Introduction Science education encompasses a significant part of a child’s formal and informal education. In order to solve everyday problems, children consciously or unconsciously engage in scientific thinking and analysis of situations. This scientific approach to solving everyday problems needs to be encouraged and developed in a formal educational setting where teachers continuously change and organize curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of their children (Poon, Tan & Tan, 2009). The best environment that fosters and develops structured scientific analytical thinking is the school, where the child spends the major section of his/her day when he/she is away from home. It is within the school environment that formal learning takes place. Acceptable attitudes and values which the child inculcates are transmitted by the teacher who is specifically trained to teach at given levels. The training of the teacher in the use of the most effective methods of teaching is therefore the first and foremost important goal preceding the child’s education, especially since it has been established that teachers go on to teach science in the same way that they have been taught (Marshall & Dorward, 2000). Upon investigation, in private as well as public schools, we have been privy to two familiar methods of teaching science in the elementary and kindergarten classrooms. The two common methods are the inquiry and the direct instruction methods of teaching. The inquiry method of teaching is practiced mainly by a lot of public school teachers in the kindergarten classes. The teachers follow the general principle of providing materials and setting the environment for the children to experiment, discover, ask questions and give answers and also receive positive feedback from the teacher. On the other hand the method of indirect teaching is practiced in many private schools even at the kindergarten level. We have observed that in teaching the science lesson, using this method, the teachers provide the materials, give instructions pertaining to any experiments to be conducted, guide the experiments, ask leading questions and also give out relevant facts for the topic to be discussed. The use of each of these methods for teaching – almost independent of the other – has intrigued us to the point where we have decided to conduct an investigation into the effect of teaching science to children at the kindergarten level, using a curriculum that merges both the inquiry and direct instruction methods.

Statement of the Problem Science education encompasses a significant part of a child’s formal and informal education. In order to solve everyday problems, children consciously or unconsciously engage in scientific thinking and analysis of situations. This scientific approach to solving everyday problems needs to be encouraged and developed in a formal educational setting where teachers continuously change and organize curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of their children (Poon, Tan & Tan 2009). The best environment that fosters and develops structured scientific analytical thinking is the school, where the child spends the major section of his/her day when he/she is away from home. It is within the school environment that formal learning takes place. Acceptable attitudes and values which the child inculcates are transmitted by the teacher who is specifically trained to teach at given levels. There exists research done by professional educators and theorists who posit statements and provide evidence in support of both the inquiry method and direct instruction method of teaching science. The inquiry method of teaching science in kindergarten is practiced mainly by most public school teachers. They follow the general principle of providing materials and setting the environment for the children to experiment, discover, ask questions and give answers and also receive positive feedback from the teacher. On the other hand the method of indirect teaching is practiced in many private schools even at the kindergarten level. We have observed that in teaching the science lesson, using this method, the teachers provide the materials, give instructions pertaining to any experiments to be conducted, guide the experiments, ask leading questions and also give out relevant facts for the topic to be discussed. The use of each of these methods for teaching – almost independent of the other – has intrigued us to the point where we have decided to conduct an investigation into the effect of teaching science to children at the kindergarten level, using a curriculum that merges both the inquiry and direct instruction methods. In this regard we have turned our focus on Private School X. Private school X, located in New York City urban area, has been implementing the direct method of teaching science for years. This method has not resulted in significant improvement in the children’s Stanford Examination test scores. It was noted that the children also become teacher dependent. We strongly feel that merging an inquiry-based curriculum with the direct instruction strategy should help to improve the student’s performance and foster an independent learning style.

