Rural High School Chemistry Teachers’ Views and Implementation of Inquiry-Based Laboratory Instruction as Set Forth in the Georgia Standards of Excellence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2025.v15n1p123-157Keywords:
Inquiry, Inquiry-Based Instruction, Inquiry-Based Learning, Rural Education, Chemical Education, Place-Based Education, Next Generation Science Standards, NGSS, Professional Development, Constructivism, Social Cognitive Theory, Planning and Carrying Out Investigations, Equity, Standards, Georgia Standards of Excellence, GSEAbstract
Inquiry-based instruction within science has been a growing field for decades. The foundation of inquiry is constructivism; that students must do science in order to understand it. Instruction using inquiry is something that has been written into the Next Generation Science Standards along with many state standards, like the Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE). Teaching inquiry within a rural public high school chemistry setting has its own set of challenges unique to the rural context. Research is needed to give those educators a voice regarding teaching inquiry. This study utilized a mixed-methods design of survey and interviews to allow these rural public high school chemistry teachers a platform to weigh in on the feasibility of teaching standards through inquiry, planning, and professional development required to teach an inquiry-based unit including laboratory activities. Almost two-thirds of Georgia’s rural public high schools had at least one participant who completed the survey. Participants from the survey were then chosen to complete an interview to further discuss their experiences. The survey data showed that the majority of participants used inquiry in their classrooms in some form but desired more time and resources to implement inquiry-based instruction. Methods used to integrate inquiry in the classroom and lab varied, as expected. One finding showed that many interview participants seemed to perceive students planning and carrying out investigations as reserved for wet labs. Interview data also emphasized how much time and personal funds teachers spend on their classrooms for labs and professional development. A desire for chemistry-specific professional development resonated among survey and interview participants. The findings brought forth in this dissertation can be used to inform policies regarding professional development and continued support for rural public high school teachers. Georgia Department of Education can also use the data to help meet the expressed needs of teachers in the state. Additionally, other states can use the data presented here to begin discussions about their own rural teachers and how they can best be supported to teach chemistry using inquiry-based instruction.
References
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81(2), 217–238.
Ansalone, G. (2004). Achieving equity and excellence in education: implications for educational policy. Review of Business, 25(2), 37–42.
Arámbula-Greenfield, T. (1999). Gender, ethnicity, and science [Paper presentation]. Annual Spring Conference of MSaTERs: Mathematics, Science and Technology Educators & Researchers of The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Arnett, T. (2018). Motivating teachers to innovate: Leaders must fully understand everyday realities in the classroom. District Administration, (12), 94.
Artino, A. R., Jr, La Rochelle, J. S., Dezee, K. J., & Gehlbach, H. (2014). Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87. Medical Teacher, 36(6), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science & Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Barry, C. A. (1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas / ti and Nudist compared. Sociological Research, 3(3), 1–18. www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/4
Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: the need for every state to take action on rural education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(2), 63–140.
Bell, P., Davis, E., & Linn, M. (1995). The knowledge integration environment. In J. L. Schnase and E. L. Cunnius (eds) Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL 1995: Bloomington, IN). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 14-21. https://doi.org/10.3115/222020.222043
Brenner, D. (2016). Rural educator policy brief: Rural education and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Rural Educator, 37(2), 23.
Brown, D. L., & Schafft, K. A. (2011). Rural people & communities in the 21st century: Resilience & transformation. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Burton, M., Brown, K, & Johnson, A. (2013). Storylines about rural teachers in the United States: A narrative analysis of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 28(12), 1-18. http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/28-12.pdf
Byun, S. Y., Irvin, M. J., & Meece, J. L. (2015). Rural–Nonrural Differences in College Attendance Patterns. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022384
Cady, J., & Rearden, K. (2009). Delivering online professional development in mathematics to rural educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 281-298.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance (NCES 2000-469). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Capps, D.K., Crawford, B.A. & Constas, M.A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291 – 318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2
Carr, P. J. & Kefalas, M. J. (2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America. Beacon Press
Chambers, C. R. & Crumb, L. (2020). African American Rural Education: College Transitions and Postsecondary Experiences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2051-2317202107
Chapin, J. R. (2006). The achievement gap in social studies and science starts early: evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Social Studies, 97(6), 231–238.
Confrey, J. (1995). The relationship between radical constructivism and social constructivism. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 185-226). Lawrence Erlbam.
Cooper, I. D., & Johnson, T. P. (2016). How to use survey results. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(2), 174–177. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.016
Corbett, M., & Gereluk, D. (2020). Rural Teacher Education: Connecting Land and People. Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research (2nd ed.). Merrill/Pearson Education.
Crumb, L., Chambers, C., Azano, A., Hands, A., Cuthrell, K., & Avent, M. (2023). Rural cultural wealth: Dismantling deficit ideologies of rurality. Journal for Multicultural Education, 17(2), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-06-2022-0076
Cullen, D. M. (2015). Modeling instruction: A learning progression that makes high school chemistry more coherent to students. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 1269-1272. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00544
Dahill-Brown, S. E. & Jochim, A. E. (2018). The power of place in rural schooling. School Administrator. 75(9), 30-35.
