is the strategy of student-centered inquiry as the primary vehicle for students to develop meaningful understandings of key science concepts as well as learn about the nature and process of science. During the past five years, in response to the strong emphasis on inquiry by the National Science Education Standards (NSES), I have been involved in developing and facilitating professional development workshops for K-12 science teachers on the use of inquiry strategies and practices for meaningful learning of science concepts. These workshops have been designed to model inquiry by doing hands-on investigations on a wide variety of physical, earth, and biological phenomena. In the workshops, these investigations are combined with reflection and discussion of both the inquiry experience and the vision for inquiry
10

promoted by the NSES and other science education literature. While participant response has been generally very positive about inquiry-style learning, there has also been a great deal of concern expressed about the actual implementation of this vision in the classroom. As a result of the reflections and discussions with hundreds of K-12 teachers in more than 30 different workshops, a model of inquiry has emerged that seems to balance the vision of student-centered inquiry described in the NSES with an inquiry strategy that reflects teacher concerns. This model, called the Coupled Inquiry Cycle, combines, or couples, teacher guided inquiry with full or open inquiry, into an inquiry cycle based on a learning cycle format (Dunkhase, J.A., 2000; MartinHansen, L., 2001). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NSES) Inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experience is the central strategy for teaching science. This powerful statement from the teaching standards section of the National Science Education

Standards (NSES p. 31) illustrates the important role inquiry plays in the NSES vision for science education reform. Inquiry is pervasive throughout the standards as the driving force for effective teaching and learning in science. From the teaching standards to the content standards, the assessment standards, and the professional development standards, inquiry is central to the mission of acquiring scientific literacy for all learners. To further reinforce the importance of inquiry as a learning strategy for scientific literacy, the National Research Council has subsequently published an additional volume entitled Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards which is dedicated specifically to elaborating on the inquiry standards (National Research Council, 2000). What is Inquiry and Why is it so Important? Historically, science instruction and the assessment of achievement in science, has focused on students acquiring the products of scientific inquiry content knowledge the all too familiar encyclopedic body of facts, formulas, definitions, and
S CIENCE EDUCATOR

equations, to be memorized and regurgitated on the chapter-end or semester-end quizzes and tests. This knowledge has not served the needs of most of our science students because they generally have not learned the science concepts meaningfully for understanding. As a result students have not gained useful knowledge that is relevant to their lives or science understandings that help them make informed choices as scientifically literate citizens. Inquiry, on the other hand, is a much more powerful way to learn science meaningfully. It focuses on content knowledge in the context of the process of developing scientific understanding. That is, it is a strategy for learning science concepts that are constructed by students doing science - not something that is done to them (NSES p20). This is not to be confused with learning science process skills or the discovery science teaching strategy of the 60s. It is also not simply doing experiments, hands-on activities, labs, or the scientific method. Rather, the NSES gradelevel cluster chapters on content standards define inquiry as a series of abilities and understandings that students should know and be able to do to develop BOTH the important products AND processes of the scientific endeavor. While the inquiry abilities articulated in the NSES are slightly different for each grade- level cluster (K-4, 5-8, 9-12) there are basic elements of the inquiry vision that are common across all grade levels. These common abilities are modified somewhat to form the core of the coupled inquiry cycle and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Inquiry Abilities 1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon. 2. Designing an investigation to try and answer the question. 3. Conducting the investigation to collect data and evidence. 4. Using reason and logical thinking to interpret the evidence to create the best answer to the question. 5. Presenting the results of the investigation to the community. Why isnt inquiry eagerly embraced by teachers? The science education reform community generally and enthusiastically advocates inquiry. In spite of the well documented advantages and benefits of inquirydriven learning for students (Shymansky, et. al., 1990) and despite attempts to promote some variation of inquiry in schools for the past 70 years, the actual practice of inquiry has rarely been successfully implemented by practicing teachers on a large-scale with long-term positive results (Yager, 1997). The reasons for this failure may be related to the concerns and perceptions of teachers charged with the task of making inquiry work in real classrooms. There appear to be several important issues and challenges related to the comfortzone of teachers that need to be overcome in order for practicing teachers to implement the ideal of full inquiry as envisioned by the NSES. The concerns most often identified relate to control issues dealing with time, materials, safety, and curriculum goals (Anderson, 1998). Rightly or wrongly, the NSES vision of inquiry has often been perceived as being too open, or too student-driven, without enough teacher input into the direction and outcomes of inquiry investigations.