Review of Literature
Advantages of Inquiry-based Teaching:

This review of literature aims to examine, outline and discuss the pros and cons of the use of each method in isolation and also the possible benefits which can be derived from a science curriculum formulated to instruct students through a combination of both the inquiry and direct methods of instruction. Many of the researchers see benefits of using inquiry-based method of teaching. Most of the researchers have also pointed out that teachers should first look at the organization of the classroom and make sure that the seating arrangement is going to help children transition easily from one activity to the other. Moreover, the curriculum and instructions should be changed to include more hands-on activities to promote inquiry-based teaching (Poon, Tan & Tan, 2009). Students learn best when they take an active role and practice what they have learned (Smart & Csapo, 2007). It’s very important that in order to facilitate inquiry-based learning, the teacher make simple changes and organize the classroom in a way so she could manage transition and gain attention as the children use hands-on investigative activities, use of science journals, use of group-based activities, and guided students to reflect on their learning process. Teachers should also invest some time in the organization of the classroom. It is also very important that teachers have the knowledge of how to provide and sustain enquiry-based learning environment. Al-Sabbagh, a researcher points out that it’s important that teachers get support from school administration in creating the learning environment suitable for inquiry-based teaching (Al-Sabbagh, 2009). Some researchers also suggest that before teaching, the pre-service teachers should be exposed to inquiry-based method at college level. It is suggested that the pre-service teachers who are taught using inquiry-based method are more likely to develop hands-on activities for their science classroom (Hohloch, Grove & Bretz, 2007). Teachers who are exposed to inquiry-based learning are more likely to link science experiments to everyday life. Theorists such as John Dewey believed that inquiry-based scientific approach could improve education. Dewey advocated that teachers should always let children use their natural activity and curiosity when learning about a new concept (Vandervoort, 1983; Dewey, 2008). Dewey also believed that the child should be given an opportunity where he/she can follow their interest. Some researchers believe that science should be introduced to a child as an integral part of life and not an isolated problem. They make this claim based on Dewey’s approach to the teaching process which requires taking into consideration the psychological needs of the child rather than introducing science as a logical coherent subject (Eshach, 1997; Henderson & David, 2007). The teacher can create the learning environment to motivate the child. The teacher can bring the real life experience to the class which can provide a rich learning environment. Students also get more involved in higher order thinking when they see teacher as the model (Wrenn & Wrenn, 2009). Piaget, another theorist believes that as the child grows and his brain experiences intellectual development and he/she starts to construct mental structures through his interaction with the environment which would weigh heavily upon the technique of discovery (Lawson, & Renner, 1975). An inquiry based curriculum would facilitate this type of discovery especially on such at that which was developed by University of California, Berkley. It involves three basic components: exploration, invention, and discovery. It is a learning cycle in which students move from one phase to the next as they learn and developmental structures through their interaction with the environment (Lawson, & Renner, 1975).

Disadvantages of Inquiry-based Teaching: There are some disadvantages associated with the use of the inquiry method of instruction used in isolation. It has been established that in an inquiry based classroom the teacher’s role is mainly that of a facilitator. Many of them experience interactional difficulty with their students. Teachers also face lots of difficulties in channeling and maintaining the interest of students as they engage themselves in inquiry activities and try to derive appropriate conclusions about nature (Bencze, 2009). It is an indication that many science teachers are unprepared for the social demands of this of type of strategy (Oliveria, 2009). They need to be specifically trained in methods that will enhance their abilities to use directives in a polite form and strategically share authority with their students while at the same time maintaining their authority in the classroom. This would call for careful planning. Careful planning and preparation is also required for adequate content information to be imparted to students, which makes it difficult for some science topic to be taught using the inquiry method (Robertson, 2007). A major part of inquiry method of instruction involves allowing the student to make scientific discoveries. However, science being a vast accumulation of discoveries must be transmitted through books, charts, tables etc. Therefore, a great deal of science content must be taught and education cannot possibly fulfill its obligation by simply arranging for rediscovery (Skinner, 1987). An important aspect of the inquiry learning environment is to provide the child with the opportunity of working alone and making choices regarding what he is interested learning about. In this case, the children work independent of the teacher who supervised and observes. However, Vygotsky believe that the teaching/learning process cannot occur in isolation. The child always needs the support of an adult (Beliavsky, 2006). Many elementary school teachers support the inquiry based learning. However the ones who were taught using the direct instruction method tend to use this method because they do not feel confident using the inquiry based teaching strategy. Most teachers tend to teach how they were taught (Qablan, Al-Ruz, Theodora & Al-Momani, 2009; Wang, & Wen, 2010)

