Click here to access the data analysis.
In order to accomplish the objectives proposed for this action research project, I followed three stages in which I used different data collection instruments. In the pre-stage, the instruments that helped me to confirm that there was a problem were:
1. a pre-test
2. a pre-survey
First, the group of students took a pre-test of ten multiple choice questions and three open questions about the different systems of the human body. The purpose of this pre-test was to check how much students knew about this topic, after studying it for about four years following a traditional teacher-centered approach which did not foster autonomy in students, before starting the inquiry-based unit.
The second step was to give students a pre-survey of thirty-eight questions about aspects related to inquiry-based learning and autonomy awareness. The purpose of giving students this pre-survey was to revise how much students knew about the inquiry-based learning approach compared to the traditional method they had used to learn science and also to know how autonomous they were before applying the inquiry-based learning unit which was more student-centered and fostered more autonomy in students.
During the while-stage, the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit about the systems of the human body took place. It was a total of eight lessons that started with the skeletal system and ended with the nervous system. All the lessons had an inquiry-based learning methodology which followed these steps:
• Students engaged with a scientific question, event or phenomenon.
• Students explored ideas through hands-on experience, formulated and tested hypotheses, solved problems, and created explanations for what they observed.
• Students analyzed and interpreted data, synthesized their ideas, built models, and clarified concepts and explanations with the teacher and other sources of scientific knowledge.
• Students extended their new understanding and abilities and applied what they had learned to new situations.
• Students extended their new understanding and assessed what they had learned and how they had learned it.
The purpose of the inquiry-based lessons was to create a more student-centered class environment in which students had more opportunities to ask questions and discover knowledge by themselves using different resources in order to demonstrate how a methodology like this would increase their autonomy awareness more than the traditional methodology they had used so far. At the end of this document you will find a description of the inquiry-based lessons that were taught.
Students made a portfolio in which they collected all the work they did along the process. While students carried out the inquiry-based activities, the teacher took field notes in order to monitor students’ performance in terms of autonomy awareness and record any increase due to the implementation of the activities.
Finally, in the post-stage, I designed a post-test and a post-survey in order to confirm whether these fourth grade students had increased their level of autonomy awareness. Once students finished the inquiry-based learning unit, they were given a post-test about the different systems of the human body. The purpose was to check if they had shown improvement in terms of knowledge about the topic after studying the unit following an inquiry-based learning approach, in order to compare the results with those obtained in the pre-.test and measure to what extent they had improved. Then students took a post-survey of thirty-eight questions which provided valuable information on the way students perceived different aspects related to inquiry-based learning and autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit. The purpose of giving students this post-survey was to check how much students had changed their views about aspects that dealt with autonomy awareness compared to those they had following a traditional teacher-centered methodology instead of a more student-centered one that encouraged students to explore and discover knowledge themselves with the teacher assuming the role of a facilitator.
Table 1
Project Program
Week Date Tasks
Pre-stage
1 Monday, April 20.
Tuesday, April 21.
Thursday, April 23. Pre-test activity.
Pre-survey.
Inquiry-based unit introduction (The skeletal system)
While-stage
2 Monday, April 27. The muscular system
Tuesday, April 28. The respiratory system
Wednesday, April 29. The circulatory system
While-stage Thursday April 30. The heart.
3 Monday, May 4. The digestive system
Tuesday, May 5. The nervous system
Wednesday, May 6. Inquiry-based unit review
Post-stage
4 Monday, May 11. Post-test
Wednesday, May 13 Post-survey
As a conclusion, I would say that the methodology I applied and the instruments I designed were appropriate for the study, and they helped me to collect useful data to achieve the main aim of this action research project.
Data Analysis and Findings
Once I carried out some overall examination of the data that shed light on the question I was researching, I created categories related to inquiry-based learning and its effect on the students’ autonomy awareness until I completed a list of five categories. The objective was to reduce the amount of data that I had collected to more manageable themes or types. The following is the data analysis based on the five categories and the respective findings.
