<%BANNER%>

Inquiry-Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs in School Based Agricultural Education

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041763/00001

Material Information

Title: Inquiry-Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs in School Based Agricultural Education
Physical Description: 1 online resource (145 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Easterly, Ralph
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: agricultural, iep, individualized, inquiry, sbae, special
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Inquiry-based instruction, based on constructivist principles has been shown to be an effective method of instruction. Inquiry-based instruction also shows promise for educating students with special needs. A quasi-experimental design was used to determine if inquiry-based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. This study analyzed ten intact classes taught by ten instructors, teaching 204 students. A total of 170 students posttest scores for content-knowledge achievement were analyzed using an analysis of covariates ANCOVA using pretest scores as a covariate. No differences were found between students with IEPs and students without IEPs using ANCOVA analysis. Comparisons were also made on other demographic factors. No differences existed for gender or free and reduced lunch status, but a difference did exist for ethnicity on three of the seven posttests. Based on the findings the conclusion was made that inquiry-based instruction does not adversely affect content knowledge achievement for students with special needs and inquiry based instruction leads to knowledge gain for all students regardless of IEP status. Based on these conclusions it is recommended that instructors use inquiry-based instruction when appropriate.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ralph Easterly.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Myers, Brian E.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041763:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041763/00001

Material Information

Title: Inquiry-Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs in School Based Agricultural Education
Physical Description: 1 online resource (145 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Easterly, Ralph
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: agricultural, iep, individualized, inquiry, sbae, special
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Inquiry-based instruction, based on constructivist principles has been shown to be an effective method of instruction. Inquiry-based instruction also shows promise for educating students with special needs. A quasi-experimental design was used to determine if inquiry-based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. This study analyzed ten intact classes taught by ten instructors, teaching 204 students. A total of 170 students posttest scores for content-knowledge achievement were analyzed using an analysis of covariates ANCOVA using pretest scores as a covariate. No differences were found between students with IEPs and students without IEPs using ANCOVA analysis. Comparisons were also made on other demographic factors. No differences existed for gender or free and reduced lunch status, but a difference did exist for ethnicity on three of the seven posttests. Based on the findings the conclusion was made that inquiry-based instruction does not adversely affect content knowledge achievement for students with special needs and inquiry based instruction leads to knowledge gain for all students regardless of IEP status. Based on these conclusions it is recommended that instructors use inquiry-based instruction when appropriate.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ralph Easterly.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Myers, Brian E.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041763:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN SCHOOL BASED AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION By R. G. EASTERLY III A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 R. G. Easterly III

PAGE 3

3 To Allison, for giving me the push I needed to do what I was capable of

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the many people have contributed to my success as a graduate student at the University of Florida. My family, friends, and colleges have all played an import ant part in my completion of this step in my life and I hope those individuals will continue to be a part of my life moving forward. First I would like to thank Brian Myers, my advisor, committee chair, and friend. Without Brian obtaining my graduate degree and completing this thesis w ould not have been possible. He has been an important part of the planning, conducting, and writing of this research and other bodies of work that I have published during my time at the University of Florida. I would also like to thank Grady Roberts and Jean Repetto, who served as members of my committee. Their insight added a great deal to this study and I have enjoyed working with them immensely Additionally I would like to thank Penny Cox for challenging me and helping me understand the needs surr ounding students with disabilities, Rose Pringle for pushing me to understand Inquiry based instruction at a deeper level, and Ed Osborne for helping me to conceptualize, plan, and draft this study. I owe a great deal of gratitude to the rest of the facul ty and staff in the department for sharing their time, knowledge, resources, and opportunities throughout my graduate studies. My fellow graduate students have been a great team to have around me through my time at the University of Florida. I would like to thank Andrew Thoron for being an outstanding mentor and friend even before I moved to Gainesville. Andrew has also played a large part in carrying out this study, to which I will always be grateful. I would also like to thank my office mates: Allison Britton, Amanda Brumby, Christy Chereli, Lauren Dillard, Adrienne Gentry, Kyle Landrum, Diane Mashburn, Melissa

PAGE 5

5 Mazurkewicz, Melissa Metcalfe, Charlie Neiles and Crystal Swartzfager as well as other graduate students that I have worked closely with including Katie Abrams, Rosolyn Brain, Karen Cannon, Rachel Devine, Chris Estepp, Lisa Hightower, Alexa Lamm, Mary Rodriguez, Kate Shoulders, Rochelle Strickland, Robert Strong, and Christopher Stripling You all have made Gainesville feel like home, thank you for all that you have done. I would not be where I am today without my family behind me. I would like to thank them for all of their love, support, and e ncouragement throughout my life, t o my mother, Carolyn Easterly, for always pushing me to do my best academically and for helping me to realize that being involved in education is truly a higher calling, t o my dad, Glen Easterly, for being a good friend and brother in Christ. Dad, you have been a rock for all of us to lean on at one time or another. I would also like to thank m y brother, Tyler Easterly, for being a good friend when I am at home and understanding when I was gone and Nannie, Eleanor Grant, for helping me to become the person I am today and through all of her financial support. Allison Johnston has been a big part of my life for the past several years. She has been my person to go to for support and advice throughout grad school. I would like to thank her for being with me and perhaps most importantly making me believe that I can d o great things with my life. I would also like to thank her for bringi ng my dog, Gretta, into my life. Nothing makes my heart happier than having someone that excited to see me after a long day. I am sure that I am leaving people out of this list, if I have not mentioned you thank you for being a part of this experience. I have enjoyed every moment of being a graduate student.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................12 Inquiry Based Instruction .......................................................................................................12 Educat ing Students with Special Needs .................................................................................13 Research Problem ...................................................................................................................16 Purpose and Objectives ...........................................................................................................16 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................17 Defini tion of Terms ................................................................................................................17 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................18 Assumptions ...........................................................................................................................18 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................21 Educating St udents with Special Needs .................................................................................21 Definition and History .....................................................................................................21 Educating Students with Special Needs ..........................................................................23 Behavioral model .....................................................................................................23 Direct instruction ......................................................................................................24 Inquiry based instruction ..........................................................................................24 Summary ..................................................................................................................25 Special Needs Students in School Based Agricultural Education ...................................25 History ......................................................................................................................25 Research ...................................................................................................................26 Constructivist Theory .............................................................................................................27 Inquiry Based Instruction .......................................................................................................28 Definition and History .....................................................................................................28 Research on Inquiry Based Instruction ............................................................................32 Inquiry Based Instruction in School Based Agricultural Education ...............................34 Inquiry Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs ...................................................36 History .............................................................................................................................36 Research on Inquiry Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs .......................37