Advantages of the Use of the Direct Instruction Method: There are some advantages of direct instruction method. Many teachers prefer to use direct instruction method because it is structured and can be assessed with validity. Many researchers advocate direct instructions so children can have planned experience in science rather than incidental experiences as with inquiry method (Mason, 1963). Teachers prefer to use direct instructions because this is the most organized way of teaching (Qablan, et al, 2009). The teacher has to be very organized and prepared as she conducts the lesson with direct instruction method. Teachers find it hard to keep students motivating as they are left by themselves to acquire knowledge through inquiry-based learning (Bencze, 2009). It is easier for teachers to assist students with a step by step guide to acquire content rather than letting them do the activity on their own and get confused. Since it is teacher centered there are no confusions for students as to consider which activity is important to acquire content knowledge. Teachers also have more control as to the flow of the lesson. They can rearrange the activities and decide when they should move on to teach the next topic. Children receive more guidance as teachers make sure that students have understood the step before moving on to the next (Skinner, 1987). It is also considered the best teaching method for learning content and new skills. Researcher Robertson made a very important point in his article that not every science topic can be taught using the inquiry method (Robertson, 2007). There are some subjects such as astronomy and other natural sciences that can only be taught with charts and visual graphs. Moreover, it is the best teaching method since it is accepted and promoted in many cultures and languages. Students with different cultural background cannot easily adjust with inquiry-based method as their home environment doesn’t promote questioning and inquiry. So, the best method of teaching is to relate science to the student’s cultures and languages (Lee, 2002). Students can only achieve self concept when they are taught in a way that is acceptable in their culture which in many cases is the direct instructions.

Disadvantages of the Use of the Direct Instruction Method: It is possible for students to forget facts given as rote memorization which is sometimes used as method of imparting information. Dewey was disturbed to see rote memorization and mechanical routine practices in science classroom. This method of imparting information can be done when using the direct instruction method of teaching. The danger with this practice is that there is no foundation of knowledge built which the child can draw from in the event that he/she forgets the memorized knowledge. Their process skills and abilities to make judgment would not have been significantly developed (Wang & Wen, 2010; Vandervoort, 1983). With direct instruction, the teacher poses the problem and then solves it without giving the child an opportunity to discover. Therefore the child is not given an opportunity to use the necessary process skills. Many teachers are under the false impression that slow learners learn best when the method of direct instruction is used. However, researchers have found that the best method for obtaining satisfactory results is through discovery learning (Ray, 1961). In order to effectively teach science using the direction instruction method, teachers should always have a working knowledge pertaining to current scientific content. However, teachers who do not possess a major understanding of scientific principles can find it difficult to teach using the direct method of instruction. This method clearly does not foster the development of a scientific attitude. It is therefore advisable that the use of the inquiry method instead of the direct instruction method in the elementary school should be emphasized (Chiapetta & Collette, 1973).

Advantages of both Inquiry-based and Direct Instruction Method: Based on a research it has been established that using inquiry activities as a supplement to a curriculum based on a traditional lecture method the improvement to students achievement could be greatly enhanced (Marshal & Dorward, 2000). Dewey believes that the child can learn best through inquiry-based teaching where he/she can follow his/her own interest. However, Vygotsky believed that the teacher can set the stage but he/she should also have the greater control as to what and how the activities should be done (Glassman, 2001). It has been noted that teachers can use several methods of teaching science. The use of the inquiry method can provide students with ‘hands on experience’ and to give students adequate content information, the teacher can replace inquiry learning with direct instruction (Robertson, 2007). Some teachers question past method of using memorization. It is generally felt that when individuals forget memorized knowledge there is no critical thinking skill from which they can use to resolve problems. It is therefore felt that in addition to content knowledge which is taught through direct instruction teachers should help students to develop process skill which is gained by learning through inquiry activities (Wang & Wen, 2010). Improvement in critical thinking can occur as a result of three instructional variables which are student discussion, explicit emphasis on problem-solving procedures, and an explicit emphasis on methods to encourage critical thinking and self expression (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990). Some researchers posit the view that using a combination of principles of Dewey and Thorndike educators can find similarities in the work of these theorists to build a curriculum which utilizes inquiry and direct instructions (Soltis, 1988). This method could then be used to enhance the academic achievement of the child.