Category 1: Student-centered methodology vs. teacher-centered methodology
The pre-test would provide information about what students knew about the systems of the human body before applying the inquiry-based unit. With this test I wanted to confirm my theory that even though students had studied about this topic in the previous three years they would not remember much about it because of the traditional teacher-centered methodology that was used. I expected the results in this test to be low. The following were the results of the
pre-test:
Table 2
Pre-test Results
Student
N° Name N° of
questions N° of correct
answers Percentage
%
1 Arrieta Daniel Felipe 13 3 23.0 %
2 Borrero sebastián 13 7 53.8 %
3 Cardona Santiago 13 5 38.4 %
4 Chaparro Juan Pablo 13 6 46.1 %
5 Corredor Alejandro 13 5 38.4 %
6 Cubillos Julián Hernando 13 2 15.3 %
7 Delgadillo Sebastián 13 6 46.1 %
8 Durán Juan Camilo 13 4 30.7 %
9 Escobar Simón 13 4 30.7 %
10 Fajardo Nicolás 13 6 46.1 %
11 Forero Juan David 13 3 23.0 %
12 García Edgar Javier 13 5 38.4 %
13 Gómez Felipe 13 7 53.8 %
14 Hernández Rodrigo 13 7 53.8 %
15 Martínez Simón 13 7 53.8 %
16 Muñoz Luis Alejandro 13 3 23.0 %
17 Osorio Carlos Samuel 13 6 46.1 %
18 Parra Juan José 13 8 61.5 %
19 Pérez Juan Miguel 13 7 53.8 %
20 Riaño Juan Pablo 13 4 30.7 %
21 Suárez Juan Felipe 13 5 38.4 %
22 Villamil Alejandro 13 1 7,6 %
Total percentage 13 5 38.4 %
Figure 1. Pre-test results.
The results showed a very low performance (38.4 %) especially in the open questions, even though students had studied this content in previous years.
Figure 2. Pre-test Global Results.
The first five questions of the pre-survey were asked in order to find information about how students felt about the methodology in science classes used before the intervention. I expected students to identify the methodology they had been using before the implementation of the inquiry-based unit to be teacher-centered.
Figure 3. The Science Class is Teacher-Centered.
The results showed that students thought the science class was more teacher-centered than student-centered before the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
A post-test would provide information about what students learned about the systems of the human body after participating in the inquiry-based learning activities. With this test I wanted to prove my theory that after studying about this topic following an inquiry-based approach, students would learn and remember much more about the topic due to the use of a student-centered methodology. I expected the results in this test to be high. The following were the results of the post-test.
Table 3
Post-test Results.
Student
N° Name N° of
questions N° of correct
answers Percentage
%
1 Arrieta Daniel Felipe 13 10 76.9 %
2 Borrero sebastián 13 10 76.9 %
3 Cardona Santiago 13 8 61.5 %
4 Chaparro Juan Pablo 13 8 61.5 %
5 Corredor Alejandro 13 8 61.5 %
6 Cubillos Julián Hernando 13 7 53.8 %
7 Delgadillo Sebastián 13 11 84.6 %
8 Durán Juan Camilo 13 12 92.3 %
9 Escobar Simón 13 9 69.2 %
10 Fajardo Nicolás 13 9 69.2 %
11 Forero Juan David 13 9 69.2 %
12 García Edgar Javier 13 9 69.2 %
13 Gómez Felipe 13 12 92.3 %
14 Hernández Rodrigo 13 10 76.9 %
15 Martínez Simón 13 10 76.9 %
16 Muñoz Luis Alejandro 13 7 53.8 %
17 Osorio Carlos Samuel 13 9 69.2 %
18 Parra Juan José 13 11 84.6 %
19 Pérez Juan Miguel 13 10 76.9 %
20 Riaño Juan pablo 13 10 76.9 %
21 Suárez Juan Felipe 13 13 100 %
22 Villamil Alejandro 13 9 69.2 %
Total percentage 13 9.5 73.0 %
Figure 4. Post-test Results.
The results showed a significant increase in the students’ knowledge about the topic (73.0 %) after applying the inquiry-based learning unit.
Figure 5. Post-test Global results..
The first five questions of the post-survey were designed to find information about how students felt about the methodology used during the inquiry-based unit. I expected students to identify this methodology as a more student-centered one.
Figure 6. The Science Class is Teacher-centered.