PAGE 7

7 Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................................38 Presage Variables ............................................................................................................38 Context Variab les ............................................................................................................40 Process Variables .............................................................................................................40 IMSTRA Framework ...............................................................................................40 Differentiated Instruction .........................................................................................41 Product Variable ..............................................................................................................42 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................42 3 METHODS .............................................................................................................................44 Introduction .............................................................................................................................44 Research Design .....................................................................................................................44 Population ...............................................................................................................................45 Sample Size ............................................................................................................................46 Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................................47 Procedures ...............................................................................................................................48 Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................49 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................49 Analysis of Data .....................................................................................................................50 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................50 4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................51 Introduction .............................................................................................................................51 Reliability of Assessments ..............................................................................................52 Objective 1 Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education. Students......................................................................................................52 Objective 2 Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors. ..................................................................54 Objective 3 Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. ..............................58 Summary .................................................................................................................................59 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS .....................................................................61 Introduction .............................................................................................................................61 Purpose and Objectives ...................................................................................................61 Methods ...........................................................................................................................61 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................62 Objective 1: Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education. Students ......................................................................................................62 Objective 2: Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors. ..................................................................62 Objective 3: Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. ..............................62 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................63

PAGE 8

8 Discussion and Implications ...................................................................................................63 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................65 Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................65 Reco mmendations for Further Inquiry ............................................................................66 APPENDIX A SCIENCE TEACHING INQUIRY RUBRIC (STIR) ............................................................70 B INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTIONAL PLANS ..................................................................73 C PRETESTS/POSTTESTS .......................................................................................................96 D CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT PLANNING MATRICS ..............................120 E INTRODUCTION LETTER ................................................................................................123 F EXPLANATION AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY ............................................................124 G EXPLANATION OF INQUIRYBASED INSTRUCTION AND SUBJECT MATTER LESSON PLANS ..................................................................................................................127 H EXPLANATION OF SCHOOL, METHOD, STUDENT ID NUMBER, DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET, AND COMPUTER BASED TESTING SYSTEM .................128 I STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS SHEET ..............................................................................131 J EXPLANATION OF JUMP DRIVE, AUDIO RECORDING, AND IRB ..........................133 K IRB APPROVAL ..................................................................................................................134 L INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDENTS ........................................................................135 M INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARENTS ..........................................................................136 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................145

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 41 Pilot test mean content knowledge assessment scores and instrument reliability .............52 42 Summary of ethnicities ......................................................................................................53 43 Summary of IEP classifications .........................................................................................54 44 Summary of central tendency measures for the seven unit content knowledge achievement pre and post assessments ..............................................................................54 45 Summary of ANCOVA measures for content knowledge achievement for gender ..........55 46 Summary of ANCOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for ethnicity ........56 47 S ummary of central tendency measures for the seven unit content knowledge achievement post assessments separated by ethnicity .......................................................56 48 Summary of ANCOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for ethnicity ........57 49 Summary of ANOVA measures of content knowledge ac hievement for ethnicity with IEP status ...................................................................................................................58 410 Summary of ANCOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for free or reduced lunch status ...........................................................................................................58 411 Summary of ANCOVA measures for content knowledge achievement post assessments for IEP status .................................................................................................59 412 Summary of central tendency measures for the seven unit content knowledge achievement pre and post assessments ..............................................................................59

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 21 A model for the study of classroom teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) including the IMSTRA framework for teaching and learning (Singer & Moscovici, 2008) and the process of differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001) as it relates to this study ............39 31 Onegroup pretest posttest design ......................................................................................45 41 Comparisons of mean scores for t he content knowledge achievement post tests ..............57 A 1 Science Teaching Inquiry Rubric (STIR) ..........................................................................72 B 1 What happened to our plants power point .........................................................................90 B 2 Nutrients flow chart ...........................................................................................................91