Statement of the Hypothesis
Over a six week period, fifteen kindergarten students in a private school X in NYC will receive three different instructional approaches (direct instruction, inquiry-based, and both methods), three times per week for thirty minutes intervals on plant life, and the group receiving both methods will yield the highest results as measured by the Science Post-test.

Methods
Participants:
The participants were selected from a class of kindergarten students from private school X, which has been the workplace of the action researchers for approximately two years. The students comprised of eight boys and seven girls, creating the combined total of fifteen children. They are between the ages of five and six years. Many of them originate from different socio-economic backgrounds. Some pay actual cash for school fees whereas some of the students’ education is being partially or totally subsidized by a voucher program. Although all of the students were born in the Unites States of America, their parents or grandparents had immigrated from Haiti, Latin America or the Caribbean. Many of these students are from intact families or live with their extended families. Many of the parents of these students indicate that they still follow the traditions of their countries, especially those originating from Haiti. The school posses an open door policy where the parents can visit the child’s classroom at unstructured times and participate in activities with him/her. Private school X operates on a Day Care license and provides services for the children from approximately 07:00am to 06:30 pm daily. It therefore means that the majority of the children are at school for approximately ten hours daily. Some of them have been attending the daycare program from as early as three months.

Instruments: Parent Consent Form Principal Consent Form Student Survey Science Pre-test Science Post-test

Experimental Design:
Quasi-Experimental Design: Nonequivalent Control Group Design The research was conducted with the use of a quasi-experimental design where there is a pretest, a treatment and a post-test, (the new treatment being given to two of the three groups). There is one control group; three groups are pre-tested at the beginning of the research. Later two groups were exposed to the treatment. After the intervention of six weeks period, three groups were post-tested. The Symbolic Design for this action research is: OX₁O, OX₂O, and OXзO. The possible threats to internal validity were history, maturation, mortality, statistical regression, differential Selection of Subjects, and selection-maturation interaction. History was a possible threat because Private school X has an open door policy where the parents are allowed to visit at will. A visiting parent may prove to be a source of distraction if he/she visits within the hours that the test is being done. The school also has a mandated fire drill policy. Fire-drill exercises are done once per month and staff members are not forewarned. Therefore an event as such is likely to interrupt the thoughts of children being tested. Maturation was another possible threat because the children to be involved in the experiment were in the five to six age groups. Some children may not be able to sit for the length of time required to complete the test. There may be children who may have very short attention span and therefore may give up on completing the test prematurely. Mortality might be a possible threat because there have been and always will be difficulties in the lives of some parents, making it impossible for them to be able to pay their school fees. In such cases the children are withdrawn. Sudden unexpected departure from the community may also force the parents to withdraw their children from the school. Because of the small number of children being experimented upon, this could significantly affect the experiment. Statistical Regression was another possible threat because some of the children might not like direct instruction method so they might score low on pretest. The children who receive the treatment with both inquiry-based teaching method and direct instruction may have higher score on post tests. Differential Selection of Subjects was also a possible threat because the cognitive ability of each child in the experimental class varies. Their learning styles are also different and this may affect the expected result of the test. Selection-maturation interaction might be a possible threat because children at the kindergarten level are steadily developing in their cognitive abilities. Each child may conceptualize an idea at a given pace thus at the time of the test all concepts taught may not have been fully internalized by all.
There are a few threats to external validity as well. It is believed that generalizable conditions, pretest-treatment, selection-treatment interaction, experimenter effects could be possible threats to external validity. Generalizable Conditions could be a possible threat because there might be students who are coming from various cultural backgrounds. Children from some cultures may not like to participate in activities where they have to ask the teacher for specific information. Therefore, this data cannot be replicated in other countries where inquiry method of teaching is not encouraged. Pretest-treatment is a possible threat because some of the children may not like the direct instruction method where they have to work hard to memorize the information. This can affect their ability to perform positively on pretest and also during the treatment. Selection-treatment interaction is another possible threat because there will be children of mixed abilities in each group which will be selected carefully by the researcher. Experimenter effects could be another possible threat because the groups may not respond well to the researchers. Therefore the control group may be at an advantage because they will have their original class teacher throughout the research. On the other hand, some students may welcome the change in teaching methods and may also respond positively to the researchers.