The Coupled Inquiry Cycle

During the course of designing and facilitating teacher inquiry workshops, the concerns voiced by participants, and reinforced by the research literature, led to the evolution of an inquiry model that addresses many of the reservations teachers express about using inquiry as a teaching strategy in their classrooms. This model specifically addresses the issues of control over content and curriculum goals; teachers need to lecture to make sure students get it; and control over safety, time, and materials. The coupled inquiry cycle endeavors to balance these needs, while still adhering to the vision of true studentcentered full inquiry, by combining or coupling together teacher guided inquiries with open inquiries that are completely studentdriven. These coupled inquiries (Figure 1) are embedded in a cycle based on traditional learning cycle models, such as the 5E model of Bybee (1997) and problem solving models, such as the Search, Solve, Create, and Share (SSCS) model (Pizzini, 1989). A description of the components of the coupled inquiry cycle is as follows: 1. Invitation to Inquiry: The invitation stage of the cycle is the motivator or hook activity designed to stimulate student interest in the topic or concept to be investigated. Rather than the teacher simply
11

S PRING 2003

VOL . 12, N O. 1

announcing that today were going to investigate soils because it is next in the curriculum, the invitation stage of the cycle provides the opportunity for teachers to get the students personally involved and invested in the topic. Teachers can use demonstrations, current events, field trips, guest speakers, and other mechanisms to help generate interest and excitement to help students become fully engaged in the pursuit of understanding that the inquiry learning process promotes. Example: To begin a middle schoollevel inquiry cycle on force and motion, the teacher reads Cosmo Zooms, by Arthur Howard to the class. This is a book about a dog that learns to skateboard. The teacher then helps the students relate the story to their own experiences on skateboards, bicycles, and roller blades and probes their thinking about what factors influence how fast they might go down a hill. The teacher specifically asks the students to think about whether

the weight of dogs (or kids) has a significant effect on the speed and write about their experience and thoughts on the subject in their journals or science notebooks. The cycle then proceeds to a guided balls and ramps investigation. 2. Guided Inquiry: The guided stage of the cycle provides the opportunity for the teacher to direct students towards specific concept objectives that may be required by their curriculum or the NSES content standards giving them control over where the initial investigation is going and what the outcomes will be. It has been found that this approach seems to fit well within teachers comfort zones. The steps in this inquiry are basically the same as those advocated in the NSES (Table 1, Figure 2) but in the Coupled Inquiry Cycle the teacher structures both the question and the investigation (Table 2). Traditional lab activities that teachers have used successfully can be modified slightly to provide effective guided inquiries.

Even though there is significant teacher direction in structuring the inquiry, the inquiry is still strongly student centered (Table 2) in that the students conduct the investigation, interpret the results, and create presentations to explain their findings. Example: Based on curriculum objectives related to relevant NSES grade-level content standards and Project 2061 benchmarks, the teacher structured an investigation for the learners to investigate the question: Do heavy balls or light balls roll down a ramp fastest? After individually predicting which balls might be fastest and slowest and giving their personal explanations for their predictions, the students are grouped into small teams of 3 or 4 and given a set of six 1 balls of different weights that are carefully chosen so that the frictional effects of their surfaces have been minimized. The students roll each of the balls down the ramp and time them for five trials to test their predictions. They then graph and analyze their data,