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that the class revolved around the teacher decreased in 10 marks. The number of students who disagreed increased in 9 marks. It is evident that students noticed a change towards a more student-centered environment which fostered more autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Category 2: Encouraging students to inquire
One of the most important characteristics of inquiry-based learning is that it encourages both teachers and students to ask questions; students engage with a scientific question, event or phenomenon and after inquiring about it they explore ideas through hands-on experience to get to create explanations for what they observe. Questions 6, 7 and 8 of the pre-survey and the post-survey and some of the field notes provided information about students asking questions before and after the intervention. I expected students to identify the methodology used before the intervention as one that did not encourage much inquiry and the one after the implementation as one that encouraged much more inquiry.
Table 4
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 10 4 8
7 19 3 0
8 13 7 2
42 14 10
Pre-survey on Students’ Opinion if They were Encouraged to Ask Questions.
Table 5
Post-survey on Students´ Opinion if They Were Encouraged to Ask questions.
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 17 2 3
7 22 0 0
8 18 3 1
57 5 4
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they asked more questions increased in 15 marks. The number of students who disagreed decreased in 6 marks. It is evident that students noticed a change towards a class environment which fostered more inquiry.
Category 3: Learning styles
Questions 31 to 38 of the pre-survey and the post survey as well as the field notes were intended to collect information about students identifying their learning styles and learning strategies clearer after the intervention.
Figure 7. Pre-survey results on preferred learning styles.
Figure 8. Post-survey results on preferred learning styles.
The results show that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who agreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 1 mark. The number of students who were neutral decreased in 9 marks and the number of students who disagreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 8 marks. The most preferred learning styles were auditory, visual, and reading and writing.
Once the data had been categorized in some way, comparisons were made to see whether themes or patterns were repeated or developed across different data gathering techniques. I noticed hierarchies or sequences of data and relationships or connections between different sources of data. I decided to map frequencies of occurrences, behaviors and responses. I also created tables and graphs using simple descriptive techniques that included descriptive statistics such as the mean (average) and frequency counts for quantitative data; and content analysis for qualitative data. My main aim at this stage was to describe and display the data.
Category 4: Learning autonomy
Questions 9 to 30 of the pre-survey and the post survey were intended to gather information about the degree of autonomy students thought they had before and after the implementation of the inquiry-based unit. The field notes and the students’ portfolios were also taken into account in order to check whether students felt they had become more autonomous during the implementation of the unit about the systems of the human body.
Figure 9. Pre-survey on how students perceive their degree of learning autonomy.
The results showed that 337 marks were given by those who considered that they were encouraged to ask questions before the intervention and 112 marks were given by those who thought they were not encouraged to inquire.
Figure 10. Post-survey on how students perceive their degree of learning autonomy.
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they were aware of different aspects related to their learner autonomy increased in 101 marks. The number of students who disagreed with the statements decreased in 54 marks as well as the number of students who were neutral which decreased in 47 marks. It is evident that students perceived they increased their level of autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Findings that repeated consistently across the sources of data collected
• Students didn’t know much about the systems of the human body even though they had studied this topic in previous years.
• Students improved their knowledge about the systems of the human body after the implementation of the inquiry-based lesson unit..
• Student-centered classes had a positive impact in students’ results.
• Students asked a lot of questions during the inquiry-based learning unit and tried to solve the questions on their own.
• Students did not feel very autonomous before implementing the unit.
• Students felt more autonomous after they developed the inquiry-based unit.
• Students were hesitant about their preferred learning styles before the intervention.
• Students identified their preferred learning styles better once they finished the inquiry-based learning unit.
• Students’ were motivated during the implementation of the intervention.
Identification of relationships and connections between sources of data
• Both the pre-tests and the pre-surveys showed that students were negatively affected by following a teacher-centered methodology in the science classes.
• The post-tests, the post-surveys, the students’ portfolios and the field notes showed that students had better results and were more motivated following a student-centered methodology.
• Field notes and students’ portfolios showed that students asked lots of questions during the inquiry-based learning sessions.
• Both pre-tests and post-tests as well as students’ portfolios and field notes showed that students improved in terms of learning autonomy.
• Students’ portfolios and field notes showed that students searched for information on their own to solve questions they posed.
• The surveys and the field notes showed that students were more aware of their preferred learning styles.
