Developing Students Process Skills in Todays Science Classroom

by
R. Russell Wilke, Angelo State University
William J. Straits, California State University Long Beach
ABSTRACT
Inquiry learning is often presented in a fashion that mirrors
the scientic method, proceeding from identication of a
problem to reporting of ndings. In secondary settings, these
scientic-method inquiry exercises often serve as the primary
source of science process skill development and are typically
conned to the laboratory setting. However, specic science
process skills can be targeted and developed by focusing on a
single component of scientic inquiry. This provides teachers
with the advantage of teaching a skill without employing an
entire scientic-method inquiry exercise. This lessens the time
required to develop and implement inquiry learning strategies
and allows a greater variety of individual skills to be taught
even in classroom settings. The independent teaching of these
skills can be accomplished through the modication of familiar
active-learning strategies, which require limited preparation
and class time. As such, inquiry-based instruction is ideal
for teachers appreciative of the outcomes, yet weary of the
demands of inquiry learning.
INTRODUCTION
Constructivism has grown to be a critical dimension of
pedagogy and curriculum development in science education
(Yager, 1991). This philosophy holds that learning occurs
when the learner experiences new information, processes, or
situations; reects on these; and integrates them with existing
knowledge. Therefore, a constructivist approach to teaching
must build on students prior knowledge, provide authentic
contexts for understanding, encourage mentally active students,
and allow opportunities for social discourse, interaction, and
negotiation.
Aligned with constructivist philosophy, inquiry learning
is the construction of a new understanding based on student
exploration of an authentic problem using the processes and
tools of the discipline. It is purported to produce meaningful
learning, improves attitudes toward learning and science,
increases knowledge acquisition and retention, promotes
self-efcacy and motivation, fosters community among
students, and promotes the view that science is a process
and not merely a set of facts to memorize (Burrowes, 2003;
Ebert-May, Brewer, & Allred, 1997; Svinicki, 1998; Wilke,
2003). Inquiry learning is also reported to increase attention
to the task(s), produce early and frequent feedback, and create
an episodic memory from which to reconstruct knowledge
(Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Svinicki, 1998). However, despite
the promise of inquiry learning, many teachers are resistant to
such changes in pedagogy (Abraham, Cracolice, 1995; Boyer
1998; National Science Foundation, 1996; Seymour, 2002)
and remain so even though they are inherent to the teaching
of the TAKS (Straits & Wilke, 2003, 2002). Many teachers are
daunted by perceived constraints to conducting inquiry in the

classroom setting, voicing concerns about covering the content,

classroom management practices, assessment issues, planning
time, and availability of resources. These concerns suggest that
teachers view inquiry as a means for replacing and augmenting
other forms of instruction. Subsequently, traditional didactic
instruction is the most common and widely accepted teaching
method in the the sciences (Chatman, 1997; National Research
Council, 1996) and as Seymour (1997, p. 87) laments, The
greatest single challenge to SMET [Science, Mathematics,
Engineering and Technology] pedagogical reform efforts
remains [italics added] the problem of whether and how
classes can be infused with more active and interactive learning
methods. To be more appropriate and widely applicable,
teachers need simple instructional designs that include aspects
of inquiry.
SCIENCE PROCESS SKILL INSTRUCTION
Often inquiry learning is presented in a fashion that
mirrors the scientic method, proceeding from identication
of a problem to reporting of ndings. In secondary settings,
these scientic-method inquiry exercises typically serve as the
primary source of science process skill development. (Science
process skills are the abilities required for conducting scientic
inquiry. Just as scientic inquiry takes on many different forms,
science process skills also cover a broad range of talents; see
Table 1 for a fairly comprehensive list.) There is, however, a
major shortcoming of this approach. Inquiry is used to teach
science process skills, yet science process skills are the tools
by which inquiry is conducted. How can students be expected
to be successful learning by inquiry, if they are not provisioned
with the required skills? Teachers should not make the mistake
of assuming that all students possess the science process skills
necessary to conduct a full-scale inquiry investigation. We have
seen in our classes that many students lack skills to conduct
scientic inquiry even at the most simplistic level. When inquiry
learning is presented as a complete sequence from problem
to conclusions, students (regardless of the number of process
skills mastered) will only be as strong as their weakest link. For
example, a student may do a wonderful job of analyzing data,
but if his/her experimental design is awed the data generated
will be as well, and conclusions based on incorrect data will be
inaccurate. Individual science process skills must be developed
rst before one can proceed to more extensive investigations.
Specic science process skills can be individually targeted
and developed by focusing on a single component of scientic
inquiry. This provides teachers with the advantage of teaching
skills without employing an entire scientic-method inquiry
exercise. Developing short discrete events suitable for even
large classes allows a greater variety of individual skills to be
taught, ensuring that more students obtain mastery of them.
Additionally, because the science process skill development