PAGE 11

11 A bstract of Masters Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH SPEC IAL NEEDS IN SCHOOL BASED AGRICULTURAL E DUCATION By R. G. Easterly III May 2010 Chair: Brian E. Myers Major: Agricultural Education and Communication Inquiry based instruction, based on constructivist principles has been shown to be an effective method of instruction. Inquiry based instruction also shows promise for educating students with special needs. A quasi experimental desig n was used to determine if inquiry based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs This study analyzed ten intact classes taught by ten instructors teaching 204 students A total of 170 students posttest scores f or content knowledge achievement were analyzed using an analysis of covariates [ANCOVA] using pretest scores as a covariate. No differences were found between students with IEPs and students without IEPs using ANCOVA analysis. Comparisons were also made on other demographic factors. No differences existed for gender or free and reduced lunch status, but a difference did exist for ethnicity on three of the seven posttests. Based on the findings the conclusion was made that inquiry based instruction does not adversely affect content knowledge achievement for students with special needs and inquiry based instruction leads to knowledge gain for all students regardless of IEP status. Based on these conclusions it is recommended that instructors use inquiry based instruction when appropriate.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Inquiry Based Instruction Prior to 1900 direct instruction of science was common place in science classrooms. In these classrooms, students would be expected to memorize facts from the text provided by the instructor (National Research Council [NRC] 2000). Dewey (1938) theorized a change was necessary. He called f or teachers to find the intimate and necessary relations between the process of experiences and education. This type of learning called for a more organic connection between the natural curiosity of students and the instruction they received in the classr oom Dewey (1910) also recognized science should occur as a process rather than be presented as a collection of facts. Inquiry based instruction is built on the tenants of constructivism. Constructivism is the belief that students construct their own knowledge based on the world around them. In constructivism the learner creates unde rstanding of natural phenomena through a self regulated process of learning. This type of student centered, goal oriented learning is practical for gaining the dynamic kn owledge and skills required in science (Doolittle & Camp, 1999). Inquiry based instruction which is born out of constructivist ideals, is a method of instruction that forces students to use the scientific process to find the answers to questions. The Nat ional Science Education Standards (NRC 1996) define inquiry in education as: A multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigatio ns; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanation. (p. 23) Inquiry based instruction is a teaching method that causes student s to find the link between content and scientific thinking. Inquiry based instruction is also a way for students to understand

PAGE 13

13 the natural world around them and allows students to think like scientists and engage in activities that promote the use of the scientific process (NRC, 1996). The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) called for a use of inquiry based instruction which encouraged instructors to teach students the scientific process rather than a collection of unrelated facts. The standards were based on the principle that science is an active process that all students should partici pate in. Supovitz and Turner (2000) found that teachers recognized the need for inquiry in the classroom but also noted teachers that had more than 80 hours of training on the use of inquiry based instruction were the most likely to use it in their classr ooms. Coln (2008) found that in one district in North Carolina, teachers used inquiry at a moderate level, and that the most common teaching method used by instructors was inquiry based, and hands on. According to Gejda (2006) most teachers integrate som e type of inquiry component into their instruction. Joyce and Weil (1972) express ed that inquiry based instruction shifts away from the focus of the acquisition of specific skills, and towards a focus on how students process information and act upon it. Thinking is a process that can be taught, is a transaction between an individual and the data, and evolves in an orderly sequence (Taba, 1966). Inquiry based instruction is based on the se tenant s The purpose of inquiry instruction is to promote thinking and making of links to the world surrounding the students, causing them to ma ke their own connections and think critically to make sense of the complex world around them. Educating Students with Special Needs The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) requires that students with special needs receive individualized special instruction that meets their needs in the least restrictive environment (Kinder, Kubina & MarchandMartella, 2005). Nationally 13.5% of students are served under the IDEA act, of those students 59% were White, 20% were Black, and

PAGE 14

14 17% were Hispanic (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008a; 2008b). In School Based Agri cultural Education [ SBAE ] the number of students with special needs tends to be higher than in core content classes Dormody, Seevers, Andreasen, and VanLeeuwen, (2006) found 19% of students in New Mexico SBAE had IEPs compared to Pense (2008) who found 23% of SBAE st udents in Illinois have IEPs. Ninety seven percent of students with disabilities are in general education courses for at least 40% of the day (Smith, 2007). These students take career and technical education courses to aide in career trans ition based on the students ability and interest (Harvey, 2001). The Perkins Act (2006) refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act for a definition of an individual with a disability. The Ameri cans with Disabilities Act (1990 ) defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities, and a record of the impairment exists Students with physical disabilities are limited by their mobility, dexterity, or communication abilities. Students with cogni tive and emotional disabilities can include anything from severe disabilities such as mental retardation to manageable learning disabilities such as dyslexia (Talbert, Vaughn, & Croom, 2005). Students with special needs require special consideration in the agricultural education classroom. According to Phipps, Osborne, Dyer, and Ball (2008) students with special needs should be taught lessons that give specific directions and demonstration, provide models of key points and provide practice and application. They also call for teachers to include students with special needs in the lessons and to take a sincere interest in these students learning. Inquiry based instruction provides a means for instructors to make the instruction more detailed and specific, explain concepts through examples, and take an interest in their students progress.

PAGE 15

15 Placing students in the least restrictive environment causes the entire educational support system to adapt, including the instructor (Giffing, 2009). Historically direct instruction, where content is directly taught to students, is believed to be the best method for educating students with disabilities (Kinder et al., 2005). Rapp (2005) argued instructors of special needs students need to be more creative in their instru ction and use inquiry teaching strategies. McCarthy (2005) found when compared to a tex tbook approach to teaching, thematic based hands on science is a more effective method of teaching for students with emotional disturbances. While she admitted thematic based hands on instruction takes more time and effort, positive difference in academic achievement have been found. The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) state d that science instruction should be provided to all students, regardless of their age, sex, ethnicity, or disability. While Rapp (2005) and McCarthy (2005) both agree act ive teaching strategies, similar to inquiry based instruction, are successful for students with spec ial needs, Giffing (2009) stated that a lack of confidence could limit the full integration of students with special needs, especially in the laboratory section. Research needs to be conducted to determine if inquiry based instruction promotes content knowledge achievement for students with special needs M ost SBAE instructors agree special needs students should be integrated into each aspect of the program However, most are uncomf ortable with including them in the classroom and laboratory setting (Giffing, Warnick, & Tarpley, 2009). More research on inquiry instruction for students with special needs is needed. Parr and Edwards (2004) call ed for more empirically based research on teachers uses of inquiry based instruction for students with special needs. Pense, Watson, and Wakefield (2009) express ed that experimental research should be done to determine how students with special needs are