Tables or graphs to describe and display the data
Tables and graphs were created using simple descriptive techniques to note frequency counts or percentages in order to describe and display the data that was collected (Appendix 5). The following are some tables and graphs that were used to show comparisons that were made once the data had been categorized.
Comparison of pre-test results and post-test results.
Figure 11. Pre-test VS Post-test Results.
Once the results of the pre-test and the post-test were compared, it was found that students showed improvement in terms of knowledge about the topic after studying the unit following an inquiry-based learning approach which encourages a student-centered methodology rather than a teacher-centered one. The results showed a significant increase in the students’ knowledge about the topic (73.0 %) compared with the one they had before applying the unit (38.4 %)
Comparison between results on how students perceived the science class as a teacher-centered class before and after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Figure 12. The Teacher Class is Teacher-centered.
The results of the first five questions of the pre-survey and the post-survey were compared and the outcome was that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that the class revolved around the teacher decreased in 10 marks. The number of students who disagreed increased in 9 marks.
It is evident that students noticed a change towards a more student-centered environment which fosters more autonomy after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Comparison of results on how students perceived themselves in terms of inquiry before and after the intervention.
Table 6
Pre-survey on Students’ Opinion if They Were Encouraged to Ask Questions.
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 10 4 8
7 19 3 0
8 13 7 2
42 14 10
Table 7
Post-survey on Students´ Opinion if They Were Encouraged to Ask Questions.
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 17 2 3
7 22 0 0
8 18 3 1
57 5 4
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they asked more questions increased in 15 marks. The number of students who disagreed decreased in 6 marks.
It is evident that students noticed a change towards a class environment which fostered more inquiry.
Comparison of results on how students perceived themselves in terms of learning autonomy before and after the intervention.
Figure 13. Degree of Autonomy Awareness Students Perceive.
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they were aware of different aspects related to their learner autonomy increased in 101 marks. The number of students who disagreed with the statements decreased in 54 marks as well as the number of students who were neutral which decreased in 47 marks.
It is evident that students perceived they increased their level of autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Comparison of results on how students perceived their preferred learning styles before and after the inquiry-based learning unit.
Figure 14. Pre-survey VS Post-survey Preferred Learning Styles
After the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who agreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 1 mark. The number of students who were neutral decreased in 9 marks and the number of students who disagreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 8 marks. The most preferred learning styles were auditory, visual, and reading and writing.
The number of students who identified auditory, visual, and reading and writing as their most preferred learning styles increased in 7 marks, and the number of students who were neutral decreased in 9 marks. It is evident that students were able to identify their preferred learning styles more accurately after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
In order to move beyond describing, categorizing, coding and comparing to make sense of the data I had collected, I got to a point in the data analysis process that demanded a certain amount of creative thinking since it was time to articulate underlying concepts and developing theories about why particular patterns of behaviors, interactions or attitudes had emerged.
I came back to the data I had collected several times and I posed questions about it, rethought the connections among the data and developed explanations of the bigger picture underpinning my action research project. Then I discussed the data patterns and themes with some of the school’s science teachers trying to find new discoveries or interpretations.
In this action research study, where I implemented an inquiry-based learning unit about the systems of the human body in order to increase the level of autonomy awareness in a group of twenty-two fourth grade students, my data collection and analysis revealed that:
1. The implementation of an inquiry-based learning approach to teach a unit about the systems of the human body led students to learn the basic concepts related to this topic successfully.
2. The inquiry-based learning unit promoted a student-centered classroom environment that favored the increase of autonomy awareness in most of the students.
3. The implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit encouraged students to inquire more than they used to about the subject matter of study leading to an increase of their autonomy awareness.
4. Students’ autonomy awareness increased due to the inquiry-based learning activities that encouraged students to search for information and discover knowledge on their own in and out of the classroom.
5. The implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit required students to look for information by observing, listening, reading, moving and touching, and this helped students identify their preferred learning styles better.
6. Despite attempts to make some students research more deeply about the systems of the human body at home, they did not do it as expected and this was reflected especially in their portfolios.
7. Despite attempts to improve students writing to solve open-ended questions, their different levels of language skill and proficiency made it difficult to show improvement in this aspect.
8. The students cooperated in joint inquiry-based activities and interacted generally and the classroom atmosphere was relaxed and motivating.