Figure 1 Complete Coupled Inquiry Cycle Model

Figure 2 Details of the Coupled InquiryStages of the Cycle

S CIENCE EDUCATOR

12

compare it to their predictions, and create a presentation to present to the class to explain what happened and why. Students are often surprised at the results and lively class discussions follow. It should be noted that this guided inquiry is simply a slightly modified version of a standard classroom activity. 3. Explore on your own: This may be THE most important stage of the coupled inquiry cycle because it explicitly promotes the curiosity of the learners by encouraging them to personally explore the phenomena of interest. Here the investigators are allowed to explore, or play around with the materials used in the guided investigation and most importantly, to generate their own questions that might be investigated in the next stage of the cycle the open inquiry. This provides the critical link between the guided inquiry and open inquiry to follow. Example: After the presentations and discussions related to the guided inquiry are finished the students are eager to investigate the balls and ramps phenomena further. They generally have many ideas and questions about what is usually a discrepancy between what they thought would happen and what actually occurred. The teacher has made some additional materials

available for the students such as more ramp lengths, balls of different diameters, balls with different surfaces, other timing devices, etc. The explore on your own stage of the cycle gives the students the opportunity to play with the materials to try out some of their own ideas preliminarily and informally and to generate additional questions much in the same way scientists often do when the are exploring a new idea or phenomena before they begin a formal research project. After allowing the students a reasonable amount of time exploring in this stage of the cycle (as determined by the teacher), the student groups are asked to list their burning questions and come to consensus as to which one or ones they want to investigate. 4. Open Inquiry: The open or full inquiry is intended to be totally student-centered and fully reflect the vision of inquiry discussed in the NSES. Here, questions generated in the explore on your own stage are discussed by student investigators and the teacher. Questions are negotiated and selected for further investigations that are reasonable in the context of the curriculum, time, materials, and safety concerns as discussed earlier. Students then design the invest-

igations, conduct and interpret the study, and finally share their results with the teacher, the rest of the class, and/or the community (Table 2 and Figure 2). Example: The students are now asked to take their designated question and refine it into one that is clear and can be investigated using available classroom materials. Students then design their own investigations, carry them out, analyze their data, and present the evidence and explanations to the class. Teachers often find that both for themselves and their students this is the most interesting and exciting part of the cycle because the richness of student thinking about the topic becomes apparent. Contrary to what teachers sometimes expect, the questions and investigations students generate will generally be very productive extensions of the teachers initial guided inquiry. Often, however, the students questions and findings will be something the teacher never anticipated and the both the students and teachers are rewarded by learning something new. This is the real payoff in excitement and satisfaction for the teacher that is rarely, if ever, experienced in traditional textbook driven classrooms.

Table 2 Comparison of Inquiry Responsibilities NSES Inquiry Ability Whose responsibility is it to: 1. Ask the question to be investigated. 2. Plan the Investigation. 3. Conduct the Investigation to collect data. 4. Construct explanations from the data. 5. Communicate the results of the investigation.
S PRING 2003 VOL . 12, N O. 1

Guided Inquiry Stage Teacher Teacher Student Student Student

Open Inquiry Stage Student Student Student Student Student

13

5. Inquiry Resolution: One of the concerns many teachers express about inquiry is that they dont feel comfortable that students have learned anything at the end of studentgenerated investigations. The inquiry resolution stage of the cycle is intended to provide the opportunity for the teacher to help students come to some cognitive closure regarding the target science concepts and satisfy the curriculum objectives. The teacher can review the student inquiry presentations for common understandings; ask students what theyve learned and what they would investigate next; do a demonstration that challenges or supports student findings; or even do some direct instruction if necessary to clarify the science content. And, importantly, inquiry resolution is a perfect time to discuss applications of the science concepts and inquiry results to the students lives. Example: At the end of the student presentations and ensuing discussions, the teacher realized that even though the students had constructed the important understanding that the weight, or mass, of the ball doesnt significantly influence its acceleration down the ramp, they still dont understand that friction is a force and that changes in motion are related to forces. The teacher then did some direct instruction and a demonstration to clarify the definitions and concepts of force and friction, how they relate to changes in motion, and formulated another inquiry cycle for the students to investigate these concepts further. 6. Inquiry Assessment: Formative assessment should be occurring during all parts of the inquiry cycle. This is important to inform the teacher about