PAGE 16

16 motivated by various curriculum manipulations. Dyer and Osborne (1996) call ed for more research to be conducted on students from various backgrounds to determine how they respond to different teachin g methods. Frew and Klein (1982) claim ed that an analysis of the interaction of learners involved with a variety of instructional methods will add to the understanding of education students wit h special needs. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1992) express ed that research on incorporating scientific question and reasoning skills, like those used in inquiry based instruction, could be a useful direction of research for students with special needs in inc lusion settings. Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, and Bringham (1993) also express ed the need for future research to validate inquiry based instruction methods for students with special needs. Research Problem The National Research Council (2000) provided a framework for inquiry instruction as it relates to the National Science Education Standards. This framework provides a structure for how inquiry instruction should take place in the classroom. However it failed to mention how inquiry relates for student s with special needs and it does not specifically discuss School Based Agricultural Education [SBAE]. This s tudy will help instructors to better understand the difference in students with and without special needs in regards to inquiry based instruction. The study will provide insight on how students with special needs respond to inquiry based instruction and validate or refute the appropriateness of the inquiry based method of teaching. The problem under investigation is the impact of inquiry based inst ruction in educating students with special needs who are mainstreamed into SBAE classes. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine if inquiry based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. The study is guided by the objectives:

PAGE 17

17 Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education students. Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. Significance of the Study The most recent national science education standards have called for the use of inquiry instruction in science classrooms (NRC, 1996). While this shift in educational philosophy is considered positive for general students (NRC, 1996), little is known about how students with special needs respond to inquiry based instruction. This study provides insight on whether inquiry instruction is appropriate for students with special needs in SBAE. This research holds merits for scholars researching teaching methods for special needs students, inquiry based instruction i n the science classroom, agriscience integration in secondary SBAE, and special needs students in SBAE. This research also has a practical application for practitioners in the field teaching agriscience concepts to students with special needs. Individual s involved in science instruction for students with special needs may also find this study useful. Definition of Terms Content Knowledge Achievement M easurement of students knowledge of the content on the pretest and posttest. IEP STATUSWhether or not a student has an IEP. For this stud y students with IEPs were considered those students with special needs (Smith, 2000) INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLAN (IEP) A tailored instruction plan that identifies students disability and guaranties an individuali zed education to that student (Smith, 2000). INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTIONA method of instruction which students observe the natural world around them and propose explanations based on scientific reasoning and the scientific process (National Research Counc il, 2000).

PAGE 18

18 MAINSTREAMEDStudents who spend time in both regular education classrooms and in an inclusive special needs classroom (Deutsch Smith, 2000; Fuchs, Roberts, Fuchs & Bowers, 1995). NATIONAL AGRISCIENCE TEACHER AMBASSADOR ACADEMY [NATAA] An inser vice training provided to SBAE instructors that focuses on integrating science into the SBAE curriculum. The content of the NATAA is based on inquiry principles (National FFA Organization, 2009). SCHOOLBASED AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION [SBAE] Formal agricu ltural education programs offered in the public schools (as opposed to nonformal agricultural education programs offered by businesses of other nonschool agencies) (Phipps, Osborne, Dyer, & Ball, 2008, p. 537). STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDSStudents who have specific needs identified by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) of (1997) that have Individualized Education Plans that provide detailed goals and modifications for their educational success (Kinder et al., 2005). Limitations Since this study is utilizing intact classes, the validity of the study is compromised since the groups are not randomly assigned. Moreover since the study took place over several weeks, history and maturation of subjects and mortality factors were considered. The study is also limited in its generalizability since the instructors participating are chosen from instructors at the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy [NATAA] Since this study utilizes a small number of specially trained SBAE ins tructors the results are not generalizable outside of those participating in the study (Ary, Cheser Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorenson, 2006; Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Assumptions This study operates under the assumption that inquiry based instruction is a use ful teaching method and is the norm for SBAE courses. Parr and Edwards (2004) found inquiry based instruction to be an effective teaching method that leads to development of understanding and higher academic achievement.

PAGE 19

19 For this study, the IEPs were us ed to identify the students disabilities An assumption must be made that the students IEPs are correct, relevant and current. It is also important to assume the students without IEPs do not need them and that states use similar terminology when coding IEPs. IEPs vary from state to state, however the codes are based on the IDEA 2004 act, which provides a bases for each states terminology for the IEP codes (Smith, 2007). It is also important to assume the instructors have access to the students IEP so they can identify the students disability for data collection and can modify the instruction for the student. The assumption must also be made that the instructors are modifying the lessons for their students with disabilities. Chapter Summary This chapter introduced inquiry based instruction, educating students with special needs, and inquiry based instruction for students with special nee ds. While NRC (1996) highlighted inquiry instruction as a meaningful method of instruction, very little re search exists on the use of inquiry instruction for students with special needs. Rapp (2005) and McCarthy (2005) argue d that the strategies implemented in inquiry instruction are beneficial to special needs students learning. The chapter identified the research problem: the impact of inquiry based instruction in educating students with special needs who are mainstreamed into SBAE classes is not known. The impact of this study is to determine if inquiry based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. The study is guided by the objectives: Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education students. Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demog raphic factors Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status.