In order to accomplish the objectives proposed for this action research project, I followed three stages in which I used different data collection instruments. In the pre-stage, the instruments that helped me to confirm that there was a problem were:
1. a pre-test
2. a pre-survey
First, the group of students took a pre-test of ten multiple choice questions and three open questions about the different systems of the human body. The purpose of this pre-test was to check how much students knew about this topic, after studying it for about four years following a traditional teacher-centered approach which did not foster autonomy in students, before starting the inquiry-based unit.
The second step was to give students a pre-survey of thirty-eight questions about aspects related to inquiry-based learning and autonomy awareness. The purpose of giving students this pre-survey was to revise how much students knew about the inquiry-based learning approach compared to the traditional method they had used to learn science and also to know how autonomous they were before applying the inquiry-based learning unit which was more student-centered and fostered more autonomy in students.
During the while-stage, the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit about the systems of the human body took place. It was a total of eight lessons that started with the skeletal system and ended with the nervous system. All the lessons had an inquiry-based learning methodology which followed these steps:
• Students engaged with a scientific question, event or phenomenon.
• Students explored ideas through hands-on experience, formulated and tested hypotheses, solved problems, and created explanations for what they observed.
• Students analyzed and interpreted data, synthesized their ideas, built models, and clarified concepts and explanations with the teacher and other sources of scientific knowledge.
• Students extended their new understanding and abilities and applied what they had learned to new situations.
• Students extended their new understanding and assessed what they had learned and how they had learned it.
The purpose of the inquiry-based lessons was to create a more student-centered class environment in which students had more opportunities to ask questions and discover knowledge by themselves using different resources in order to demonstrate how a methodology like this would increase their autonomy awareness more than the traditional methodology they had used so far. At the end of this document you will find a description of the inquiry-based lessons that were taught.
Students made a portfolio in which they collected all the work they did along the process. While students carried out the inquiry-based activities, the teacher took field notes in order to monitor students’ performance in terms of autonomy awareness and record any increase due to the implementation of the activities.
Finally, in the post-stage, I designed a post-test and a post-survey in order to confirm whether these fourth grade students had increased their level of autonomy awareness. Once students finished the inquiry-based learning unit, they were given a post-test about the different systems of the human body. The purpose was to check if they had shown improvement in terms of knowledge about the topic after studying the unit following an inquiry-based learning approach, in order to compare the results with those obtained in the pre-.test and measure to what extent they had improved. Then students took a post-survey of thirty-eight questions which provided valuable information on the way students perceived different aspects related to inquiry-based learning and autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit. The purpose of giving students this post-survey was to check how much students had changed their views about aspects that dealt with autonomy awareness compared to those they had following a traditional teacher-centered methodology instead of a more student-centered one that encouraged students to explore and discover knowledge themselves with the teacher assuming the role of a facilitator.
Table 1
Project Program
Week Date Tasks
Pre-stage
1 Monday, April 20.
Tuesday, April 21.
Thursday, April 23. Pre-test activity.
Pre-survey.
Inquiry-based unit introduction (The skeletal system)
While-stage
2 Monday, April 27. The muscular system
Tuesday, April 28. The respiratory system
Wednesday, April 29. The circulatory system
While-stage Thursday April 30. The heart.
3 Monday, May 4. The digestive system
Tuesday, May 5. The nervous system
Wednesday, May 6. Inquiry-based unit review
Post-stage
4 Monday, May 11. Post-test
Wednesday, May 13 Post-survey
As a conclusion, I would say that the methodology I applied and the instruments I designed were appropriate for the study, and they helped me to collect useful data to achieve the main aim of this action research project.
Data Analysis and Findings
Once I carried out some overall examination of the data that shed light on the question I was researching, I created categories related to inquiry-based learning and its effect on the students’ autonomy awareness until I completed a list of five categories. The objective was to reduce the amount of data that I had collected to more manageable themes or types. The following is the data analysis based on the five categories and the respective findings.