the progress the students are making and what content issues or questions might be addressed by direct instruction in the inquiry resolution stage discussed above. It is also often valuable to do a summative evaluation assessment at the end of the cycle. Even though summative assessment might be used for evaluation purposes, ideally it also should have some kind of authentic or performance component rather than simply being a traditional paper and pencil test. This might involve having students apply their knowledge of target concepts to a problem-solving activity or creating a need for them to use the knowledge in a personal or societal decision context the scientific literacy and informed decision making assessment. This assessment stage should also be structured in a way that is useful in initiating additional inquiries to continue the cycle as time and curriculum pressures permit. Example: As students have been doing their investigations the teacher, as part of the inquiry facilitation process, has been informally monitoring the students and helping them by asking probing questions and making subtle suggestions. During the guided and open inquiry presentations a rubric that was generated by the students and the teacher was used to assess for both their content understandings and inquiry abilities. Finally, the teacher gave them an authentic/performance assessment problem to solve using a real Tonkatoy dump truck to haul bricks down a hill (plywood ramp) to see if the students could transfer their knowledge to a novel situation.

Conclusions
During the course of the past several years the coupled inquiry cycle model has been used in many professional development workshops for science teachers. Discussions during the workshops, as well as written workshop evaluation feedback, suggest that this model successfully addresses teacher concerns about using inquiry as a strategy for meaningful learning of science content. Coupled inquiry workshop participants indicate that they are more likely to apply inquiry in their classrooms than participants in similar inquiry workshops that focused only on the strictly student-centered full inquiry model. This is in concert with the findings of Hall and Hord (1987) who found that for effective change to occur in the classroom the process must reflect the concerns of the participants most directly implementing the change. It is not intended that the coupled inquiry cycle be strictly interpreted or rigidly applied. Science content doesnt have to be addressed only after the open inquiry - some can be addressed before or during the inquiries as well. The explore on your own phase can be, and often is, an on-going process throughout the inquiry process for many students. And certainly, assessment could and should be present throughout the cycle. This model is suggested as a starting point to provide a teacher-friendly structure that can be modified as appropriate by the teacher. There is no absolute right or wrong way to apply the coupled inquiry model and there is no implication that an effective science learning environment requires all inquiry all the time. But for teachers who want to try student-centered

14

S CIENCE EDUCATOR

inquiry in their classrooms but are hesitant for reasons discussed above, coupled inquiry can provide a framework for a successful experience for both students and teachers.

References
Anderson, R.D., 1998, The Research on Teaching as Inquiry, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education at the National Research Council. Bybee, R.W., 1997, Improving Instruction, Chapter 8 in: Achieving Scientific Literacy, Heinemann, NH. Dunkhase, J.A., 2000, Coupled Inquiry: An Effective Strategy for Student Investigations, Presented at: Iowa Science Teachers Section of Iowa Academy of Science, Fall Conference, October 2000. Hall, G.E., and Hord, S.M., 1987, Change in Schools - Facilitating the Process, State University of New York Press.

Howard, Arthur, 1999, Cosmo Zooms, Harcourt Brace & Company, N.Y. Martin-Hansen, L., 2002, Defining Inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, V69, no.2, pp. 3437. National Academy of Science, 1996, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. National Academy of Science, 2000, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Pizzini, E.L., Shepardson, D.P., and Abell, S.K., 1989, A Rationale for and the Development of a Problem Solving Model of Instruction in Science Education. Science Education 73(5):523534.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., and Woodworth, G., 1990, A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V27., no. 2., pp. 127-144. Yager, R.E., 1997, Science Education a Science? Electronic Journal of Science Education, v.2, no.1, September 1997.
John A. Dunkhase, Associate Professor of Science Education and Coordinator of Secondary Science Education Program, Science Education Center, University of Iowa. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to john-dunkhase@uiowa.edu.

S PRING 2003

VOL . 12, N O. 1

15