Procedure: A six week curriculum based on the Life cycle of flowering plants, was administered to the children, three days per week for thirty minutes intervals. The children were divided into three groups. Group one was used as the control group and those children were taught by their class teacher, using the original direct instruction method. Group two was taught by the action researchers, using the inquiry method of teaching. Group three was also taught by the action researchers and both the inquiry and direct instruction methods were used. The action research began in February 2011 when action researchers gave consent forms to parents and the administrator. Following the administrative and parental consent and all three groups were given a pre-survey to determine each child’s exposure to and interest and involvement in science activities. Questions were also asked to determine the level of parental or adult support existing in each child’s home; the child’s exposure to nature and their preference of discovering things, either by themselves or by being given the information. The three groups were then pre-tested in March 2011. The pre-test comprised of questions based on the recent topics covered by the class teacher. Some of the questions also seek to determine the children’s previous knowledge about plants. The test was then checked and the children’s scores were then used to place them into groups. The groups constitute children of mixed abilities. The intervention began in March 2011. The action researchers obtained the cooperation of the classroom teacher in facilitating the intervention. All of the groups shared the one classroom which was divided into three sections. Group one was taught by the original teacher of the class, using the traditional direct instruction method. Group two was taught by the action researchers using the inquiry approach. Group three was also taught by the action researchers using both the direct instruction strategy and the inquiry method. However, in order to reduce possible threats to validity, the action researchers, teacher X. and teacher Y. alternated the teaching of groups two and three, using a weekly strategy. At the commencement of the research, students were given a survey which asked questions to determine the level of parental or adult support existing in each child’s home; the child’s exposure to nature and their preference of discovering things, either by themselves or by being given the information.

This time line shows the order in which activities were conducted:
February 2011 Consent Forms were distributed. Students Surveys were given to three groups.
March 2011 Pre-test was given to three groups.
March 2011- April 2011 Intervention of six weeks was given to three groups.
April 2011 Post-test was given to three groups.

Results
Data for Survey:

The researchers selected the question, “How often do you visit the Botanic Garden during spring and summer?” in order to have some indication as to the level of parental or adult assistance in exposing the child to nature. We believed that this exposure may increase the child’s natural curiosity to discover. Table 1 shows the students response to the question. There are 27% of children who claimed to have visited the Botanic Garden 5 to 6 times and the same percentage are shown for those who visited 3 to 4. However, a very small percent (20%) of children claimed to have visited 1 to 2 times. Remarkably, no child claimed not to have visited the Botanic Garden. This survey gave us the hope that merging the inquiry method with the direction instruction, a method which the students are already exposed to- will foster their curiosity and independence and create a positive learning attitude.
Survey Question #4
How often do you visit the Botanic Garden during spring and summer?
0 times (1) 1-2 times (2) 3-4 times (3) 5-6 times (4)
Figure 1: Children Responses for Survey Question #4
|Scores |Average No. of Children |Percentage of Children |
|1 |4 |27% |
|2 |3 |20% |
|3 |4 |27% |
|4 |4 |27% |

Figure 2: Survey Data
[pic]

Figure 3: Survey Question #4 and Pre-test Scores
[pic]
0.63 rxy shows that there is a weak correlation between students’ visit to the garden and achievement in science.

Survey Question #5:
How many times have you planted a seed?
Never (1) one to two times (2) more than two times (3) frequently (4)

Figure 4: Survey Question #5 and Post-test Scores
[pic]

0.77 rxy shows that there is a fair correlation between students’ planting the seed and achievement in science.