Category 1: Student-centered methodology vs. teacher-centered methodology
The pre-test would provide information about what students knew about the systems of the human body before applying the inquiry-based unit. With this test I wanted to confirm my theory that even though students had studied about this topic in the previous three years they would not remember much about it because of the traditional teacher-centered methodology that was used. I expected the results in this test to be low. The following were the results of the
pre-test:
Table 2
Pre-test Results
Student
N° Name N° of
questions N° of correct
answers Percentage
%
1 Arrieta Daniel Felipe 13 3 23.0 %
2 Borrero sebastián 13 7 53.8 %
3 Cardona Santiago 13 5 38.4 %
4 Chaparro Juan Pablo 13 6 46.1 %
5 Corredor Alejandro 13 5 38.4 %
6 Cubillos Julián Hernando 13 2 15.3 %
7 Delgadillo Sebastián 13 6 46.1 %
8 Durán Juan Camilo 13 4 30.7 %
9 Escobar Simón 13 4 30.7 %
10 Fajardo Nicolás 13 6 46.1 %
11 Forero Juan David 13 3 23.0 %
12 García Edgar Javier 13 5 38.4 %
13 Gómez Felipe 13 7 53.8 %
14 Hernández Rodrigo 13 7 53.8 %
15 Martínez Simón 13 7 53.8 %
16 Muñoz Luis Alejandro 13 3 23.0 %
17 Osorio Carlos Samuel 13 6 46.1 %
18 Parra Juan José 13 8 61.5 %
19 Pérez Juan Miguel 13 7 53.8 %
20 Riaño Juan Pablo 13 4 30.7 %
21 Suárez Juan Felipe 13 5 38.4 %
22 Villamil Alejandro 13 1 7,6 %
Total percentage 13 5 38.4 %
Figure 1. Pre-test results.
The results showed a very low performance (38.4 %) especially in the open questions, even though students had studied this content in previous years.
Figure 2. Pre-test Global Results.
The first five questions of the pre-survey were asked in order to find information about how students felt about the methodology in science classes used before the intervention. I expected students to identify the methodology they had been using before the implementation of the inquiry-based unit to be teacher-centered.
Figure 3. The Science Class is Teacher-Centered.
The results showed that students thought the science class was more teacher-centered than student-centered before the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
A post-test would provide information about what students learned about the systems of the human body after participating in the inquiry-based learning activities. With this test I wanted to prove my theory that after studying about this topic following an inquiry-based approach, students would learn and remember much more about the topic due to the use of a student-centered methodology. I expected the results in this test to be high. The following were the results of the post-test.
Table 3
Post-test Results.
Student
N° Name N° of
questions N° of correct
answers Percentage
%
1 Arrieta Daniel Felipe 13 10 76.9 %
2 Borrero sebastián 13 10 76.9 %
3 Cardona Santiago 13 8 61.5 %
4 Chaparro Juan Pablo 13 8 61.5 %
5 Corredor Alejandro 13 8 61.5 %
6 Cubillos Julián Hernando 13 7 53.8 %
7 Delgadillo Sebastián 13 11 84.6 %
8 Durán Juan Camilo 13 12 92.3 %
9 Escobar Simón 13 9 69.2 %
10 Fajardo Nicolás 13 9 69.2 %
11 Forero Juan David 13 9 69.2 %
12 García Edgar Javier 13 9 69.2 %
13 Gómez Felipe 13 12 92.3 %
14 Hernández Rodrigo 13 10 76.9 %
15 Martínez Simón 13 10 76.9 %
16 Muñoz Luis Alejandro 13 7 53.8 %
17 Osorio Carlos Samuel 13 9 69.2 %
18 Parra Juan José 13 11 84.6 %
19 Pérez Juan Miguel 13 10 76.9 %
20 Riaño Juan pablo 13 10 76.9 %
21 Suárez Juan Felipe 13 13 100 %
22 Villamil Alejandro 13 9 69.2 %
Total percentage 13 9.5 73.0 %
Figure 4. Post-test Results.
The results showed a significant increase in the students’ knowledge about the topic (73.0 %) after applying the inquiry-based learning unit.
Figure 5. Post-test Global results..
The first five questions of the post-survey were designed to find information about how students felt about the methodology used during the inquiry-based unit. I expected students to identify this methodology as a more student-centered one.
Figure 6. The Science Class is Teacher-centered.
