ABSTRACT:In this quantitative study, we compare the efficacy of Level 2, guided inquirybased instruction to more traditional, verification laboratory instruction in supporting student performance on a standardized measure of knowledge of content, procedure, and nature of science. Our sample included 1,700 students placed in the classrooms of 12 middle school and 12 high school science teachers. The instruction for both groups included a week long, laboratory-based, forensics unit. Students were given pre-, post-, and delayed posttests, the results of which were analyzed through a Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) using students' scores, teacher, level of school, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) scores, and school socioeconomic status. Overall, compared to students in traditional sections, students who participated in an inquiry-based laboratory unit showed significantly higher posttest scores; had the higher scores, more growth, and long-term retention at both the high school and middle school levels, if their teacher had stronger implementation of inquiry methods (as measured by RTOP scores); and tended to have better outcomes than those who learned through traditional methods, regardless of level of poverty in the school. Our findings suggest that Level 2 inquiry can be an effective teaching approach to support student learning as measured through standardized assessments.C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 94: 577 -616, 2010

No abstract

Current research indicates that student engagement in scientific argumentation can foster a better understanding of the concepts and the processes of science. Yet opportunities for students to participate in authentic argumentation inside the science classroom are rare. There also is little known about science teachers' understandings of argumentation, their ability to participate in this complex practice, or their views about using argumentation as part of the teaching and learning of science. In this study, the researchers used a cognitive appraisal interview to examine how 30 secondary science teachers evaluate alternative explanations, generate an argument to support a specific explanation, and investigate their views about engaging students in argumentation. The analysis of the teachers' comments and actions during the interview indicates that these teachers relied primarily on their prior content knowledge to evaluate the validity of an explanation rather than using available data. Although some of the teachers included data and reasoning in their arguments, most of the teachers crafted an argument that simply expanded on a chosen explanation but provided no real support for it. The teachers also mentioned multiple barriers to the integration of argumentation into the teaching and learning of science, primarily related to their perceptions of students' ability levels, even though all of these teachers viewed argumentation as a way to help students understand science. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1122–1148, 2012

Inquiry is seen as central to the reform of science teaching and learning, but few teachers have experience with scientific inquiry and thus possess very naïve conceptions of it. One promising form of professional development, research experiences for teachers (RETs), allows teachers to experience scientific inquiry in the hopes that these experiences will then translate to inquiry in the classroom. As intuitively pleasing as these programs are, scant evidence documents their effectiveness. For this study, four secondary science NO SILVER BULLET FOR INQUIRY 323teachers were followed back to their classrooms following a 6-week, marine ecology RET. The research employed qualitative and quantitative data collection to answer these questions: What were the teachers' initial conceptions and enactment of classroom inquiry, and how did they change after the RET?; How did changes in the nature and use of questions highlight changes in inquiry enactment?; and How were the teachers' changes linked to the RET and are there changes that cannot be explained by the RET experience? Teachers who entered the program with more sophisticated, theory-based understanding of teaching and learning were more apt to understand inquiry as a model and to use classroom-based inquiry throughout their teaching following the program. Implications for professional development are discussed.

It is well established that many teachers are resistant to take up the messages of reform if these messages require them to substantially shift their teaching practices. What accounts for this resistance? One well established explanation is that teachers lacks the selfefficacy required to attempt something new in their teaching-they simply do not feel capable of effectively enacting the messages. However, there are a host of studies describing teachers with high self-efficacy who remain resistant to messages of change. The purpose of this article is to address the gap in the application of self-efficacy to understand the change or lack of change of science teachers' practice through the introduction of a related construct, pedagogical discontentment. This construct reflects a state of cognitive conflict that exists when an individual recognizes a mismatch between her/his science teaching pedagogical goals and classroom practices. One potential result of this mismatch is that a teacher problematizes her teaching practices, prompting an increased receptivity to reform messages. Building on existing literature, we present vignettes of four hypothetical teachers who exemplify variations of pedagogical discontentment. When combined with self-efficacy, pedagogical discontentment provides a useful lens to understand teachers' consideration and adoption of messages of reform.