The Texas Science Teacher

April 2006

11

than involved inquiry

designs. Additionally,
Inferring
Understanding spatial relationships
Attending to details
a key strength of
Using insight
Being familiar with equipment
Experimenting
teaching
process
skills
independently
Communicating
Building/using/critiquing physical models
Inductive reasoning
is that they can be
Using intuition
Building/using/critiquing math. models
Interpreting evidence
tightly
interwoven
Investigating
Constructing/Reading graphs
Communicating clearly
with
the
subject
matter.
When
teachers
Measuring
Constructing/Reading tables
Recognizing patterns
use these activities,
Creating analogies
Operationally dening variables
Deductive reasoning
students can also be
Predicting
Developing causal explanations
Writing scientically
making observations,
f o r m u l a t i n g
Problem solving
Asking meaningful questions
Controlling variables
hypotheses, critiquing
Speculating
Describing relationships between variables
Processing data
experimental designs,
Using technology
Drawing, sketching, and/or illustrating
Designing investigations
analyzing data, making
predictions, drawing
Sequencing
Selecting appropriate equipment
Drawing conclusions
conclusions,
etc.
Estimating
Developing computer/technological literacy
Thinking rationally
relevant to the science
Summarizing
Integrating science w/ other disciplines
Collaborating with others concept(s)
being
taught.
In
other
words
Keeping records
Understanding scale and relative size
Following instructions
process skills can be a
Logical reasoning
Replicating consistently/truly
Collecting relevant data
means for covering the
Using resources
Identifying (sources of) bias
Observing accurately
content.
As
most
Identifying patterns
Developing mathematical literacy
Maintaining objectivity
inquiry lessons are
Contrasting
Identifying (sources of) error
Making ethical decisions
involved, large-scale
Eliminating
Examining research critically
Describing with detail
assignments,
they
typically result in
Hypothesizing
Using creativity/imagination
Naming and classifying
a lengthy research
Using mental skills (e.g., analogy, synthesis, evaluation, and extrapolation)
report that serves as
the primary point of
Table 1. A partial list of science process skills, expanded
assessment.
This
strategy,
in
addition
to requiring hours for
from Straits & Wilke, 2003. This list serves as a subset of the
grading
the
reports,
provides
the
greatest
feedback after the
many and various skills useful, and often required, in doing
fact.
Assessment
should
be
a
continuous
cycle of feedback
science.
between student and teacher, allowing each to monitor and
adjust a students learning (Straits & Wilke 2002). This type
strategies are more narrowly dened than most inquiry learning of focused, immediate feedback is possible with the instruction
strategies, they can be designed with specic student interests of specic, narrowly dened process skills. Additionally, as
in mind. For example, experimental design process skills can teaching individual skills requires relatively little time and
be developed independent of other components of the scientic effort, process skill lessons can serve as a source of feedback
method. If a student is interested in orangutan behavior, he/ without necessarily being graded. Teaching single process skills,
she can design the study without actually implementing it. separate from an extensive, all-inclusive scientic method
Thus, process skill learning becomes a more personalized and based project, allows students to learn science content while
meaningful experience. With routine use of these strategies, developing their abilities to conduct scientic investigations in
students have multiple opportunities to practice and rene their an effective and efcient manner.
skills which provides them with a solid foundation to conduct
more advanced inquiry techniques or investigations in the SIMPLE CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
future on their own.
The following activities have been developed to provide
Additional benets of teaching specic process skills initial ideas for educators interested in incorporating process
independently include overcoming time restrictions and skill instruction into their teaching practice. We are advocates
assessment issues that often deter teachers from implementing for inquiry learning and are offering these more focused
intensive inquiry techniques. Due to the focused nature of teaching activities not as a replacement for true inquiry, but as a
skills independently, both preparation and implementation complement to it. Also, for the teacher unfamiliar with inquiry
time are much less demanding than with most inquiry learning, these focused activities may be a less intimidating
learning. In addition to being less time consuming, teaching means for beginning to incorporate inquiry into his/her teaching
individual process skills requires less extensive resources practice. Originally intended to promote active learning in
Analyzing