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that the class revolved around the teacher decreased in 10 marks. The number of students who disagreed increased in 9 marks. It is evident that students noticed a change towards a more student-centered environment which fostered more autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Category 2: Encouraging students to inquire
One of the most important characteristics of inquiry-based learning is that it encourages both teachers and students to ask questions; students engage with a scientific question, event or phenomenon and after inquiring about it they explore ideas through hands-on experience to get to create explanations for what they observe. Questions 6, 7 and 8 of the pre-survey and the post-survey and some of the field notes provided information about students asking questions before and after the intervention. I expected students to identify the methodology used before the intervention as one that did not encourage much inquiry and the one after the implementation as one that encouraged much more inquiry.
Table 4
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 10 4 8
7 19 3 0
8 13 7 2
42 14 10
Pre-survey on Students’ Opinion if They were Encouraged to Ask Questions.
Table 5
Post-survey on Students´ Opinion if They Were Encouraged to Ask questions.
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 17 2 3
7 22 0 0
8 18 3 1
57 5 4
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they asked more questions increased in 15 marks. The number of students who disagreed decreased in 6 marks. It is evident that students noticed a change towards a class environment which fostered more inquiry.
Category 3: Learning styles
Questions 31 to 38 of the pre-survey and the post survey as well as the field notes were intended to collect information about students identifying their learning styles and learning strategies clearer after the intervention.
Figure 7. Pre-survey results on preferred learning styles.
Figure 8. Post-survey results on preferred learning styles.
The results show that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who agreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 1 mark. The number of students who were neutral decreased in 9 marks and the number of students who disagreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 8 marks. The most preferred learning styles were auditory, visual, and reading and writing.
Once the data had been categorized in some way, comparisons were made to see whether themes or patterns were repeated or developed across different data gathering techniques. I noticed hierarchies or sequences of data and relationships or connections between different sources of data. I decided to map frequencies of occurrences, behaviors and responses. I also created tables and graphs using simple descriptive techniques that included descriptive statistics such as the mean (average) and frequency counts for quantitative data; and content analysis for qualitative data. My main aim at this stage was to describe and display the data.
Category 4: Learning autonomy
Questions 9 to 30 of the pre-survey and the post survey were intended to gather information about the degree of autonomy students thought they had before and after the implementation of the inquiry-based unit. The field notes and the students’ portfolios were also taken into account in order to check whether students felt they had become more autonomous during the implementation of the unit about the systems of the human body.
Figure 9. Pre-survey on how students perceive their degree of learning autonomy.
The results showed that 337 marks were given by those who considered that they were encouraged to ask questions before the intervention and 112 marks were given by those who thought they were not encouraged to inquire.
Figure 10. Post-survey on how students perceive their degree of learning autonomy.
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they were aware of different aspects related to their learner autonomy increased in 101 marks. The number of students who disagreed with the statements decreased in 54 marks as well as the number of students who were neutral which decreased in 47 marks. It is evident that students perceived they increased their level of autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Findings that repeated consistently across the sources of data collected
• Students didn’t know much about the systems of the human body even though they had studied this topic in previous years.
• Students improved their knowledge about the systems of the human body after the implementation of the inquiry-based lesson unit..
• Student-centered classes had a positive impact in students’ results.
• Students asked a lot of questions during the inquiry-based learning unit and tried to solve the questions on their own.
• Students did not feel very autonomous before implementing the unit.
• Students felt more autonomous after they developed the inquiry-based unit.
• Students were hesitant about their preferred learning styles before the intervention.
• Students identified their preferred learning styles better once they finished the inquiry-based learning unit.
• Students’ were motivated during the implementation of the intervention.
Identification of relationships and connections between sources of data
• Both the pre-tests and the pre-surveys showed that students were negatively affected by following a teacher-centered methodology in the science classes.
• The post-tests, the post-surveys, the students’ portfolios and the field notes showed that students had better results and were more motivated following a student-centered methodology.
• Field notes and students’ portfolios showed that students asked lots of questions during the inquiry-based learning sessions.
• Both pre-tests and post-tests as well as students’ portfolios and field notes showed that students improved in terms of learning autonomy.
• Students’ portfolios and field notes showed that students searched for information on their own to solve questions they posed.
• The surveys and the field notes showed that students were more aware of their preferred learning styles.
Tables or graphs to describe and display the data
Tables and graphs were created using simple descriptive techniques to note frequency counts or percentages in order to describe and display the data that was collected (Appendix 5). The following are some tables and graphs that were used to show comparisons that were made once the data had been categorized.