Figure 5: Comparison of Groups’ Pre-test and Post-test Scores:
[pic]

Figure 6: Pre-test Data
| |AVE |MAX |MIN |
|A |7 |8 |10% |
|D |5 |5 |0% |
|G |6 |5 |-10% |
|N |6 |5 |-10% |
|O |4 |3 |-10% |
|B |9 |10 |10% |
|F |5 |6 |10% |
|H |4 |6 |20% |
|J |6 |6 |0% |
|K |7 |7 |0% |
|C |9 |9 |0% |
|E |8 |9 |10% |
|I |4 |5 |10% |
|L |5 |7 |20% |
|M |7 |8 |10% |

Analysis of Individual Scores:
The individual scores are reflected for each group. In group one, three children scores were reduced ten percent each. In group two, two children maintained the average while others improved. In group three, each child’s average showed significant improvement except for one child whose high scores remained the same.
Discussion
The work of theorists whose contribution to research has led the way forward in providing a clearer understanding of issues governing various aspects of education ,has been instrumental in shaping this action research. Those theorists, (Erickson, Piaget, Dewy, Vigotsky, Thorndyke, Skinner and Gardner) along with researchers, give favorable reviews for both methods of teaching – that is the direct Instruction method and the Inquiry method of teaching science. It is interesting to note therefore that no researcher or theorist has condemned or totally disagreed with any of these methods. They have however identified the strengths and weaknesses in both of these methods of instruction. However, the inquiry method seems to be the one that is more highly favored, especially by advocates of the child centered curriculum. It was difficult to find research that totally favored and supported the direct instruction approach, except in research done by Skinner, (1987) where he advocates that all of science was not meant to be rediscovered and some concepts cannot be taught using the inquiry method of instruction. Some researchers seem to be fearful that this type of support would contradict early childhood educators’ beliefs that the early childhood education classroom is based on learning through discovery where the child can follow his/her own interest which, according to Dewey, is supported through inquiry-based teaching (Glassman, 2001). From the inception of the action research, full cooperation and support was bestowed upon the researchers from the principal and all of the other members of staff of Private School X. The teachers were especially heartened to discover that an interest was being taken into the school’s adopted methodology of the use of direct instruction in teaching science. Many of the members of staff have been teaching for a number of years in but they have not been fully exposed to innovative technology in education. Many of them have expressed an interest in adopting the method of merging both the inquiry and direct instruction method into their existing curriculum. The most positive results were yielded for this approach to teaching. Group three showed improvement in the post test and also a narrowing of the range. This indicates that at the end of the treatment period they had become a more homogenous group. On the other hand the underperformance of group one caused some concern. The scores of three of the children were reduced. This prompted a post discussion with the students and the action researchers. The students indicated that they were not enjoying their old method of having information disseminated by their teacher. They indicated their preference of working with group two whose instructional method revolved around the inquiry based curriculum. Based upon the outcome of the results of this action research, the principal and staff of this private school have solicited the action researchers’ assistance in building and developing a science curriculum that merges both the inquiry and direct instruction methods, to be used in the entire school.

Implications The results and data garnered from this action research indicate that there are both positive and negative implications for the procedures involved in conducting the study and the end result. The results validates validate the hypothesis which showed that the group that was instructed using both methods – the inquiry and the direct methods, experienced favorable results. It is therefore felt that the action research can be successfully duplicated in a similar environment which constitutes a small class size and is also located in an urban setting. However, due to the small class size and hence small group sizes of five children each, there exists a possibility that the data could be misleading. A larger research group would have been more representative of the data gathered. The classroom size should also be taken into consideration when conducting a study of this nature. Due to the fact that the school has limited space, there was no alternative. Having three groups being taught simultaneously in the same classroom did put some other students at a disadvantage. The focus of every child in the class was usually on the group/s involved in all of the exciting activities. Most of this interest seemed focused on the activities carried out by the other two groups. The different rates of maturation also seemed to play a role in the students’ abilities to focus on their specific task. There is need for more research in order to validate these findings.

References

Al-Sabbagh, S. (2009). Instruments and implements of enquiry based learning. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED507027&site=ehost-live

Bangert-Drowns, R., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Retrieved from ERIC. Accession Number: ED328614. http://www.eric.ed.gov.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED328614.pdf

Beliavsky, N. (2006). Revisiting Vygotsky and Gardner: Realizing human potential. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40 (2), 1-11. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Bencze, J. (2009). ‘‘Polite directiveness’’ in science inquiry: A contradiction in terms? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 855-864. DOI 10.1007/s11422-009-9194-5

Chiapetta, E. L. & Collette, A. T. (1973). Process versus content in elementary science teaching. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=113&sid=d94660d3-c320-48ca-8b62-8ca6697c1c37%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=ED099196

Dewey, J. (2008). Democracy and education. Virginia: Wilder Publications.

Eshach, H. (1997). Inquiry-events as a tool for changing science teaching efficacy belief of kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 495-501. Retrieved from JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188754

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30 (4), 3-14. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Henderson, T., & David, A. (2007). Integration of play, learning, and experience: What museums afford young visitors. Early Childhood Education journal, 35 (3), 245-251. DOI 10.1007/s10643-007-0208-1

Hohloch, J. M., Grove, N., & Bretz, S. L. (2007). Pre-service teacher as researcher: The value of inquiry in learning science. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (9), 1530-1534. (EJ820789). Retrieved from http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/Journal/Issues/2007/Sep/abs1530.html
Lawson, A., & Renner, J. (1975). Piagetian theory and biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 37 (6), 336-343.

Lee, O. (2002). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Review of Research in Education, 26, 23-69.

Marshall, J. A., & Dorward, J. T. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education students. American Association of Physics Teachers, 68. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=E7VEHHT4H1RP07MNC39C.

Mason, J. (1963). The direct teaching of critical thinking in grades four through six. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1 (4). Retrieved from ERIC. http://www.eric.ed.gov.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED011239.pdf

Oliveria, A. W. (2009). ‘‘Kindergarten, can I have your eyes and ears?’’ politeness and teacher directive choices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cultural study of science education, 4, 803-846. DOI 10.1007/s11422-009-9193-6.

Poon, C., Tan, D., & Tan, A. (2009). Classroom management and inquiry-based learning: Finding the balance. Science Scope, 32 (9), 18-21. (EJ850038). Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.43

Qablan, A., Al-Ruz, J., Theodora, D., & Al-Momani, I. (2009). "I know it's so good, but I prefer not to use it." An interpretive investigation of Jordanian preservice elementary teachers' perspectives about learning biology through Inquiry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3), 394-404. (EJ869324). Retrieved from ERIC database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ869324&site=ehost-live

Ray, W. (1961). Pupil discovery vs. direct instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 29 (3), 271-280. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Robertson, B. (2007). Getting past “inquiry versus content”. Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 67-70. (EJ766308). Retrieved from ERIC.

Skinner, B. F. (1987). Teaching science in high school- What is wrong. Paper presented at the AAA meeting.

Smart, K., & Csapo, N. (Dec. 2007). Learning by doing: engaging students through learner-centered activities. Business Communication Quarterly, 451-457. Retrieved from ERIC.
Soltis, F. (1988). Dewey and Thorndike: The persistence of paradigms in educational scholarship. Canadian Journal of Education, 13 (1), 39-51. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Vandervoort, F. S. (1983). What would John Dewey say about science teaching today? The American Biology Teacher, 45 (1), 38-41. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Wang, J., & Wen, S. (2010). Examining reflective thinking: a study of changes in methods students’ conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 1-21. Retrieved from EBSCO. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4F6CBAE4E3BBD1F0DC2A

Wrenn, J., & Wrenn, B. (2009). Enhancing learning by integrating theory and practice. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21 (2), 258-265. Retrieved from ERIC.

Appendices

Appendix A: Administration Consent Form

Consent Form

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are conducting a 4-6 week action research project with Kindergarten children at your school. They will be taught science involving two different methods of teaching: inquiry-based and direct instructions. Children participating in the action research project will remain anonymous as well as the teachers and the school. Please allow Ms. Jeffery and Ms. Naureen to conduct action research project in your school by signing below.

______________________________ _______________________________ ____________
Principal Name (Print) Principal Signature Date

Appendix B: Parent Consent Form

Consent Form

Dear Parents,

We are conducting a 4-6 week action research project with your child’s class. They will be taught science involving two different methods of teaching: inquiry-based and direct instructions. Your child will be assigned to any one of them. Each child participating in the action research project will remain anonymous. Please indicate your willingness for your child to participate in these science activities.

← ____ Yes, I give permission for my child to be part of the action research project.

← ____ No, I do not give permission for my child to be part of the action research project.

_____________________________ _______________________________ ____________
Child’s Name (Print) Parent’s Signature Date

Appendix C: Student Survey

SURVEY TO DETERMINE THE CHILD’S EXPOSURE TO AND INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT IN SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES.

Class: Kindergarten
Directions: Place the number corresponding to your answer on the dotted lines.

1. In what type of home do you live? ..........

Apartment Building One family house two family house three family house 1) (2) (3) (4)

2. What is your family like? ………. Foster family single parent extended family two parents 1) (2) (3) (4)

3. How do the adults in your home work………. They do not work sometimes every night every day 1) (2) (3) (4)

4. How often do you visit the Botanic Garden during the spring and summer?............... Zero times one to two times three to four times more than four times 1) (2) (3) (4)

5. How many times have you planted a seed?.......... Never one to two times more than two times frequently 1) (2) (3) (4)

6. Do you enjoy the way you are learning science?.......... Never sometimes often always (1) (2) (3) (4) 7. Outdoor is the best place for me to learn about plants and animals………..

strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree

(1) (2) (3) (4)

8. I learn a lot about living things by reading books about nature…………..

strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree

(1) (2) (3) (4)

9. I enjoy finding out things about nature by myself……….

strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree

(1) (2) (3) (4)

10. I find it enjoyable to explore things in my environment……….

strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Appendix D: Science Pre-test

March 2011
SCIENCE PRE-TEST

Name……………………………………………………

Write the correct answer on the line provided 1. ______________________is one characteristic of a living thing.

a) Feeling soft (b) Breathing (c) Being frozen

2. Which one is a living thing?_____________________ (a) orange tree (b) stone (c) A statue

3. Which one was once alive?______________________ a) Stone (b) paper (c) sand

Circle the answer

4. Which word means ‘to make another one of its kind’? (a) Feeding (b) grow (c) reproduce

5. Which one of these animals are born?____________________ a) Rabbits (b) birds (c) fish

6. A duck is _______________ from an egg. a) Made (b) born (c) hatched

7. Plants are _________________ things. a) Non-living (b) living (d) dead

8 - 10. Match each word to the correct part of the plant.

roots

leaf

stem

Appendix E: Science Post-test

Kindergarten Science Post-Test

April 2011

Name: _________________________________

Read the question and then fill in the bubble under correct answer.

1. What does a seed need to germinate?

Snow Sunlight and moisture Air

O O O

2. What do plants use for photosynthesis?

Oxygen Soil Energy from sunlight

O O O

3. In which part of the plant does photosynthesis take place?

Leaves Stem Roots

O O O

4. Which part of the flower is the female reproductive organ?

Sepal Carpel Petal

O O O

5. In a flowering plant, seeds are found in the ________________.

Cone Petals Fruit

O O O

6. Pollen is _________________ powder like material that is produced by anther.

Black Yellow Red

O O O

7. The process in which the pollen from one flower is carried to the different flower is called _________________________.

Cross-pollination Pollution Self-pollination

O O O

8. In order for fertilization to occur, pollen must attach to which part of the flower?

Petal Stigma Anther

O O O

9. What does seed dispersal mean?

Growing Collecting Spreading

O O O

10. Plants do not rely on __________________ for seed dispersal.

Wind Sun Animals

O O O

-----------------------
PRE-TEST

POST-TEST

GROU
P

ONE

GROU
P

TWO

GROU
P

TWO

GROU
P

THR
E
E