12

Identifying variables and/or biases

The Texas Science Teacher

Applying information

April 2006

the classroom, the activities have been modied to reect the

various components of scientic inquiry (i.e., science process
skills). These strategies, used to introduce spark interest in and
advance knowledge of several different topics, have many of
the same benets because they are based on the same theoretical
principles of other inquiry techniques. In short they have the
potential for providing a solid background of science process
skills via meaningful learning experiences. This gives students
a sense of ownership and relevance that makes knowledge
more valuable and promotes condence in their abilities to
do science. By developing science process skills continuously
over time, students can obtain the background knowledge,
condence, and direction needed to conduct inquiry at an
advanced level.

Although the activities vary in duration, complexity, and

the degree of interaction required between teacher and student,
most are simple to perform, require little class time, and can be
incorporated readily into a traditional lecture setting regardless
of class size. Furthermore, the activities can easily be modied
to suit individual teachers goals, objectives, and teaching style
without restricting content coverage. In general, most of the
activities are based on an approach in which the teacher provides
a relevant prompt such as a questions, set of observations, data,
etc., while the students use science process skills to generate
an appropriate response (Table 2). Modifying this relatively
simple protocol allows the teacher to create multiple and varied
opportunities for students to develop their science process
skills. The exibility of these activities allow their use in a wide

Teacher Provides

Students Generate

problem, modern or historical

solutions, alternative answers, analogies

situation, scenario

parallels to topics previously studied or their own prior knowledge

interesting photos or scenario

a list of observations and/or questions

set(s) of observations

questions, hypotheses, inferences

observations or experimental
designs of various quality

a critique which identies strengths and/or aws

ethical consideration/ sciencerelated controversy

opinions, solutions, questions, contrasting points of view

hypothetical or actual model

a critical analysis of the model

lab protocol

safety procedures

actual journal articles

sections omitted

with

omitted sections (i.e., hypotheses, materials, experimental design, data, conclusions, etc.)

questions

Hypotheses

hypotheses

predictions, experimental design, variables (independent, dependent, and control)

experimental design

predictions, variables, aws/biases, and/or limitations

experimental data / results

an analysis of the data and/or conclusions, a summary of the results and/or a graphical
representation (i.e., charts, graphs, tables)

conclusions

logical topics/hypotheses for further study

a group of objects

a dichotomous key, a classication scheme/matrix

an article from a scientic

journal

an abstract (then compare to actual abstract), a summary of strengths and weaknesses, an

evaluation of its scientic accuracy and validity, a critical review of the literature cited.

science articles from newspapers

or popular magazine articles

an evaluation of their scientic accuracy and validity, a review of the literature cited

experimental design

hypotheses and/or questions that could be addressed by experiment

results

hypotheses and/or experimental design that could yield results

predictions

hypotheses that might stem from predictions

journal articles with sections of

experimental design omitted

appropriate experimental design

Table 2. Science process skill development guide. Instructional

protocol for designing process skill activities in which the
teacher provides a relevant prompt and students generate an
appropriate response (Wilke & Straits, 2006).

range of settings and development of students science process

skills concurrent with acquiring content knowledge.
Engagement activities. Engagement activities are
traditionally used as advanced organizers for the lessons