PAGE 20

20 This chapter highlighted the significance of this study in determining if inquiry instruction impacts content knowledge based on IEP status in SBAE. This chapter highlighted important terms and outlined basic assumptions and limitations to consider.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 L ITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2 outlines previous research on students with special needs and inquiry based instruction. The study began by analyzing the problem of educating students with special needs in school based agricultural education, then proposed several possible solutions to the problem. One possible solution is inquiry based instruction. Som e researchers (Fuller, 2001; McCarthy, 2005; Rapp, 2005; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993) indicated that inquiry based instruction has promise in educating students with special needs, more research should be done to determine if it is approp riate in school based agricultural education. Educating Students with Special Needs Definition and History The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires that students with special need s receive individualized instruction that m eets their needs in the least restrictive environment (Kinder, Kubina & Marchand Martella, 2005). For most students with special needs this includes being mainstreamed into the regular classroom. Ninety seven percent of students with disabilities are in general education courses for at least 40% of the day (Smith, 2007). According to Tomlinson (2001), students learn in classrooms where they are actively involved in the learning process and are appropriately challenged according to their ability leve l. In any classroom some students will be more cognitively advanced or more familiar with the skills or content than other students These more advanced students tend to do well in school but often are not challenged and may fail to develop studying and coping skills. Struggling learners also have their own challenges to overcome. These challenges can stem from any number of sources including problems at home or a genetic or developme ntal disability (Tomlinson 2001).

PAGE 22

22 For this study the term students w ith special needs was used to describe those students who have difficulty achieving in the classroom. As mentioned by Tomlinson (2001) these students could have needs from situations ranging from a developmental disability, such as autism, that makes com munication cues difficult to understand, to a genetic disorder, such as Downs Syndrome, which limits cognitive function, to a Traumatic Brain Injury, which also limits cognitive function. Students could also be labeled as academically gifted, which needs to be identified so that instructors can modify instruction. Most students with special needs receive their education in inclusive settings for all or at least part of the day (Smith, 2007). According to Blackorby, Wagner, Cameto, Davis, Levine, and Ne wman (2005) special needs students who spent more time in regular classrooms performed better on achievement tests, attended class more regularly, and performed closer to their expected level. Wagner, Newman, Cameto, and Levine (2003) also found that spec ial needs students in inclusive settings outperformed students taught in a special needs classroom. Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie Richmond (2009) noted that it is more effective for students with special needs to be involved in a normal classroom due to the lack of a social stigma for those students with special needs. They did however note that teaching special needs students in inclusion settings puts a strain on the instructor since the majority of teachers have little training in educating students wit h special needs. Inclusive classrooms can have other benefits for the school system. According to Chambers, Parrish, Lieberman, & Wolman (1998) inclusive settings can cost 25% to 60% less than serving the same students in a special education setting. The IDEA Act of 2004 lists disabilities recognized by the Act. These disabilities are mental retardation, hearing impairment, speech or language impairment, visual impairment, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, Autism, Traumatic Brain Injury, othe r health

PAGE 23

23 impairments, multiple disabilities, deaf blindness, specific learning disabilities, and developmental delay. An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) identifies a students disability and provides goals for the student, modifications that need to be made, as well as plans for educating that student (Smith, 2007). Educating Students with Special Needs A n instructional model can be helpful in delivering content to students (Frew & Klein, 1982). Taba Levine and Elzey (1964) stated The impact of tea ching lies not alone in its single acts, but in the manner in which these acts are combined into a pattern (p. 55). These acts combined together form models of instr uction. According to Lembo (1969 ) there are five components of an i nstructional model. They are (a) i dent i fication of predispositions, (b ) s pecification of the objec tives, (c ) u tilization of appropri ate instructional procedures, (d ) performance assessments, and (e ) formulating and testing hypotheses A well developed instructional model can provide the framework on which effective lessons are developed. Determining which model works best for the teacher and the learners involved is important to the educational process. This is especially true when teaching students with special needs (Frew & Klein, 1982). Behavioral m odel The behavioral model is based on the work of Skinner (1938), who theorized that teachers could use operant conditioning, to reward or punish students for their behavior. The behavioral model began as a theory for training animals through reinforced behaviors, such as rats depressing levers, or pigeons completing puzzles to get food (Vogel & Annau, 1984). Behaviorist theories were then expanded to student learning. Acco rding to Moran (2004) reinforcing student learning is not only effective, but it increases the rate of which students learn specific objectives. Reinforcing student behavior is crucial in a behavioral model so students

PAGE 24

24 will respond to a particular stimul us (Mercer & Snell, 1977). Frew and Klein (1982) stated, [In the behavioral model] children with learning problems have been rewarded for good work instead of being punished for inadequate work (p. 101). Direct i nstruction Direct instruction, or expl icit instruction, is a model of instruction that attempts to identify the link between teacher actions and student learning (Brophy & Good, 1986; Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Pearson & Dole, 1987; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986) Borrich (2000) described the direct instruction model as a teacher centered approach in which the instructor is the main source of information. Researchers (Adams & Engleman, 1996; Forness, Kavale, Blum, & Lloyd, 1997; Kinder et al. 2005; White, 1988) indicated direct instruction is an ef fective model of instruction for students with special needs, since the instruction can be tailored for each student. Merchand Martella, Slocum, and Martella (2004) claimed that direct instruction is an effective method of instruction for students with special needs because it overtly provides students with structure that they need to be successful. According to Borich (2000) direct instruction does not teach complex concepts, patterns and abstractions to students as effectively as other methods. He als o claimed that it can be difficult for students to apply the skills learned through direct instruction into other situations. Inquiry based i nstruction The inquiry based instruction model stresses the learning and thinking process rather than just the acquisition of specific skills. An advantage of using inquiry based instruction for students with special needs is that it promotes the thinking process and teaches students how to process information in addition to skill and knowledge development. In es sence, the focus of inquiry based instruction is more on the actual process of learning than the understanding of specific concepts. The inquiry based instruction model operates under the idea that if students