Davenport, J. L., Rafferty, A. N., & Yaron, D. J. (2018). Whether and how authentic contexts using a virtual chemistry lab support learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(8), 1250-1259. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00048
Davis, R. E. (2002). Modern Chemistry: Georgia edition. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Deck, K. A. (2001). K-12 Funding issues: Equity, adequacy, and economic competitiveness in Arkansas. Arkansas Business and Economic Review, 34(1), 1.
Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1178. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1178
Deters, K. M. (2006). What are we teaching in high school chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 1492-1498. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1492
Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2013). Enhancing the student experiment experience: Visible scientific inquiry through a virtual chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1571−1592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1
Driver, R. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. Routledge.
Dunac, P. S., & Demir, K. (2017). Negotiating White science in a racially and ethnically diverse United States. Educational Review, 69(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1150255
Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No Child Left Behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(4). http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-4.pdf
Eppley, K. (2015). Seven traps of the common core state standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 207– 216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.431
Eppley, K. (2017). Rural science education as social justice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9751-7
Executive Order No. 04.01.20.01, State of Georgia (2020). https://gov.georgia.gov/document/2020-executive-order/04012001/download
Flinders, D. J. (2005). The failings of NCLB. In Stern, B.S. (Ed.), Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue (pp. 1–9). Information Age Publishing.
Flora, C. B., Flora, J. L., & Gasteyer, S. P. (2016). Rural communities: legacy and change. Fifth edition. Westview Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Georgia Department of Education (2016). Science Georgia standards of excellence: Chemistry standards. https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Documents/Science-Chemistry-Georgia-Standards.pdf
Georgia Department of Education (2018). Georgia’s teacher keys effectiveness system. https://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness/Documents/TKES%20LKES%20Documents/TKESHandbook2018.2019final.pdf
Geverdt, D.E. (2015). Education demographic and geographic estimates program (EDGE): Locale boundaries user’s manual (NCES 2016-012). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Goodpaster, K.P.S., Adedokun, O.A., & Weaver, G.C. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of rural STEM Teaching: Implications for rural teacher retention. Rural Educator, 33(3), 9–22.
Governor’s Office of Student Achievement [GOSA]. (2020, February). 2019 Georgia K-12 teacher and leader workforce status report executive summary. https://gosa.georgia.gov/document/document/2019k-12teacherandleaderworkforceexecutivesummarypdf/download
Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation's report card: science 2005: assessment of student performance in grades 4, 8, and 12 (NCES 2006-466). U.S. Department of Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Handgraaf, M. J., Milch, K., Appelt, K., Schuett, P., Yoskowitz, N., & Webber, E. (2012). Web-conferencing as a viable method for group decision research. Judgement and Decision Making, 7(5), 659-668.
Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12211
Haslanger, S. (2000). Gender and race: (what) are they? (what) do we want them to be? Nous, 34, 31–55.
Hewson, P. W., Kahle, J. B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable science education in urban middle schools: do reform efforts make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1130–1144.
Howley, A., Rhodes, M., & Beall, J. (2009). Challenges facing rural schools: Implications for gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 515–536.
Howley, C. B. (2009). The meaning of rural difference for bright rednecks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 537–564.
Jann, B., & Hinz, T. (2016). Research question and design for survey research. In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. W. Smith, & Y. Fu (Eds) The SAGE handbook of survey methodology (pp. 105-121). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957893
Jimerson, L. (2005). Placism in NCLB—How rural children are left behind. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38(3), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680591002588
Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.
Lawrence, B. K. (2009). Rural gifted education: A comprehensive literature review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 461–494.
Leeuw, E. & Berzelak, N. (2016). Survey mode or survey modes? In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. W. Smith, & Y. Fu (Eds) The SAGE handbook of survey methodology (pp. 105-121). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957893
Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., & Taquino, M. C. (2012). The geography of exclusion: Race, segregation, and concentrated poverty. Social Problems, 59(3), 364–388. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2012.59.3.364
Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Erlbaum
Maehr, M. L., & Steinkamp, M. (1983). A synthesis of findings on sex differences in science education research (NSF/SED-83001). National Science Foundation.
Martin, S. (2010). General conference summary, “Building partnerships for quality education in rural America.” Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29(1), 10. https://doi-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1177/875687051002900104
McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., & Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices: moving your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 4, 21.
Means, D.R., Clayton, A.B., Conzelmann, J.G., Baynes, P., & Umbach, P.D. (2016). Bounded Aspirations: Rural, African American High School Students and College Access. The Review of Higher Education 39(4), 543-569. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0035.
Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge in chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 35–44.
Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17(1), 155-174. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0009
Moore, H. (2005). Testing whiteness: No child or no school left behind? Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 18, 173-192.
National Research Council [NRC]. 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press.
National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. National Science Foundation.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Appendix F of Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
NSTA. (2014). About the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx.
O'Sullivan, C. Y., Lauko, M. A., Grigg, W. S., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (2003). The nation's report card: Science 2000 (NCES 2003-453). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: a paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), pp. 66–70.
Pearson, P.D. (2013). Research foundations of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts. In S.B. Neuman & L.B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core Standards (pp. 237–262). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/0496.17
Peng, S. S., & Hill, S. T. (1995). Understanding racial-ethnic differences in secondary school science and mathematics achievement (NCES 95-710). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics: Research and Development Report.
Phillips, A. W. (2017). Proper applications for surveys as a study methodology. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health, 18(1), 8–11. https://doi-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.5811/westjem.2016.11.32000
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271225
Railean, E., Walker, G., Elçi Atilla, & Jackson, L. (2016). Handbook of research on applied learning theory and design in modern education. IGI Global.
Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409-424.
Rakow, S. J. (1985). Minority students in science: perspectives from the 1981–1982 national assessment in science. Urban Education, 20(1), 103–113.
Reese, J., & Miller, K. (2017). Crowdfunding for elementary science educators. Science and Children, 054(06), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc17_054_06_55
Roberts, P., & Green, B. (2013). Researching rural places: On social justice and rural education. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413503795
Rockoff, J. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Busting open the meritocracy myth: rethinking equity and student achievement in science education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(2, 3), 195–216.
Scantlebury, K. (1994). Emphasizing gender issues in the undergraduate preparation of science teachers: practicing what we preach. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 153–164.
Schaefer, A., Mattingly, M. J., & Johnson, K. M. (2016). Child poverty higher and more persistent in rural America [Policy brief]. Carsey School of Public Policy: University of New Hampshire. https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/child-poverty-higher-more-persistent-rural-america
Schafft, K. A. (2016). Rural Education As Rural Development: Understanding the Rural School–Community Well-Being Linkage in a 21st-Century Policy Context. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151734
Seelye, K. & Zeleny, J. (2008). On the defensive, Obama calls his words ill-chosen. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?pagewanted=al.
Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: cognitive development and curriculum demand. Heinemann Educational Books.
Sherburne, M. (2016). Supporting education by reimagining the philanthropic experience. The Journal for Quality and Participation, (4), 16.
Shotter, J. (1995). Exploring linguistic realities. Theory & Psychology, 5(1), 158–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354395051010
Showalter, D., Hartman, S. L., Johnson, J., & Klein, B. (2019). Why Rural Matters 2019-2019: The Time Is Now. Rural School and Community Trust.
Showalter, D., Hartman, S. L., Eppley, K., Johnson, J., & Klein, R. (2023). Why rural matters 2023: Centering equity and opportunity. National Rural Education Association.
Stone, J. E. (1996). Developmentalism: an obscure but pervasive restriction on educational improvement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 4.
Swanson, S. A., Brown, T. A., Crosby, R. D., & Keel, P. K. (2014). What are we missing? The costs versus benefits of skip rule designs. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(4), 474. https://doi-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1002/mpr.1396
Taber, K. S. (2010). Straw men and false dichotomies: overcoming philosophical confusion in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552-558.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2), 50-60.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.) Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 3–50). Sage.
Thiede, B. C., Lichter, D. T., & Slack, T. (2018). Working, but poor: The good life in rural America? Journal of Rural Studies, 59, 183–193. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.007
Thier, M., Longhurst, J. M., Grant, P. D., & Hocking, J. E. (2021). Research Deserts- A Systematic Mapping Review of U.S. Rural Education Definitions and Geographies. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 37(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26209/jrre3702
Tieken, M. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Tieken, M. C., & San Antonio, D. M. (2016). Rural Aspirations, Rural Futures: From “Problem” to Possibility. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151733
Towns, M. H. (2008). Mixed methods designs in chemical education research. In ACS symposium series: Vol. 976. nuts and bolts of chemical education research (pp. 135-148 SE – 9). https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2008-0976.ch009
United States National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE]. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. The Commission: [Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226006.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Common core of data: District search. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Third International Mathematics and Science Study - Repeat (TIMSS-R).
https://nces.ed.gov/timss/pdf/1999_8th_grade_Science_Teacher_Questionnaire.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Academic Improvement [OAI]. (2015). Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Program Description. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/mathsci/index.html
Vanderstraeten, R. (2002). Parsons, luhmann and the theorem of double contingency. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(1), 77-92.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in education, (pp.3-16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434.
Wachowski, L., & Wachowski, L. (1999). The Matrix. Warner Bros.
Wheatley, G.H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75, 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750103
Winberg, T. M., & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108−1133. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20217
Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The ChemCollective—Virtual labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328(5978), 584– 585. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182435
Zost, G. C. (2010). An examination of resiliency in rural special educators. The Rural Educator, 31(2), 10-14. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v31i2.938
Zucker, A. A., Shields, P. M., Adelman, N. E., Corcoran, T. B., & Goertz, M. E. (1998). A report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives program (NSF 98-147). National Science Foundation.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Robert Bice, Kimberly Cortes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Articles will be published using a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Sharealike license. (For more information on this license, please visit the Creative Commons license page.) Please also note that the authors are explicitly granting permission for Academic Library Services to store a copy of the article in The ScholarShip, ECU's Institutional Repository under the terms of the current ScholarShip license. As a North Carolina agency, ECU contributes copies of all publications to the North Carolina State Archives.