The Texas Science Teacher

April 2006

13

topic. They serve to access student prior knowledge, identify

misconceptions, and get students thinking about the subject
matter to be covered. Typical engagement activities include,
but are not limited to: playing a song relevant to the topic of
the day, reciting a humorous anecdote, stating a controversy
within the eld, displaying relevant cartoons, showing a
demonstration, reading student or teacher generated questions,
and reading relevant news or journal articles.
If modied to reect authentic science situations and
incorporate greater student involvement, engagement activities
can develop science process skills. After the traditional
engagement activity, students produce a question or a problem
(actual or hypothetical) based on the information given,
propose answers to controversial questions or solutions to
problems in the eld, interpret and apply information in another
setting, propose an analogous situation, apply conceptual
information, list observations, propose causal explanations,
make predictions, design an experiment, or draw conclusions
based on the engagement activity. The specic process skills
used depends on the initial prompt provided. For example,
after posing a problem students identify information relevant
to the problem, similar or analogous situations, or information
required to solve the problem. Student responses can be given
orally or in writing and can be generated individually or within
collaborative groups. The teacher should then tie in student
responses generated by the engagement activity to the days
topic via lecture, class discussion, or other methods. One of our
favorites for biology uses a Gary Larson cartoon depicting a
vacationing family of slugs that takes a wrong turn and ends up
at the Great Salt Lake (Larson, 2003). We display this cartoon
and ask students to make a prediction of what will happen to
the slugs and provide a causal explanation for why. (These
are two science process skills that are objectives for a lesson
on cell membrane transport mechanisms). Inevitably we get
a mixture of they will swell and pop, they will shrivel/
shrink, and nothing will happen. Causal explanations are
widely variable, but the activity generates student interest and
provides a relevant context for a discussion on solutes, solvents,
and passive transport. Engagement activities can also be used
at the end of class in anticipation of the next class meeting.
Minute papers. Popularized by Angelo and Cross (1993),
this strategy has the lecture punctuated with short writing
assignments that typically take only a minute to do. Minute
papers serve to review material, evaluate comprehension, or
uncover misconceptions. Often they are used in succession to
reveal student gains in content knowledge. They may even set
the stage for upcoming lectures or class discussions. Typical
minute papers, which emphasize content, ask students to
summarize the main points of a days lecture, describe the most
confusing topic of the lecture, or write three exam questions
based on the days lecture material. To begin the teacher poses
a question to the class. These teacher questions encourage
students to reect and think about what they have learned. The
students, working independently, in pairs, or in groups, record
their responses on a piece of paper or note card. The teacher
then collects the papers for review after the class is over. A
quick perusal can verify students understanding, as well as
14

reveal misconceptions that need to be addressed in the next

class period.
We use minute papers to make quick assessments of
students understandings, uncover misconceptions, and develop
students science process skills. For example, we ask students
a series of questions and varying points during a lecture.
Students record their answers on note cards that we collect
and review to make a quick assessment of their understandings
to address the next day. For science process skills those
questions involve students in reading data tables, interpreting
graphs, and/or making predictions such as what would happen
if calcium channels were blocked in the presynaptic neuron
or if a toxin inactivated acetylcholinesterase at a synpase.
We nd (anecdotally) that these types or questions not only
assess student comprehension of the concept, but also help
them to analyze problems more carefully in the future and to
delay making a decision until they have thought through the
process. In the case of synaptic transmission offered above,
we nd that in subsequent discussions of human ingestion of
alcohol or exposure to a nerve gas such as Sarin or Soman that
our students are accurately able to predict the consequences.
Minute papers are of great value because they give students
a chance to reect on what they are learning while they are
learning and give those who may be reluctant to ask questions
in class a chance to get feedback from the teacher. Additionally,
when used in succession they provide insight to the progress
in process skill development (e.g., renement of hypotheses
or research questions, greater detail in observations, more
sophisticated classication schemes, etc).
Think-pair-share activities. There are many derivations
of think-pair-share activities, but a common procedure has
students work independently, thinking about a problem or a
question the teacher has presented and recording a solution.
Then students working in pairs discuss the problem and
improve their solutions based on the input of their partner. The
teacher harvests responses from the class and then reviews the
responses with the class as a whole. This procedure allows
students to share in the responsibility of an answer, reducing
fear and intimidation students may have (in a large class).
We use think-pair-share to conduct an exercise for an
anatomy AP course. Students are given a worksheet that has
three unlabeled line drawings of an androgynous human gure.
In the rst drawing students are told to label many of the more
familiar anatomical structures (e.g., heart, liver, tibia) as well
as some of the more obscure body features (e.g uvula, philtrum,
tragus, trapezium, sartorius). Next the students are told to pair
up with a neighbor and compare their drawings. Student use
the second drawing to make revisions based on the shared
knowledge. We lead our students in labeling the third drawing,
identifying the correct locations of the parts.
Think-pair-share activities also lend themselves well
to the development of science process skills. Disciplinespecic, higher cognitive-level questions are especially useful
in this activity. Those that require the application of previous
knowledge, the formation of appropriate hypotheses, the
designing of procedures that would test a hypothesis, or the
analysis of actual data can lead to greater student involvement

The Texas Science Teacher

April 2006

Gareld the cartoon cat is famous (at least in physiological circles) for his poster where he holds a book on
his head and exclaims, Im learning by osmosis. (a) Is Gareld correct in his assumption? (b) Explain why
or why not using physiological mechanisms. (c) Explain which mechanism he is really hoping to use.
Youve sprained your ankle trying to show off to a person while playing soccer and it swells to near grapefruit
size. Your friendly neighborhood athletic trainer says to your surprise that you should soak your ankle in
warm water containing Epsom salts (MgSO4). You were expecting, of course, the old proverbial, put a little
ice on it. (a) What effect would this concoction of warm water and Epsom salts have on your swollen ankle?
(b) Explain why this would happen based on your knowledge of physiology and transport mechanisms.
Hint: MgSO4 is relatively impermeable to your cutaneous membrane and the cells have a relatively low
concentration of it.

display one of
the questions
in Table 3 and
ask student to
think, pair, and
share.

SCIENCE
PROCESS
S K I L L S
LECTURE
Finally
Every once in a while if you shop the produce section at HEB or Albertsons grocery stores, youll get blasted
the activities
by a ne mist of water sprayed over the vegetables. (a) Explain what the produce managers are doing by
described
dousing the veggies and (b) Why this occurs based on physiological principles. (c) If you worked at Super
above can be
Wal-Mart and wished to sabotage this system to eliminate the competition, how would you accomplish this
combined with
goal based on what you know about tonicity of solutions.
lecturing and
incorporated
Table 3. Passive and active transport questions for think-pair- into an instructional model (Table 3) useful in the science
share activities promoting students application and problem classroom (Wilke & Straits, 2005). This instructional model,
solving skills.
adapted from Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998), is designed
for a 50-75 minute class period. It begins with an initial
engagement activity designed to briey introduce students to
and understanding of the science content and processes being content and/or process skills. Following the introduction, the
taught. To use the think-pair-share strategy for science process teacher lectures on content relevant to the initial engagement
skill development, teacher can write a question on the board, activity. After the lecture segment, students participate in an
show an unusual scene in nature, provide an outside journal activity designed to complement the lecture material. This
article or any of the engagement activities mentioned above. gives students the opportunity to develop a science process
Students can then learn from and practice with each other, skill based on the lecture content material the teacher has just
improving their science process skills and coming to understand presented, while developing or reinforcing content knowledge.
science as a collaborative venture. Although it requires more The teacher then delivers the second segment of lecture that
class-time than the techniques described earlier, it is still a is followed by another process skill activity that focuses on
relatively time-efcient method for developing science process the second lecture segment. This can be a continuation of
the rst activity or a totally new one emphasizing a different
skills.
For science process skill instruction, we will often present process skill. The nal segment of this model allows the
an abstract (or an excerpt from an abstract) from the literature on teacher to provide students with a summary of the important
a science concept and instruct students to apply what they have points or, better yet, initiate activities where students are asked
learned about this topic to translate the abstract. Translations to reect on and think about the content and process skills
should clarify science-specic vocabulary, include relevant they have just experienced. Summary activities may include
examples from class, and can be written in outline form. the more traditional uses of the minute papers or think-pairStudents share their interpretations with a class and revise their share activities mentioned above or even a short quiz. Each
translations based on their discussion. In addition to increasing segment can vary in the amount of time it takes depending on
students familiarity with (or in many cases introducing the teachers needs. The inquiry activities may range from 5-10
students to) scientic writing and thereby improving their minutes in length, while the lecture segments can vary from 15ability to write scientically, this activity can serve as an 20 minutes depending on the time available and the teachers
excellent in-class review of content embedded within practical objectives. Incorporating the traditional applications of these
application. (In our opinion, The Texas Journal of Science, activities allows quick assessment of whether students have
Scientic American, and Science News are excellent sources reached the instructional objective(s) or if further instruction
of abstracts and articles that are general enough for many high is necessary. The model is easy to implement, has the benet
school science subjects and readable enough for most students of structuring class-time, and integrates science content with
science process skills.
to comprehend).
Returning to the Gary Larson slug cartoon (Larson, 2003),
Nowadays, many students do not nd opportunities for
the sharing of knowledge with peers in the classroom. To we often make this short activity into an entire science process
facilitate communication, we use a think-pair-share activity that skills lecture entitled A Slug Family Vacation Disaster. We
provides students with complex questions that require higher- follow the engagement and activity described above with a short
order thinking and the application of content knowledge. For lecture segment on the basics of movement across membranes
example, after a lesson on passive and active transport, we will including solutes, solvents, and concentration gradients. In
The Texas Science Teacher

April 2006

15

a second inquiry activity, a minute paper, students are told to

revise their original prediction and causal explanation based on
the new information. In a second lecture segment we engage
in a brief discussion of passive transport including diffusion
and osmosis. Then students are prompted to further revise their
explanations using this additional information. We then collect
the students work, to later assess their understanding of the
concepts. In conclusion we describe a related scenario (e.g.,
When a different family, the mutant slug family came to Great
Salt Lake, they enjoyed their vacation, swimming occasionally
in the lake and they are coming back next year.) and assign a
question or two for the students to complete before the next
class meeting (e.g., What kind of mutation would make it
possible for the mutant slugs to swim safely in Great Salt Lake?
What would be necessary for this to occur?). This then serves
as the engagement activity during the next class meeting and
makes osmosis, diffusion, and tonicity much more interesting.
CONCLUSION
Teaching specic process skills, independently, overcomes
the difculties that often deter teachers from implementing
intensive inquiry-based techniques. Due to the focused nature
of the activities presented here, preparation and implementation
times are much less consuming than with true inquiry learning
and may require fewer resources. Teachers have the advantage
of focusing on one or a few science process skills at a time,
therefore an entire inquiry lesson does not have to be employed
each time a specic science process skill is to be taught.
There are many potential benets for teaching process skills
independently. However, the greatest benet is that routine
teaching of these skills increases the likelihood that students will
learn the skills. Students with stronger foundations in science
process skills will be able to use them in other, more intensive
scientic inquiries, and are more likely to be successful in those
inquiries. It is for this reason that teachers should emphasize
the teaching and reinforcing of science process skills.
LITERATURE CITED
Abraham, M. R. & Cracolice, M. S. (1994). Doing research
on college science instruction. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 23(1), 150-153.
Angelo, T. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment
Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning:
Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 1. The George Washington
University, School of Education and Human Development,
Washington DC.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the
Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate
education: A Blueprint for Americas Research Universities.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching.
Burrowes, P. (2003). A Student-centered approach to teaching
general biology that really works: Lords constructivist
model put to a test. American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 49116

502.
Chatman, S. (1997). Lower-division class size at U.S.
postsecondary institutions. Research in H i g h e r
Education, 38(5), 615-630.
Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in
large lectures--teaching for active learning. Bioscience,
47(9), 601-607.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active
learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Co.
Larson, G. (2003). The Complete Far Side. Kansas City, MO:
Andrews McNeel, Publishing.
National Research Council. (1996). From Analysis to Action,
undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology, report of a convocation.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National
Science Foundation, Advisory Committee for the National
Science Foundation
Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (1996).
Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate
education in science mathematics, engineering, and
technology. Washington, DC.
Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in
U.S. undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology. Science Education, 85 (6),
79-105.
Straits, W. J. & Wilke, R. R. (2003). Preparing for the
science TAKS: Inquiry-based activities for fostering an
understanding of the nature of science. The Texas Science
Teacher, 32(2), 32-34.
Straits, W. J. & Wilke, R. R. (2002). Practical considerations
for assessing inquiry-based instruction. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 31(7), 432-435.
Svinicki, M. D. (1998). A theoretical foundation for discovery
learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 20(1), 4-7.
Wilke, R. R. (2003). The effects of active learning on college
students, achievement, motivation, and self-efcacy in a
human physiology course for non-majors. Advances in
Physiology Education, 27, 207-223s.
Wilke, R. R. & Straits, W. J. (2005). Practical advice for
teaching inquiry-based science process skills in the
biological sciences. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9),
534-540.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: towards
real reform in science education.

The Texas Science Teacher

April 2006