Comparison of pre-test results and post-test results.
Figure 11. Pre-test VS Post-test Results.
Once the results of the pre-test and the post-test were compared, it was found that students showed improvement in terms of knowledge about the topic after studying the unit following an inquiry-based learning approach which encourages a student-centered methodology rather than a teacher-centered one. The results showed a significant increase in the students’ knowledge about the topic (73.0 %) compared with the one they had before applying the unit (38.4 %)
Comparison between results on how students perceived the science class as a teacher-centered class before and after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Figure 12. The Teacher Class is Teacher-centered.
The results of the first five questions of the pre-survey and the post-survey were compared and the outcome was that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that the class revolved around the teacher decreased in 10 marks. The number of students who disagreed increased in 9 marks.
It is evident that students noticed a change towards a more student-centered environment which fosters more autonomy after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Comparison of results on how students perceived themselves in terms of inquiry before and after the intervention.
Table 6
Pre-survey on Students’ Opinion if They Were Encouraged to Ask Questions.
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 10 4 8
7 19 3 0
8 13 7 2
42 14 10
Table 7
Post-survey on Students´ Opinion if They Were Encouraged to Ask Questions.
Question N° Agree Neutral Disagree
6 17 2 3
7 22 0 0
8 18 3 1
57 5 4
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they asked more questions increased in 15 marks. The number of students who disagreed decreased in 6 marks.
It is evident that students noticed a change towards a class environment which fostered more inquiry.
Comparison of results on how students perceived themselves in terms of learning autonomy before and after the intervention.
Figure 13. Degree of Autonomy Awareness Students Perceive.
The results showed that after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who thought that they were aware of different aspects related to their learner autonomy increased in 101 marks. The number of students who disagreed with the statements decreased in 54 marks as well as the number of students who were neutral which decreased in 47 marks.
It is evident that students perceived they increased their level of autonomy awareness after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
Comparison of results on how students perceived their preferred learning styles before and after the inquiry-based learning unit.
Figure 14. Pre-survey VS Post-survey Preferred Learning Styles
After the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit, the number of students who agreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 1 mark. The number of students who were neutral decreased in 9 marks and the number of students who disagreed with some preferred learning styles increased in 8 marks. The most preferred learning styles were auditory, visual, and reading and writing.
The number of students who identified auditory, visual, and reading and writing as their most preferred learning styles increased in 7 marks, and the number of students who were neutral decreased in 9 marks. It is evident that students were able to identify their preferred learning styles more accurately after the implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit.
In order to move beyond describing, categorizing, coding and comparing to make sense of the data I had collected, I got to a point in the data analysis process that demanded a certain amount of creative thinking since it was time to articulate underlying concepts and developing theories about why particular patterns of behaviors, interactions or attitudes had emerged.
I came back to the data I had collected several times and I posed questions about it, rethought the connections among the data and developed explanations of the bigger picture underpinning my action research project. Then I discussed the data patterns and themes with some of the school’s science teachers trying to find new discoveries or interpretations.
In this action research study, where I implemented an inquiry-based learning unit about the systems of the human body in order to increase the level of autonomy awareness in a group of twenty-two fourth grade students, my data collection and analysis revealed that:
1. The implementation of an inquiry-based learning approach to teach a unit about the systems of the human body led students to learn the basic concepts related to this topic successfully.
2. The inquiry-based learning unit promoted a student-centered classroom environment that favored the increase of autonomy awareness in most of the students.
3. The implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit encouraged students to inquire more than they used to about the subject matter of study leading to an increase of their autonomy awareness.
4. Students’ autonomy awareness increased due to the inquiry-based learning activities that encouraged students to search for information and discover knowledge on their own in and out of the classroom.
5. The implementation of the inquiry-based learning unit required students to look for information by observing, listening, reading, moving and touching, and this helped students identify their preferred learning styles better.
6. Despite attempts to make some students research more deeply about the systems of the human body at home, they did not do it as expected and this was reflected especially in their portfolios.
7. Despite attempts to improve students writing to solve open-ended questions, their different levels of language skill and proficiency made it difficult to show improvement in this aspect.
8. The students cooperated in joint inquiry-based activities and interacted generally and the classroom atmosphere was relaxed and motivating.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario