NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Louise Richards Moulding for her encouragement, support, and expertise. I never expected that I would enjoy research, but Dr. Moulding really made it fun to consider all of the different ways that a topic could be researched. She helped ignite curiosity in me and helped me to conduct an investigation that I found meaningful and that has improved my teaching practice and will continue to shape and better my practice. I am just beginning my journey into inquiry-based instruction. I love the enhanced student curiosity and increased student engagement that I have seen so far. I look forward to more self-study and growth as I continue to research and refine my use of this transformational pedagogy. Dr. Moulding has really been a great model of the process as she has encouraged me to ask questions, conduct investigations, and research to answer my own questions. This has made my learning more meaningful. I would like to thank Dr. Penée W. Stewart for her guidance too. I loved the way she structured and conducted the Advanced Educational Psychology Class at Weber State University. This was one of my favorite classes and one that I found most valuable in the Master of Education Program. I loved how she allowed us to individualize our assessments and choose how to demonstrate our knowledge and understanding. I also loved how she promoted metacognition. The class really made me think and make connections, and to think about how I think and how I make connections. I have tried to incorporate individualized assessment and promote metacognition in my own classroom as a result of her wonderful example. I will continue to strive to improve these powerful methods in my practice. These principles fit wonderfully with inquiry-based instruction. I would also like to thank Katy Wilson for her support and example. Katy is always sharing ideas with me about new strategies that she is researching and trying out in her NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 3 classroom. We often brainstorm together. I love that after fifteen years in the classroom, she is still consistently engaged in improving her practice. I love working with her and know that her commitment to learning and guiding learning has helped me. I love where I work because of such a great science team, that shares ownership for the learning and success of all of our students and truly cares about each-others wellbeing. I would like to thank Vince. He is a great example of scholarship. He always helps me to be mindful of equity. He has always been a great supporter of me. When I chose to go back to the classroom fulltime a few years ago, he remembered how hard those first years can be. He carried much more than his share of the work at home and even prepared and packed an impressive lunch for me every morning. My colleagues were in awe. I am blessed to share my life with him and our four kids, who are always supportive and help me to remember why this work is so important. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 4 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM .................................................................................................... 7 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 9 Traditional Approaches to Teaching ..................................................................... 10 Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes about Inquiry-Based Learning .............................. 11 Inadequacies of Professional Development for Inquiry Instruction ..................... 13 Toward More Effective Professional Development ............................................. 16 Self-Study as Professional Development .............................................................. 17 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 19 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................... 21 METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 22 Context .............................................................................................................................. 22 The Curriculum ..................................................................................................... 22 The Setting ............................................................................................................ 23 The Teacher .......................................................................................................... 23 The PLC Group ..................................................................................................... 24 Process .............................................................................................................................. 25 OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................................... 27 Phenomena Used to Generate Inquiry .............................................................................. 27 Evidence for Student Engagement .................................................................................... 30 Portion of Class Time that was Student-Focused ............................................................. 31 Core Teaching Beliefs ....................................................................................................... 32 Crosscutting Concepts and Science and Engineering Principles ...................................... 33 Struggles ........................................................................................................................... 34 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 5 Successes ........................................................................................................................... 36 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 38 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 40 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 6 Abstract The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released in 2013, with the intent of providing a more meaningful, relevant, and authentic science education for students in the United States. These standards were based on years of research and developed by experts from several related fields. These standards promote student-focused, inquiry-based instruction, driven by student curiosity about natural phenomena. Teachers have struggled, however, to successfully apply these standards in their classrooms, and therefore to provide the rich instruction that might be realized. Research has shown that the two main obstacles that hinder teachers from successfully implementing the constructivist pedagogies outlined in the standards are that they lack a full understanding of inquiry-based teaching or that they have core teaching beliefs that conflict with a student-centered, constructivist approach. Most teachers have been taught and trained to teach in more traditional methods of teaching, with the teacher the center of the classroom who presents lessons to students, who then memorize the content and prepare to pass teacher-created assessments. These experiences have often shaped teacher beliefs and can hinder successful implementation of the new standards. This project details a self-study. I attempted to increase my understanding of inquiry teaching, and to write and adapt my curriculum to be more in-line with the NGSS, during a four-week unit that I taught to my ninth-grade biology students. I reflected daily on my lessons to consider how components of the NGSS were incorporated, whether I felt conflict with my teaching beliefs, and what evidence there was for student engagement. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 7 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released in April of 2013 with the goal of creating a more meaningful, authentic science experience for students in the United States (NGSS Lead State, 2013). Earlier standards, at both federal and local levels, were focused on facts to master and vocabulary to memorize in different science subjects. In contrast, NGSS provides performance-based standards focused on science and engineering practices (NGSS Lead State, 2013). Research has shown that students are both more engaged and able to comprehend science with deeper understanding when they participate in authentic inquiry and formulate explanations. The overarching aim of the NGSS is to get students doing science, as they explore phenomena, ask questions, and discover answers for themselves (NGSS Lead State, 2013). The NGSS promote a student-centered, constructivist approach to teaching science (NGSS Lead State, 2013). However, this is not likely the teaching method by which most science teachers have been trained nor the one they have seen modeled in their own experiences as science students; rather, most have probably experienced a traditional, content-focused, teacher-centered approach (Peters, 2010). Consequently, implementing student-centered, constructivist methods can be challenging for teachers, especially considering that the student-centered approach is more fluid and less predictable. Due to their general lack of experience with these pedagogies, teachers often struggle to implement student-focused methods (Peters, 2010). There are two main obstacles standing in the way of teachers adopting an inquiry-based science methodology: lack of a complete understanding of inquiry instruction, and/or core teaching conceptions that conflict with the primary foundations of inquiry models (Blanchard, Sutherland, & Granger, 2009; Crawford, 2007; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007). Teachers who maintain a teacher- and content-focused view of science teaching or see inquiry-based NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 8 learning as chaotic may be reluctant to implement a more constructivist approach. Many science teachers’ current levels of pedagogical skill and understanding may lack the sophistication and depth necessary to successfully implement what amounts to a potentially overwhelming change (Blanchard et al., 2009). These struggles make it unlikely that teachers will implement NGSS, making it unlikely that students will gain deep, conceptual science understanding. Professional development is, of course, needed to help teachers with the transition to constructivist, student-centered instruction. However, the quality of professional development influences the impact it has on instructional change. A great amount of research has been devoted to what type of professional development is most likely to result in improved teaching practice. There is a general consensus that one time, one-size-fits-all, decontextualized workshops do not generally change teacher behavior (Patton, Parker, & Tanehill, 2015). Professional development that is short-term and disconnected from a teacher’s practice has been shown to have little impact (Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010). Professional development must move beyond instructing about new skills and content, to helping teachers rethink and change their practice. An effective PD model will not be about manipulating teachers to comply with new requirements or delivering someone else’s vision, it will instead allow teachers freedom to set their own goals, determine how they want to reach them, and provide them opportunities to reflect and collaborate to achieve success (Patton et al., 2015). Most educators approach their work as reflective practitioners, working to refine their practice relative to student responses, learning, and overall engagement (Kyndt, Gijbels, Grosemans, & Donche, 2016; Richardson, 1998). Informal professional learning opportunities might be more effective at influencing teaching practice. Informal professional activities include sharing resources, reading and discussing professional literature, and experimenting with new techniques (Kyndt et al., 2016). Professional learning communities (PLC) of teachers at the same NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 9 school with autonomy to select their own learning objectives can provide opportunities for effective learning and improvement that meets specific needs within their own classrooms and improves their own practice while working collaboratively with colleagues (Stewart, 2014). Literature Review The origin of the NGSS began in 2010. The first step was the development of A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012). The framework was developed under the direction of The National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academy of Sciences. The NRC organized a committee of eighteen nationally and internationally recognized experts comprised of practicing scientists, including two Nobel laureates, cognitive scientists, science education researchers, and science education and policy professionals. The goal of the framework was to provide a foundation based on current science and learning research on the scientific concepts all K-12 students should know and the science and engineering practices all K-12 students should be able to do (Bybee, 2014). The framework describes three dimensions of standards, science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas in science disciplines. The next step in the development of NGSS was a collaborative, state-led effort. Twenty-six states worked with science educators, scientists, engineers, experts from higher education, and business and industry leaders to create draft standards that were then subject to multiple reviews, including two public released drafts. The final result was a set of rigorous, high quality K-12 science education standards that were then sent back to the NRC for final review of fidelity to the vision and content of the framework (Bybee, 2014). The National Academies Press (NAP) published the final NGSS document in April of 2013, with four goals, outcomes, or advantages in mind (NGSS Lead States, 2013). First, the NGSS are intended to be meaningful and relevant to students. Students should be inspired to NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 10 discover scientific knowledge for themselves, rather than being told answers by the teacher or textbook, then memorizing the information for the assessment, only to forget it soon after (DiBiase & McDonald, 2015). Second, authentic learning should be promoted, learning that helps students apply their knowledge to real-life contexts and situations. Implementing inquiry-based science instruction requires that teachers facilitate learning through authentic problems, model actions of scientists to help students make sense of data, and guide students in developing their personal understandings of science concepts (Crawford, 2007). Third, learning should be student-centered which makes students active seekers of knowledge. The new standards should increase student engagement, student metacognition and student perseverance, and make learning more meaningful (Peters, 2010). Finally, the NGSS are inquiry-based. Students should be guided to explore phenomena in the variety of ways that scientists study the natural world, by asking questions and proposing explanations based on evidence provided through their research or experiments (DiBiase & McDonald, 2015). There is strong evidence showing that collaborative, inquiry-based instruction leads to deep understanding of content and the development of essential 21st Century skills: the ability to work in teams, to solve challenging problems, and to transfer learning to new and varied circumstances (Barron & Darling- Hammond, 2008). Traditional Approaches to Teaching The most common traditional methods of teaching focus on transmission as the main approach to delivering knowledge. In 1970, Paulo Freire referred to this as the banking model of education, where teachers deposit knowledge into the minds of their students. The focus of this approach is on memorizing facts and student achievement is based on their ability to recall the deposited information. The teacher is the authority, the disciplinarian, and the decision maker concerning content, assessments, and methods of instruction (Freire, 1970). Progressive NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 11 education reformer, John Dewey observed in 1938 that these traditional methods of teaching were often decontextualized from the students’ lived experience and therefore irrelevant to their lives. Dewey lamented that traditional schooling methods often fail to engage or inspire students to want to learn (Dewey, 1938). Freire proposed a liberating alternative to traditional methods where students are co-creators of knowledge. His problem-posing, student centered model focused on student experiences and voice, with students and teachers co-creating course design, content, and approach, and sharing responsibilities (Freire, 1970). Studies indicate that this non-traditional, student centered approach is associated with increased learning, deeper conceptual understanding, and increased student attendance, persistence and engagement (Breunig, 2017). Still, most teachers have been taught, trained, and are experienced in a more traditional, content focused, teacher-centered approach to science education. Didactic science instruction is focused on transferring and memorizing facts using rigid and predictable pedagogies. It is what most teachers are comfortable with, what most have observed and experienced (Crawford, 2007). Descriptive research has shown that teachers can struggle to understand what investigative teaching is and how to use it in the classroom (Capps, Shemwell, & Young, 2016). One of the most significant challenges to the implementation of successful inquiry-based instruction is the skills and knowledge of the teacher. Implementation is especially challenging as it requires simultaneous changes in curriculum, practice and assessment for both teachers and their students (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes about Inquiry-Based Learning In 2015, DiBiase and McDonald conducted a cross-sectional survey including secondary science teachers across four school districts in North Carolina. The researchers used a Likert-scale survey, aimed at determining teacher attitudes, beliefs, and values about inquiry (DiBiase & McDonald, 2015). Although most of the participants agreed that inquiry was important, they NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 12 indicated that they did not feel prepared to teach it, nor did they feel that it would best meet the demands placed on them. Participants further expressed concern that inquiry teaching would not prepare students for the required end-of-year assessments, that they would not have enough time to cover the required content, that too much time would be required to develop inquiry lessons, and that student behavior was harder to manage in collaborative activities. Finally, participants indicated that they felt that their class sizes were too big, and that they lacked the training necessary to successfully implement inquiry in their classrooms (DiBiase & McDonald, 2015). Similarly, in 2016, Capps and colleagues conducted survey and interview research that showed that teachers did not sufficiently understand what inquiry instruction involved. At a National Science Teachers Association Conference, Capps et al. set up booths at two locations in the exhibition hall, asking for volunteers to answer questions about inquiry-based science instruction in their classrooms. Teacher responses indicated that they frequently enacted elements of inquiry; however, when asked to describe the most important aspects of inquiry, two thirds of the participants gave answers that did not correspond to a normative definition of inquiry. Science teachers who attended this conference were most likely those committed to learning about reformed teaching, yet even among this group, the majority lacked even a basic understanding of critical components of inquiry-based instruction (Capps et al., 2016). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching are likely formed by their classroom experience as both students and teachers. Core beliefs that might hinder a teacher from implementing constructivist or inquiry-based instruction could include viewing the primary role of the teacher as disseminating information to students or viewing students as blank slates onto which information is sketched by the teachers (Haney & McArthur, 2002). Valuing strict adherence to a set curriculum, viewing curriculum as a set of facts to be memorized, and relying heavily on textbooks are other teaching beliefs that may impede a teacher’s ability to teach through inquiry. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 13 Belief that students should mostly work independently and that assessment should be based on tests administered mostly apart from instruction are also traditional teaching beliefs held by teachers that might inhibit their use of constructivist teaching methods (Haney & McArthur, 2002). Inadequacies of Professional Development for Inquiry Instruction In 2004, Roehrig and Luft found that beginning teachers faced many constraints to implementing inquiry-based instruction. Fourteen beginning science teachers were part of a university-school partnership focused on promoting inquiry-based instruction (Roehrig & Luft, 2004). Participants attended monthly workshops and participated in online discussions. Beginning teachers were followed for one year, observed in their classrooms, interviewed, and given questionnaires. Like-cases of teachers were grouped according to emergent themes relating to the teachers’ classroom practices and teaching beliefs. Data were collected to understand the influence of teachers’ content knowledge, views on the nature of science, teaching beliefs and pedagogical knowledge. None of these factors in isolation were found to be predictive of implementing inquiry-based instruction. Rather, these factors were found to work collectively in different degrees to influence instruction. Holding a contemporary view of the nature of science was necessary but not sufficient, but student-centered beliefs held by teachers were found to be critical. The most commonly reported constraint to teaching inquiry was low student ability or low student motivation. Another commonly reported constraint was classroom management. The teachers indicated that they felt that it was easier to manage a class involved in activities such as lecture or seatwork (Roehrig & Luft, 2004). Lotter, Harwood, and Bonner (2007) reported similar findings, that teachers’ core beliefs about teaching impact how successfully they are able to implement inquiry-based teaching methodologies. Three high school science teachers took part in a two-week university inquiry NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 14 training and research experience followed by three academic years of inquiry training workshops focused on collaboration, reflection, and development of additional inquiry-based lessons (Lotter et al., 2007). Multiple data collection techniques were used to build an in-depth picture of each teacher’s instruction. Four conceptions were found to influence the teachers’ use of inquiry-based teaching methods: science, the purpose of education, students, and effective teaching. Two of three teachers had core conceptions that hindered their use of inquiry-based teaching. One teacher focused on transmitting content in a very structured format. Another could only fit inquiry into teacher led discussions. Only one teacher held conceptions that elevated his instruction to include more inquiry. All three teachers’ core conceptions remained relatively stable throughout the professional development period, leading to few substantial changes in their instruction (Lotter et al., 2007). Even with prolonged professional development, teachers are not prepared to adopt inquiry-based instruction if it does not align with their core conceptions. Crawford (2007) reported similar findings with prospective teachers. Five prospective teachers were immersed in a cohort that was focused on all aspects of teaching inquiry and given mentors selected for their commitment to the same goal (Crawford, 2007). Evidence from this study strongly indicated that the most critical factor impacting a prospective teachers’ intention and ability to teach science as inquiry was the prospective teachers’ complex set of personal beliefs about teaching science (Crawford, 2007). Based on her findings, Crawford questioned the feasibility of expecting beginning teachers to carry out inquiry-based instruction. Some of the prospective teachers did not feel confident or eager to engage in inquiry, some did not understand the concept of inquiry, and many did not feel prepared with enough strategy and technique to successfully conduct inquiry-based instruction. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 15 In 2009, Blanchard and colleagues found that even teachers who reported being eager to improve their practice by applying for an intensive summer research opportunity struggled to shift to inquiry-based teaching because their core beliefs or values conflicted with inquiry concepts. Four experienced, highly qualified teachers were selected to participate in a six-week research experience (Blanchard et al., 2009). Participants worked each day with master teachers and scientists, learning an inquiry teaching method and practicing the foundations of inquiry. Follow-up showed that the two teachers with a more sophisticated understanding of teaching and learning were able to successfully incorporate inquiry-based teaching into their practice (Blanchard et al., 2009). The other two teachers, however, were not able to incorporate inquiry beyond the lesson that was developed at the training. The researchers determined that inquiry-based teaching was not in-line with the teachers’ core teaching conceptions and that, although strong in content-knowledge, they lacked the depth of knowledge about teaching and learning `necessary to shift their core values and beliefs in a manner necessary to successfully incorporate inquiry-based instruction into their classrooms (Blanchard et al., 2009). A shift to inquiry-based teaching often requires a change in practice as well as beliefs. Some changes involve changes in practice within the same paradigm; others involve changes in practice that will also require a move to a new paradigm, counter to existing beliefs about the role of the teacher or the purpose of instruction (Short & Burke, 1996). Often a teacher’s steps to transformation will stay within the same paradigm of beliefs and only involve surface actions. These changes may be significant but often don’t go far enough to engage students in inquiry. A teacher may become self-satisfied in their practice and stop searching and asking questions. A teacher may continue the status quo while thinking that they have changed, not making the paradigm shifts necessary to successfully implement inquiry-based instruction (Short & Burke, 1996). NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 16 Toward More Effective Professional Development In a 1992 review of literature related to constructivist teaching reform, Prawat concluded that teachers were viewed as critical agents of change with a key role in changing schools and classrooms. Paradoxically, teachers were also viewed as great obstacles to change because of their fidelity to traditional models of instruction that emphasized factual and procedural knowledge but did not promote deeper levels of understanding. Prawat concluded that teachers could change their core beliefs about teaching, but only with a great deal of discussion and reflection. This change in perspective would require teachers to focus on their own conceptual change at least as much as they focus on this process with their students. Prawat concluded that if teachers are to rethink and change their views on teaching and learning, they must be provided opportunities to participate in professional learning communities with other educators that are committed to constructivist teaching models (Prawat, 1992). Drafted in 2015 and updated in 2017, The Council of State Science Supervisors outlined a meaningful guide to professional development and professional learning for science educators, the Science Professional Learning Standards (SPLS). These standards were developed to help science educators make informed decisions about the attributes, implementation, and evaluation of professional learning experiences that would best lead to student thinking and learning and prepare educators with the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully reflect upon and implement the vision of the Framework for K-12 Science Education (Council of State Science Supervisors [CSSS], 2017). One necessary attribute of successful professional learning mentioned in the standards is that it must be sustained over a long period of time and provide continual opportunities to plan, engage with, and reflect on new instructional strategies. Reflection is emphasized as another key component of effective professional development, especially considering that what educators gain from professional learning opportunities is NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 17 shaped by their current beliefs about science and teaching (CSSS, 2017). An educator’s implementation of new instructional strategies is related to their judgements about how well those strategies align with their personal instructional goals, making it crucial that educators consider carefully how to integrate and harmonize new strategies and personal beliefs (CSSS, 2017). Critical aspects of professional learning implementation are also outlined in the SPLS. To cultivate an understanding of the major shifts being called for in science education, teachers need opportunities to read, discuss, and make sense of key ideas in the Framework. Teachers need to take initiative to learn about the Framework and to engage in a study of the Framework as a PLC. Schools are a necessary place for educator learning because educators have the most frequent opportunities to learn from their colleagues. Professional learning opportunities that encourage collaboration with colleagues have been linked to changes in teacher beliefs and practice (CSSS, 2017). Collaboration is most effective when trust is cultivated, there is a sense of shared responsibility for student learning, and colleagues are able to learn about each other’s strengths, challenges, and goals for improving classroom teaching (CSSS, 2017). Self-Study as Professional Development Self-study is intentional and systematic inquiry into one’s own practice (Dinkelman, 2003). It allows educators to focus on their practice and their students’ learning, while engaging in scholarly activity (Kitchen, Ciuffetelli, Parker, & Gallagher, 2008), and to shift who they are and are becoming as they attend to shifting subject matter (Elliott-Johns & Tidwell, 2013). Furthermore, self-study is concerned with both enhanced understanding and immediate improvement of practice (LaBoskey, 2004). As such, it can empower teachers to better understand their teaching and students’ learning, to take charge of their own professional NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 18 development, and to advance educational reform in a way that is real and will have a direct impact in the classroom (Samaras & Freese, 2006). Through the process of self-study, teachers systematically and critically examine their actions and the context of those actions as a way of developing a more consciously driven mode of professional activity – in contrast to action based on habit, tradition, or impulse (Samaras & Freese, 2006). Rather, teachers inquire thoughtfully and deliberately into their practice and the assumptions embedded in that practice (Samaras & Freese, 2006). This mode of inquiry can be used to understand what may have previously been considered private mental events and thus not open to study, yet important to informing and improving practice (Clift, 2008). It is, therefore, especially beneficial to those interested in rethinking and reframing their teaching (Samaras & Freese, 2006). As self-initiated and focused, aimed at improvement, and interactive (La Boskey, 2004), the overall aim of self-study is to provoke, challenge, and illuminate, rather than confirm and settle (LaBoskey, 2004). Through self-study, teachers often recognize a disparity in what they believe and what they actually do in practice (Samaras & Freese, 2006). Through written reflection and teacher conversations, tension between self and context are negotiated (Kitchen et al., 2008). Consequently, self-studies can be transformative, as they lead teachers to reflect and reframe their lived experiences, which results in a cumulative altered understanding of practice (Elliott- Johns & Tidwell, 2013). Transformative narratives in self-studies are realized as teachers challenge assumptions and beliefs in the exploration of problematic or changing practice, in the use of rich metaphors, and in the uncovering of multiple interpretations of experience that result in multiple ways of knowing and increased awareness of the impact of continual shaping and reshaping or shared experience on practice (Elliott-Johns & Tidwell, 2013). This type of reflective inquiry can be a powerful tool for reframing process and supporting new knowledge, NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 19 understanding, and change (Lyons, Halton, & Freidus, 2013). Dinkelman (2003) goes so far as to suggest that, because self-study is such a powerful strategy for promoting reflective teaching, every time an educator employs a genuine self-study, program change will happen. When we identify our own personal focus of inquiry, we feel ownership of the research and are more motivated to address our dilemmas of practice and gain deeper understanding of our own practice. While self-study is primarily a personal inquiry, researchers benefit by working with collaborators who help them step outside of themselves in order to notice patterns and trends in their work (Kitchen et al., 2008). Authentic conversations, in fact, have been identified as a powerful approach to professional development. Plus, sharing personal narratives and teaching experiences build communities of practice that validate experiences and encourage professional growth (Kitchen et al., 2008). Self-study necessitates an interpersonal and collaborative dialogue (Samaras & Freese, 2006). With colleagues, teachers involved in self-study collectively question and explore the complexities and possibilities of their teaching. Collaborative reflection is necessary to the self-study process. Collaboration helps individuals move beyond their own personal views by hearing other’s perspectives and providing opportunities for support and new insight into their work, whereas personal reflection can be too narrow. Summary Student driven, authentic, inquiry-based science instruction leads to increased student engagement and deeper understanding of concepts. However, teachers often struggle to implement inquiry-based strategies because they are unfamiliar with the practice and it might conflict with some of their core beliefs about teaching. The right type of professional development is necessary to help teachers re-think and change their practice. Reflection on core teaching beliefs and collaborative discussion are critical components of professional NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 20 development that leads to change in beliefs and practice. Self-study is a powerful tool that allows teachers to take charge of their own professional development. As teachers examine and discuss their own practice, they are able to recognize and address conflicts with their beliefs and practice and set classroom specific goals to improve their use of inquiry-based teaching methods. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 21 PURPOSE The research indicates that the greatest hurdles to successful implementation of a student focused, inquiry pedagogy are educators that lack a full understanding of the method and experience conflict with core personal beliefs related to teaching and learning. Research suggests that informal professional development, including reflection, collaboration with a supportive professional learning community, and meaningful conversation related to practice can be powerful agents for reexamining beliefs and changing practice. My purpose was to examine my practice and thinking while attempting to change my practice and thinking—examining and reflecting upon my own thoughts, beliefs, and challenges, as I attempted to implement inquiry-based, student-focused instruction in my ninth- grade biology classroom. I agreed with the research that authentic, student-centered, inquiry methods would lead to more engagement, depth of understanding content, problem solving skills, and comprehension. I was eager to adopt a more student centered, inquiry approach in my classroom. However, I had little experience with this type of instruction. My experience as a science student and as a science teacher thus far had followed a more traditional, banking model of instruction, using labs and hands-on activities to reinforce ideas more than to allow authentic student inquiry. I had attended some related training and I had read several articles and books related to inquiry teaching but had yet to fully attempt to implement this methodology into my biology classroom. This project was an opportunity to put more of what I had learned into practice. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 22 METHOD I planned to teach an inquiry-based, NGSS aligned, biology unit to my ninth-grade biology students. I wanted to engage students with phenomena, incorporate crosscutting concepts, and model and encourage science and engineering practices. My goal was to let the students generate questions from the phenomena and explore authentic, possible explanations. I reflected and recorded my thoughts and ideas related to inquiry-based teaching in my classroom and discussed observations and challenges with my PLC group. The two obstacles that often stand in the way of inquiry-based instruction are a lack of understanding of the method or conflict with core teaching beliefs. I worked with my PLC to check that I was understanding and engaging in the process correctly. I also reflected on my teaching beliefs and attempted to challenge and change beliefs that might have contradicted with this more student-centered, constructivist approach. Context The Curriculum I wrote, found, and adapted curriculum to follow a more inquiry-based format as I taught Utah Biology Core, Standard 5: Students will understand that biological diversity is a result of evolutionary processes (Utah State Office of Education, 2010). Natural phenomena were the driving force for each lesson. Student observations and questions related to the phenomena guided exploration of natural selection, adaptations, speciation, and evidence for evolution. Crosscutting concepts and science and engineering practices were used in each lesson as students researched or conducted investigations to find answers to their questions and evidence to support their arguments. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 23 The Setting This study took place in a ninth-grade classroom at a junior high in Davis County, Utah. This included all of the ninth graders that were taking biology, which was about 40% of the ninth-grade students at the school. Ninth graders have the option of taking biology or earth systems for their science credit. Biology is listed as a tenth-grade class in registration materials and is recommended for students that want a more rigorous science experience. Math proficiency is required, to help ensure that students will be prepared to take chemistry the following year. About 67% of the students in biology had taken honors science in eighth grade, while 33% chose to take non-honors science in eighth grade. Three ninth grade biology classes were included, with an overall number of 93 students, 49 male students and 44 female students. Classes were held every other school day for 80 minutes. About 15% of the students enrolled at this school are considered minority students, whereas only 5% of the students enrolled in biology are minority students. Approximately 20% of the students that attend this school qualify for free or reduced school lunch. The Teacher I am in my fourth year of teaching at this school. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology Composite Teaching from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. I am currently working on a Master’s Degree in Curriculum and Instruction at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. I attended a few multi-district NGSS Leadership meetings in my first year of teaching and was introduced to the concept of 3D science. In my second year of teaching, I attended some district workshops focused on the new seventh and eighth grade science cores with a 3D format. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 24 The PLC Group The science department at this junior high consists of four science teachers. We meet regularly for PLC, where we discuss our classroom practice, share ideas, and problem solve. We regularly share classroom concerns with one another and discuss areas of possible improvement. The PLC is generally open and honest, with a sense of trust and shared ownership of student science achievement at the school. Teacher 1 has been teaching science at this junior high for five years. Prior to that, she worked as a substitute teacher for three years. She has a Bachelor’s Degree plus 50 credit hours. She attended NGSS Chicago in 2014. She attended district workshops on 3D science the following three years, and wrote curriculum and taught district workshops from 2015-2017. She currently teaches earth science and eighth grade integrated science. Teacher 2 is in her fourth year of teaching science at this junior high. Before her position here, she taught elementary school for twenty years, ten as a science specialist and ten as a classroom teacher in second and fourth grades. Before beginning her teaching career, she worked as a Food Scientist at Smuckers for a brief amount of time. She holds a master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction from Weber State University. She received her Bachelor’s degree in Food and Science Nutrition. She currently teaches seventh and eighth grade integrated science. Teacher 3 has been teaching science for fifteen years, three at this junior high. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree, a Master’s Degree, plus 60 credit hours. She teaches seventh grade integrated science and reading. She has attended district 3D science workshops and written 3D science assessment questions for the Davis District. Each of these teachers were aware that I would be making notes of our regular PLC conversations for the purpose of this study. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 25 Process I chose a qualitative, self-study approach as a method of learning about a new approach through actual classroom practice. Self-study can be a valuable professional development exercise in which a teacher enters a feedback loop between beliefs about and experiences with inquiry teaching methods (Dias, Eick, & Brantley-Dias, 2011). I detailed daily reflections on practice in a journal, including goals, thoughts, and observations specific to elements of inquiry methods of teaching. I wrote the journal entries on a password protected laptop computer. Some questions to answer included: • What portion of each the class session was student focused? • What phenomena was used to generate authentic inquiry? • What evidence was witnessed for student engagement? • Was instruction focused solely on specific content? How were crosscutting concepts and science and engineering practices addressed? • How comfortable was I with this format? What are my personal beliefs about teaching and the purpose of education? • What went well? • What could be improved? Personal beliefs about teaching science and the overall purpose of education were honestly explored daily, as these can hinder successful implementation of inquiry-based instruction (Lotter et al., 2007). I also included detailed notes from PLC meetings with experienced colleagues, who were also committed to increasing and improving the implementation of student-centered, authentic, inquiry-based teaching in their own classrooms. These meetings purposefully included dialogue that focused on beliefs and views related to inquiry-based teaching, as well as sought alternative NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 26 perspectives on teaching situations and resolving dilemmas of practice (Dias et al., 2011). Discussion and reflection are key to changing core beliefs that could hinder implementing new methods of practice (Prawat, 1992). Collaboration is also linked to successfully changing core teaching beliefs (CSSS, 2017). It is through written reflection and teacher conversations that tensions between self and context are most successfully negotiated (Kitchen et al., 2008). NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 27 OUTCOMES I completed a four-week self-study, focused on my experience with shifting curriculum and teaching methods to a more inquiry-based approach. The content focus of the unit was natural selection and evolution. One of my goals for this project was to use authentic phenomena to generate student curiosity and questions that would drive student exploration of the topic. Another goal was to incorporate the use of crosscutting concepts and science and engineering principles. I wrote daily, personal reflections in a journal, recording how phenomena was used, evidence that I saw for student engagement, how much of the class period was student-focused, how comfortable I was with the format, and my use of the crosscutting concepts and science and engineering principles. Overall struggles and successes were also recorded, along with notes and thoughts from meetings and discussions of inquiry-based teaching with my colleagues in regular PLC meetings. Phenomena Used to Generate Inquiry I spent hours exploring phenomena that could be used for my NGSS evolution unit. I wanted to explore phenomena that the students would be curious about, that they would have questions about, and that would engage them in science practices as they learned more about evolution. When I came across the adaptation of carnivorous plants, I knew that I wanted to start with this phenomenon. Earlier in the year, while studying food chains, several students had asked about Venus flytraps and whether they were autotrophs or heterotrophs. I had told them that they were autotrophs and that they still relied on photosynthesis for their energy needs; then I quickly moved on to all of the material that we had to cover. Thinking back, I realized that I had missed a great opportunity to engage them through their curiosity about why a plant would eat an insect. This project would give me a chance to make up for this omission. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 28 For our first lesson, we watched a time lapse video of several carnivorous plants capturing small insects and spiders in their trapping mechanisms. The students seemed to love it. I asked them to write down some observations and questions in their lab books as we watched. Their questions were excellent: What does the plant do with the insect? Does the plant still do photosynthesis? Does the plant get some energy from the insect? How does the plant catch the bug? How does the plant sense that the insect is there? What is the success rate for this process? Are some plants better at it than others? What is the main source of energy for the plant? Students made some good observations as well. They observed that the insects seemed drawn to the plants and that the plants were brightly covered but still had green leaves. They also observed that the plants seemed sticky and that it looked like there were different processes used by different carnivorous plants. For the bell start during this first lesson, we looked at a walking stick insect. Later in the lesson, we did a computer simulation, exploring color differentiation in rock pocket mice. Again, the questions were plentiful, thoughtful, and would lead us to discover important concepts in evolution. With other lessons, we looked at the Stickleback Fish in Lohberg Lake, homologous structures, vestigial structures, comparative embryology, fossils of hominid skulls, DNA comparisons, whale fossils, horse fossils, genetic variation in dog breeds, and lack of genetic variation in cheetahs. On two occasions, I used past lessons that I thought would be helpful in demonstrating a concept. However, these lessons used imaginary phenomena and I sensed less NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 29 engagement. The students seem more interested and engaged with authentic inquiry from actual evidence. This was surprising to me. I thought that they enjoyed activities that I had used in the past with aliens, dragons, or something else that was made up. There was a level of enjoyment, but less demonstration of true curiosity. Many of the phenomena that I used in this unit I had used in the past, but I presented them with more inquiry-based approaches this time. In past years, homologous structures, vestigial structures, comparative embryology, and comparative DNA were each a simple Powerpoint slide that I would show the students as evidence for evolution, followed with a quick discussion. This time, I took more time with each phenomenon and tried to make the exploration more student-centered. For homologous structure, I put a photo of a bottlenose dolphin on the projector and asked the students to sketch it, paying particular attention to the pectoral flipper. Next, I asked them to predict what they thought the internal anatomy would look like. Most of them expected cartilage or a couple of bones. I then passed out pictures of the dolphin flipper skeleton and had them sketch it. They were curious right off. “Why does this look like a hand?” “Why would it have so many bones?” This was the phenomenon of homologous structure. They made more observations and asked more questions as we explored it further with pictures of human arm and hand skeletons, bat wing skeletons, and horse leg skeletons. We went on to look for patterns and explore cause and effect. Similarly, in the past I showed them a data table comparing DNA of different organisms. This time, I gave them part of the actual DNA sequence for hemoglobin of four different organisms and had them determine how similar or different they were. I loved watching them stretch the long sequences out across their tables or the floor and divide up the job of counting differences in bases, pulling out their calculators, discussing, disagreeing, and collaborating, along with writing down observations and questions. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 30 When I wanted my students to explore genetic bottleneck, I decided on the phenomenon of all cheetahs being genetically similar. We looked at pictures that showed more genetic diversity in Bengal tigers and cheetahs looking remarkably similar. Students observed that the tigers had different stripe patterns, their ears were slightly different in position and shape, and that some had more white fur on their chests. My sixth period class had been somewhat reluctant to ask questions, compared to my other two classes, so I was open with my intention. I told them that we were both more accustomed to me asking the questions and them answering the questions, but I wanted them to ask questions. I wanted them to be curious. I wanted them to think like a scientist. They responded well. Some of their questions were Do cheetahs have more recessive disorders because of inbreeding/lack of diversity? Did something happen to decrease the diversity of the cheetahs? Why is there more inbreeding with cheetahs? Would their DNA be more similar than what would be found in other species? We then went on to read an article about cheetahs and genetic bottleneck and the students looked for answers to their questions. The students seem more engaged in reading when they have had a chance to become curious about the topic first. Evidence for Student Engagement About once a month in my class, students conduct peer and self-review on their lab books. This is a simple way to make them accountable for staying on task during class. As I looked at their lab books for the lab book check at the end of this unit, I saw evidence of much more engagement than in times past. Their lab books were full of data tables, questions, observations, calculations, graphs, sketches, and some claims, with evidence and reasoning. There were noticeably fewer notes taken from Powerpoints. Also, some of their comments showed engagement. Some of the students told me directly that they enjoyed more class NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 31 activities that allowed them to be curious. One student, who often reads non-assigned text in my class when she shouldn’t be, did not read during this unit and even complained that she had to be checked out for a doctor’s appointment but didn’t want to go because she didn’t want to miss our science class. I saw another student make a connection and simply express, “that is so cool.” Another line of evidence for student engagement was our unit exam. In the short answer part of the exam, students referred back to class activities to justify their answers more so than in years past. These activities seemed to have left more of an impression, most likely because of more engagement. In fairness, though, there were still times when all of the students weren’t engaged. In eighth period, I noticed some of the students just waiting for class discussion to write things down one day, instead of finding their answers through reading or researching. I still had many of the same students dominating class discussions; I need to be more intentional in strategies that will engage more students. Portion of Class Time that was Student-Focused There was a wide range of student-focused learning from day to day. Overall, the amount of student-focused learning in my classroom definitely and significantly increased. However, this is still one of the areas that I need to focus on changing the most. This was a challenging shift for both me and my students. My first effort to increase student-centered learning was to move the desks into tables instead of rows. Students were now facing each other instead of everyone facing me. This was an important step and a reminder that students should not be looking at me too much for information, for most of the answers, or to determine if they are right or wrong. Reflections clearly show that the students were more involved in obtaining information and they did frequently discuss things with their table groups of three to four students. I still felt, however, that class discussions were often too teacher focused and that students still wanted me to give them the answers more than I would like to see. One student complained one day and asked if we NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 32 could go back to the old style of teaching for the rest of the year. She said that she felt like she was guessing and just wants to know the right answers. That certainly showed that I had increased student-focused learning. This student is typically very high achieving and performs very well in school. She was worried about being less-prepared for the unit exam while learning in a student-directed format. In the end, however, she still received a perfect score on the test. When I asked her for final thoughts after the unit was finished, she said that she felt that she learned the material very well and that she really enjoyed the various learning activities that we engaged in. From all of the changes that I was trying to make in my classroom, the shift to more student-focused learning seemed most challenging, so maybe there is a conflict with my core teaching beliefs that needs to be explored here. Having the students explore concepts on their own didn’t seem problematic, but I did feel the need to direct the final class discussion on the subject and make sure that it ended how I intended. This could be in part because I saw misconceptions along the way, especially with natural selection. I was trying to address misconceptions. But I do think that there is some benefit to not having the teacher be the authority on the subject all of the time and letting the students find confidence in their own findings. I need to spend more time trying this and thinking through my practice and my beliefs. Core Teaching Beliefs For the most part, I found value in this new teaching format. I loved seeing students look for patterns and make connections. I appreciated spending more time with the content to allow for more student discovery. Knowing that I was planning to teach this unit with more inquiry, I left plenty of time for it, so I didn’t feel rushed. But it did take more time. I spent days letting students explore concepts that I have taught with direct instruction in ten minutes. I felt that it was worth it, but this would be more of an issue with a year’s worth of content. Some things NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 33 might have to be let go, but I think that it might be worth it. Giving students opportunities to think is much more important than giving them more to memorize. Helping ignite student curiosity that makes them want to read about a subject to answer their own questions is more valuable than giving them more assigned readings to look for answers to someone else’s worksheet questions. I still have much room for improvement in my quest to be a phenomena based teacher, but I am clearly convinced that it is worth the effort, that this method leads to more depth of learning that will be remembered beyond the unit test, and that it will help more students want to pursue science as a profession to understand and better our world. Classroom management was a struggle at times. Students are easier to manage when everyone is facing forward, taking notes on a Powerpoint. This was more of an issue in my sixth period class than my other two classes. I have some students in this class who have a hard time focusing. They are doing better with some important changes to the seating chart, making a few of the groups have three rather than four members, and being clear with my expectations. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t consider moving the desks back into rows with everyone facing the front. But I feel that the challenge with management is worth it for the increased learning. Once the students get engaged with the learning, behavior problems are few. I just need to be consistent in waiting for my expectations to be met before giving instructions for the day’s activities. When the students aren’t listening to me, it is a good time to ask if I am talking too much and running the class with too much teacher-centered instruction. There are times when I need their attention and I need to not move on until I have it. Crosscutting Concepts and Science and Engineering Principles Although not always explicit, the crosscutting concepts have been a part of each lesson. Patterns, cause and effect, structure and function, and stability and change all fit very naturally with this unit. I should have brought more attention to them as crosscutting concepts that unite NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 34 science and helped the students think more about that. The crosscutting concepts are powerful, uniting themes that I need to be more intentional about exploring with my students. The science and engineering practices needed to be a bigger focus in my lessons. I had students use the practices some, but we should have used them more. Early on, students created a model for natural selection and then each group was given an example of change in a population and asked to use the model that they had created to judge whether the change was due to natural selection or not. We asked questions daily and conducted investigations, but they were not as student driven as they could have been. The students were discovering, but I was often telling them how or what to discover in a sense. This is something that I need to spend some time thinking about and discuss further with my PLC. We used math and computational thinking and analyzed and interpreted data more than I had in the past. I loved the change that I saw in their lab books, with less note-taking from lecture and more sketching, graphing, questioning, observing, data tables, and writing down possible explanations. They constructed explanations and engaged in argument from evidence, but I could have encouraged this more. I need to have them write out their arguments and reasoning more and not simply discuss them. There were some assessments where I required this, but I think that it would be helpful daily. I need to raise my expectations here. Struggles Again, classroom management was more challenging at times, with the students facing each other and being left to complete tasks on their own. With one lab, technology was a big part of the problem. We were fishing for sticklebacks and then sorting, counting, and graphing with a program developed by the University of Utah. Most students were very engaged but there were a few that weren’t able to participate because it didn’t load right on their laptops. Classmates tried to share, but it generally left those few students with technology issues less engaged. Maybe NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 35 there is a way that I could plan for that next time. Maybe I could log into a couple of extra laptops and follow along just in case? Another challenge was that groups of students would often finish at different times. They had study guides that are generally homework that could occupy most of the earlier finishers, but sometimes the different end times did contribute to off-task behavior. Another challenge was that this unit took a lot more preparation time. My original intent was to teach a unit that was already laid out and NGSS aligned. When I started looking, however, I realized that many resources that claimed to be NGSS aligned were not. Few if any of the resources that I looked at had students generating questions related to phenomena, which seemed to me to be an integral part of NGSS. So, I adapted lessons that I found and created many of my own lessons. Planning took longer as well as cutting out DNA sequences, stages of embryological development, fossil images, etc. As we discussed this as a PLC, everyone agreed that inquiry-based teaching can be more tiring and require more preparation but that it is worth it. This should become less of an issue in coming years, when we have lesson plans made from previous years and have kept a lot of the manipulatives as well. Also, from the PLC, I found that none of the teachers see themselves as teaching with complete fidelity to NGSS. They rated themselves as following principles of inquiry-based teaching between one third to one half of the time. I asked them about this—about their reasons for not using inquiry-based teaching more often. One teacher explained that she worries about covering all of the content. So much emphasis has been placed on end-of-year tests that are focused on content. She said that she believes the research indicating that deep, student-guided learning has been shown to result in better test scores, but she still has to overcome years of administrative push to cover the content through direct instruction. This was emphasized more adamantly at the last school where she taught—a school that was under scrutiny for low test NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 36 scores. Another teacher said that she sees value in inquiry-based teaching, but that it can be more tiring. Sometimes you just need to show a movie, to take a break. She feels like it is more chaotic. She described it as “a birthday party every day.” She said that sometimes she wonders if they are really learning and said that it can be hard to trust the process. This teacher also feels that students need to spend more time learning vocabulary and that this needs more emphasis in the new standards. Another teacher said that she loves teaching this way when it works. She finds satisfaction in the insight that the students who otherwise struggle in class are more engaged when the class is inquiry-based. Often her low-achieving students are better at asking questions than their higher-achieving peers, but she finds that it does take more preparation time. It is easier to use prepared direct instruction presentations that are already developed from past years of instruction. This is a process that will take some time to fully understand and adapt to. But we were all in agreement that this is something that is worth working toward. Successes One of the biggest things that I learned from this study was the importance of reflection. Taking time after each class and each school day to think about student engagement and the purpose of education, and whether or not the learning activities in my class room were in line with my views about education, was powerful and contributed to my overall job satisfaction. One of the other teachers from my PLC agreed. She has been reflecting on her practice more and has noticed an improvement in her practice as a result. This study has also increased my appreciation for my PLC and helped me recognize the great benefit that comes from regular discussion and support from like-minded educators. Together we have discussed challenges, strategies, and successes. Some of them have increased their use of student-generated questions from authentic phenomena and found increased engagement just as I have. I was feeling like I needed to give my students more background on Darwin. My PLC reminded me that this was part of inquiry NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 37 teaching. We do elaborate and give direct instruction at times. We just don’t start there. We let the students discover first. My PLC also helped me to improve my assessments, and to focus more on understanding and less on memorization of vocabulary terms. They helped me to think of a way to have students transfer what they had learned to a new, authentic situation. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 38 DISCUSSION The two main obstacles that inhibit teachers from successfully implementing inquiry-based teaching are insufficient understanding of the process and a conflict with core teaching beliefs. I have tried to explore each of these during my self-study, implementing an inquiry-based evolution unit for my ninth-grade biology classes. Through teaching this unit, I feel that I have gained a better understanding of the process of inquiry teaching as well as a greater appreciation for inquiry teaching. The NGSS were intended to be meaningful, to allow students to discover for themselves rather than be told and expected to memorize answers (Dibase & McDonald, 2015). I found that, when I followed an inquiry teaching model, learning was more meaningful. Students seemed more engaged in readings when they were searching for answers to their own questions about phenomena. As students explained some of the evidence for evolution on their unit assessment, they referenced activities that they had done in class and things that they had discovered through the activities. Their learning appeared memorable and meaningful to them. A second goal of the NGSS is that authenticity should be enhanced (Crawford, 2007). I had not appreciated the importance of authenticity before teaching this unit. Each day, I saw students engaged and curious about authentic phenomena. Throughout the course of the unit, I incorporated only two activities that were not at all authentic—one involving made up creatures and the other an artificial scenario. The students were not as invested or curious as they were with authentic data. Made up activities can be a fun way to learn a concept, but they did not seem as engaging. The students were not as invested in the learning process. I did not predict that this would be so apparent before teaching this unit. Two more aims of the NGSS were that learning would be student-centered and inquiry-based (Peters, 2010). I was very mindful of these principles when planning my lessons each day. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 39 My teaching was significantly more student-focused and promoted much more inquiry. Student-centered learning was probably the most challenging aspect of this process because it was the least familiar to me and my students. Students are accustomed to the teacher telling them exactly what they need to know, to memorize, and to prepare for an exam. Students are familiar with teachers giving them explicit instructions for investigations. I made a big shift toward student-focused learning but felt that I need to keep practicing this unfamiliar pedagogy. I need to add more student-driven investigations and find a way to make classroom discussions less teacher directed. I found self-study to be a valuable professional development activity. Daily reflection and discussion with my PLC were very informative. I felt that I was learning in the same manner that I was wanting my students to learn, by asking questions and seeking answers through research and personal investigations. Perhaps as teachers use inquiry as a method for their own professional development and learning, they will become more committed to creating classroom learning environments that support students in inquiry learning (Short & Burke, 1996). As I reflected after each lesson, I did not feel that there was conflict with my core teaching beliefs. In fact, I felt renewed excitement for my career, as this pedagogy is more in harmony with my core teaching beliefs. Helping ignite student curiosity about the world around them, make connections, and look for explanations will enrich the lives of students much more than memorizing scientific facts. Helping students to look at the world with curious eyes and minds, reason, and find evidence for explanations is much more likely to produce students with potential to find solutions to pressing global problems and cures for disease. Content is important. I love the content that I teach and I find it relevant and important. Teaching the content through authentic phenomena, student generated questions, crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering practices just makes it that much more meaningful. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 40 REFERENCES Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning. In L. Darling- Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. Tilson (Eds.)., Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Blanchard, M., Sutherland, S. A., & Granger, D. E. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360. doi: 10.1002/sce.20298 Breunig, M. (2017). Experientially learning and teaching in a student-directed classroom. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(3), 213–230. doi.org/10.1177/1053825917690870 Bybee, R.W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4 Capps, D.K., Shemwell, J.T., & Young, A.M. (2016). Over reported and misunderstood? A study of teachers' reported enactment and knowledge of inquiry-based science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 934–959. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1173261 Clift, R. (2008). Repurposing my professional practice: Reflections on my teaching over time. In M. L. Heston, D. L. Tidwell, K. K. East, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study, 59–62. Seventh International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, East Sussex, England, 2008. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. Council of State Science Supervisors. (2017). Science Professional Learning Standards, updated edition. Retrieved from http://www.csss-science.org/downloads/SPLS.pdf NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 41 Crawford, B.A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. doi: 10.1002/tea.20157 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan DiBiase, W. & McDonald, J. R. (2015). Science teacher attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching and learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(2), 29–38. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2014.987717 Dias, M., Eick, C. J., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2011). Practicing what we teach: A self-study in implementing an inquiry-based curriculum in a middle grades classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 53–78. Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18. doi:10.1177/0022487102238654 Elliott-Johns, S. E., & Tidwell, D. L. (2013). Different voices, many journeys: Explorations of the transformative nature of the self-study of teacher education practices. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 9(2), 91–95. doi:10.1080 /17425964.2013.808043 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Haney, J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86, 783–802. Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Gallagher, T. (2008). Authentic conversation as faculty development: Establishing a self-study group in a faculty of education. Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 157–171. NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 42 Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150. doi:10.3102/0034654315627864 LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S., & Bonner, J.J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347. doi: 10.1002/tea.20191 Lyons, N., Halton, C., & Freidus, H. (2013). Reflective inquiry as transformative self-study for professional education and learning. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 163–174. doi:10.1080/17425964.2013.808057 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academy Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: The National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.ngss.nsta.org/grounding-practice in research.aspx Peters, E. E. (2010). Shifting to a student-centered science classroom: An exploration of teacher and student changes in perceptions and practices. Journal of Science Teachers Education, 21(3), 329–349. Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves: Professional development that makes a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 99(1), 26–42. doi:10.1177/0192636515576040 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS 43 Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395. doi:10.1086/444021 Richardson, V. (1998). How teachers change: What will lead to change that most benefits student learning. Focus on Basics, 2(4), 7–11. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3–24. doi:10.1080/0950069022000070261 Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. New York: Peter Lang. Short, K. G., & Burke, C. (1996) Examining our beliefs and practices through inquiry. Language Arts, 73(2), 97–104. Stewart, C. (2014). Transforming professional development to professional learning. Journal of Adult Education, 43(1), 28–33. Utah State Office of Education (2010). Core standards for science. https://www.schools.utah.gov /file/1f3a218e-f5ca-418d-9b46-ad66c19bca1a Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.