PAGE 25

25 are comfortable with the process of learning and can engag e in the scientific process they can construct knowledge about new concepts and transfer knowledge from other concepts (Doolittle & Camp, 1999; Frew & Klein, 1982; NRC, 2000). Summary Educating students with special needs can be a challenge. I nstructional models can be useful to direct instruction for student (Taba et al. 1964). Several models have been considered and have been extensively tested through empirical studies. Inquiry based instruction shows some promise in delivering effective instruction to students with special needs despite behaviorism and direct instruction being the historical pedagogical practice norm. Special Needs Students in School Based Agricultural Education History In 1975 congress passed The Education of All Handi capped Children Act, and later revised it in 1990 to become the Individuals wit h Disabilities E ducation Act [IDEA] (Giffing, Warnick, & Tarpley, 2009) The most recent update of IDEA was in 2004 (Smith, 2007). IDEA requires that all students are required to be educated in the least restrictive environment. For most students this means mainstreamed into the normal classroom (Giffing et al., 2009). The 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA act added an increased focus on using scientific thinking and inquiry based instructional strategies (Kinder et al. 2005). The Carl D. Perkins Vocational A ct of 1984 and reauthorizations in 1989, 1995, and 2006 mandated that appropriate vocational education be provided to students with special needs. The act extended IEPs to students enrolled in vocational courses (Retish, Hitchings, Horvarth, & Schmalle, 1991). T he No Child Left Behind [NCLB] A ct of 2001 (U. S. Department of Education, 2008) increased accountability for students with special needs. The law made schools accountable for

PAGE 26

26 academic performance of all students, particularly students with special needs. If a subgroup of students does not meet the adequate yearly progress [AYP], then the school could face repercussions. Since NCLB was enacted increased pr essure has been placed on students in these subgroups to meet AYP. This pressure for students with special needs to succeed encourages instructors to find ways to make these students successful (Anderson, Seevers, Dormody, & VanLeeuwen, 2007). Research Si nce Smith Hughes agricultural education was intended to prepare noncollege bound students for the workforce. With courses using taskoriented curricula, students with special needs enrolled in these courses (Elbert & Baggett, 2003). A significantly hig her proportion of students with disabilities were mainstreamed in agricultural education courses than core subjects (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). These students take career and technical education courses to aide in career transition based on the students abilities and interests (Harvey, 2001). According to Falvey, Blair, Dingle and Franklin (2000), career and technical education students are becoming more heterogeneous as students are being mainstreamed into these classes. This heterogeneity can be difficult for instructors to develop effective curricula and deliver meaningful instruction. Compounding this, Jones and Moore (2000) and Moore, Ingram, and Jones (2001) found that instructors were less comfortable teaching mentally challenged students. Modifications for students with special needs can provide the support they need to be successful According to Richardson (2005), agricultural teachers in North Carolina employed modifications for their students that are consistent with the current research. Agricultural education instructors ne ed to be aware of their student s disabilities and have information on how to provide appropriate accommodations for them in their classroom. Without the modifications required, a student may not fully benef it from the instruction provided.

PAGE 27

27 Students with special needs historically take agricultural courses in order to prepare them for careers. Agricultural education falls under the umbrella of Career and Technical Education because of the career training tha t these courses provide. According to Wonacott (2001) students with disabilities were less likely to drop out and were more l ikely to be employed if they were involved in career and technical education. Eisenmann (2000) found through qualitative measures that students with special needs had higher academic achievement and postsecondary engagement when involved in a career and technical education program. According to Gaona (2004) students with special needs benefited from career and technical education because the hands on activities in these courses tend to be more effective for these students. Learning about students needs is important so that instructors can tailor lessons to their student s. Instructors should also be aware of which methods of instr uction will help these students succeed in the classroom. A limited amount of r esearch has been done in regard to special needs students in agricultural education. Constructivist Theory The theory of constructivism was born out of the observations of Piag et (1954). From watching his children discover the world around them at a very young age, he developed the theory that there is no absolute truth in the world, but that truth is constructed based on experiences and social mediated boundaries. These ideas mirrored the earlier philosophies of Dewey (1938). In constructivism ideas merely predict or explain a certain occurrence. If the idea predicts or explains the occurrence with a certain degree of frequency, then it becomes accepted as something general ly agreed upon (Colburn, 1998). As an example consider Sir Isaac Newtons discovery of gravity. Gravity is simply his way to explain the phenomena of things falling to the earth. Gravity existed before it was discovered and studied. Newton attempted to construct knowledge to explain what was going on

PAGE 28

28 around him and scientists today continue to construct new knowledge about why and how gravity happens. The behaviorist classroom involves a dyadic relationship between the teacher and student. The teac her provides the knowledge to the students and the students receive knowledge. In a c onstructivist classroom learners build their own knowledge through experiences, problems, questions, and reflection (Dewey, 1938; Glasserfield, 1996; Colburn, 1998). For students to be able to construct their knowledge, an emphasis must be placed on the process of learning rather than the final result of the instruction. This causes classrooms and laboratories to be student centered learning environments that focus on how the students are interacting with and thinking about the concepts bei ng taught. Papert (1996) pointed out that in education so much emphasis has been put on pedagogical approaches, or understanding the art of teaching, that emphasis has been taken away from the art of learning. Constructivism puts the emphasis back on the learner. In a constructivist classroom various strategies are implemented that focus on how the learners are engaged with the content. These strategies can be, but are not limited to cooperative learning, questioning, reflective practice (through journals or other means), demonstration teaching, active assessments, and inquiry based instruction (Colburn, 1998). Inquiry based instruction is a particularly useful way to bring construc tivism to the classroom because it involves questioning, reflection, and investigation, and other learner centered strategies (Colburn, 1998; Doolittle & Camp, 1999). Inquiry Based Instruction Definition and History At the turn of the century direct instr uction of science was the norm for teaching. Dewey (1938) called for a change in the way science was taught in the classroom. He called for a more

PAGE 29

29 hands on approach that called on the learners to not only be engaged in hands on learning, but to reflect o n the situations and construct abstract conceptualizations based on those experiences. Dewey called for a style of learning that forced the learner to de velop their own ideas to explain their experiences, which eventually lead to the theory of constructivism Inquiry was born out of constructivist ideals (McMahon, 1997; Thomas, 2008). According to Llewllyn (2002), knowledge is not capable of being transfe rred from one person to another but is instead created in the mind of the learner. Constructivists be lieve that learning is constructed personally, t hrough reflection and socially through interactions with peers (Doolittle & Camp, 1999). A constructivist based inquiry oriented classroom is student centered rather than teacher centered (Thomas, 2008). T he tenants of constructivism seem to be similar to the work of others. Piaget (1970) claimed that learners acquire knowledge through guided questions related to problems provided to the learne r. Constructivism suggests that learners learn when they are involved in meani ngful activities that challenge them to form new relationships with what they already know (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Constructivism happens when a students function or pattern is disrupted and they are forced to construct knowledge for this disruption to make sense. In constructivism students rely on their previous experiences and build on them in order to construct new ideas to make sense of a phenomenon (Llewellyn, 2002). The constructivist based classroom is not a strictly structured on a fixed curriculum, but rather an environment where teachers pursue student questions facilitate learning from various sources, promote collaborative learning, and allow the students to develop their own understanding (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; NRC, 1996; Thomas, 2008). Inquiry based instruction has been derived from the ideals of constructivism (Thomas, 2008).

PAGE 30

30 During the 1960s r esearchers ( Suchman, 1962;; Taba 1966; Taba et al., 1964 ) began developing the foundation for inquiry based instruction. Acc ording to Taba et al. (1964): The role of questions become s crucial, and the way of asking questions by far the most influential teaching act. A focus set by the teachers questions circumscribes the mental operations which students can perform, determine s which point they can explore, and which modes of thought they learn. (p. 53) In the 1970s interest in inquiry based instruction waned due to the back to the basics reform in education. Despite the movement some continued to use inquiry instruction (J oyce & Wiel, 1972). Joyce and Wiel (1972) claimed that inquiry based instruction was at the forefront of educational reform. They point to inquiry as a model w here students inquire into and reflect about the natural world around them. More recently ther e h as been an epistemological shift emphasizing inquiry based instruction. A program of curriculum reform announced in 1990, which emphasized inquiry oriented learning, was issued as a call to make the United States a world leader in student science achievement (Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993). According to Flick (1995), one reason for t he limited research on inquiry instruction is that there is not an agreed upon operational definition for inquiry based instruction, therefore difficult to distinguish from traditional instruction. Perhaps inquiry instruction is more prevalent than once believed. H owever since several operational definitions existed before the National Science Educat ion Standards (NRC, 1996), inquiry based instruction had different meanings to different individuals. In 1996, the National Research Council, in developing the National Science Education Standards [NSES] provided a framework for inquiry instruction as well as a guide for instructors. This publication calls for a reform of science instruction (National Research Council, 1996) to meet the needs of science teachers in the United States, just as Dewey (1910) did many years earlier. One of the goals of the NSES (NRC, 1996) was to increase scientific

PAGE 31

31 literacy natio nally. These standards focused on inquiry instruction as a teaching and learning strategy for students in an effort to promote scientific literacy (NRC, 1996). Inquiry based instruction is a method of instruction that forces students to use the scien tific process to find the answers to questions. The NSES (NRC, 1996) define d inquiry in education as: A multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanation. (p. 23) Scientific inquiry in the classroom focused on science as a process rather than just the memorization of facts (NRC, 2000). Conducti ng scientific inquiry in the classroom requires instructors to facilitate instruction where the students identify and pose questions, design and conduct investigations, analyze data and evidence, use models and explanations, and effectively communicate the ir findings (Keys & Bryan, 2001). Inquiry instruction involves students doing science (NRC, 2000). According to Thomas (2008) inquiry instruction can be divided into three phases, posing a question, planning a procedure and formulating results Pos ing a question involves the teacher asking a question or directing student questioni ng into a researchable question. Planning a procedure includes hypothesizing a practical outcome, developing methods that control for variable, and develop a materials lis t. This step can be guided by the teacher or left open ended, depending on how comfortable the students are with the inquiry process. The final phase is formulating the results, which entails organizing data, analyzing data, formulating conclusions, and evaluating the validity of the experiment (Llewellyn, 2006; Thomas, 2008).

PAGE 32

32 Research on Inquiry Based Instruction Gibson and Chase (2002) tested whether students taught science using inquiry instruction at a weeklong camp considered science careers and if they enjoy ed science activities. Students were interviewed and randomly selected to attend the camp and selected based on their ethnicity in order to reflect the ethnic and gender balance of traditional schools. The students not selected to attend the camp were used as the control group. While both groups lost interest in science as they grew older, longitudinal evidence found that the control group lost more interest in science and had a lower interest in science careers. This suggested that the treatme nt of inquiry instruction had a positive effect on these students interest in science. The decrease in interest i n science in both groups in this study indicated that science instruction was perceived differently by students in high school than in middle school. Middle school instructors tend to provide more inquiry based instruction in their classes than do high school instructors (Gibson & Chase, 2002). Yerrick (2000) studied inquiry based instruction on lower achieving science students. In his qual itative study he concluded through the results of pre and post interviews that lower achieving science students had more confident knowledge claims, could provide more scientific explanations and answer scientific questions better. Before issuing the trea tment, students offered nave answers as they searched for the right answer. When the students could not find the right answer they stopped trying After the open inquiry science lesson students argumentation skills increased and they were able to formulate testable hypotheses for answers to difficult quest ions with no right answers. According to a study by Huber, Smith and Shotsberger (2000), students who are taught using inquiry based instruction according to the standards have higher perceptions of science and report a noteworthy improvement in science. They reported that students felt more successful in

PAGE 33

33 their science classes, enjoyed learning science, and found the lesso ns to be useful. Their study was significant because the inservice teachers administering the treatment attended training similar to the w orkshop planned for this study. Von Secker (2002) found empirical evidence that suggests inquiry based instruction leads to higher achievement than courses not taught using inquiry based instr uction. Von Secker and Lissitz (1999) agreed inquiry instruction leads to higher achievement when taught in standards based science classes. Geier Blumenfield, Marx, Krajcik, Fishman, Soloway et al. (2008) found in a study of 7th and 8th graders that in quiry based instruction was effective in increasing scores on standardized high stakes testing, particularly when students were involved in inquiry based classrooms for two years. Wolf and Fraser (2007) noted that 12 day inquiry based lessons could be ef fectively used to increase skills such as student cohesiveness, task orientation, cooperation, equity, and attitudes. They also noted that brief inquiry based lessons can be an effective way to teach the numerous objectives required from standardized test s. Geier et al (2008) and Wolf and Fraser (2007) noted that inquiry based instruction held more of a benefit for males. G e ier et al. (2008) found that inquiry based instruction helped males close the gender gap present in urban schools. Wolf and Fraser (2007) found that males in inquiry based classrooms had more cooperation, task orientation, and had a more positive attitude towards learning about science concepts than did females. There are some criticisms of inquiry instruction. Von Secker (2002) claimed that inquiry based instruction can be sensitive to social and cultural differences and can widen achievement gaps among some groups of students due to the contextually specific examples and questioning involved in inquiry based instruction. Von Se cker and Lissitz (1999) note d females and minority students are more at risk for low achievement when taught using inquiry based

PAGE 34

34 instruction. Inquiry based instruction is more difficult to implement in schools that lack resources, due to the amount of res ources needed to successfully implement effective inquiry based l essons (Von Secker & Lissitz, 1999) Rodriguez (1997) claimed inquiry based instruction, as outlined by the standards (NRC, 1996), omit ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender issues related to th e use of the standards. In a qualitative study involving K 12 teachers, Fuller (2001) found that instructors believe that inquiry instruction promotes student learning. She also noted that students seemed to enjoy the lessons more when taught using inquiry methods. The instructors noted that the lessons took longer to plan for and required more supplies. The study also found that once teachers began using inquiry instruction, most still used it six years later. Inquiry Based Instruction in School Based Agricultural Education The theories of Snedden and Prosser have been the basis of secondary vocational education in the United States from its incep tion. Implicit learning theory born out of behaviorist philosophies has been used by instructors for nearl y a century (Doolittle & C amp, 1999). Doolittle and Camp argue d that constructivist ideals align themselves with the goals of vocational educa tion. Doolittle and Camp state d, T he students ability to construct viable knowledge and to adapt is paramount (p. 26). In vocational education too much emphasis is placed on the understanding of specific objectives. According to Doolittle and Camp, the focus sh ould shift towards providing experiences to st udents that force them to think and construct new knowle dge based on their experiences. In agricultural education the problem solving approach has been used for several years to deliver instruction to students. According to Crunkilton and Krebs (1982) the problem solving approach is a method of teaching wh ere teachers guide students through a series of questions, which provide a foundation for the lesson when answered by the students. Unlike

PAGE 35

35 inquiry instruction, problem based instruction does not guide students through the complete inquiry process. Crunki lton and Krebs (1982) outline d the problem solving approach as an interest approach designed to get students engaged in direct instruction rather than a new teaching philosophy. Brown (1998) define d the problem solving approach to teaching as a four ste p process. These steps are: 1. Engagement The issues in the classroom are related to the larger context of the student s world. 2. Inquiry The students explore to find solutions to a problem that has no specific right answer. 3. Solution Building Students gener ate solutions to the problem, through observation. 4. Reflection Elements of the subject matter approach are defined in an assessment to structure the reflection. I nquiry instruction and problem based learning are very similar. Parr and Edwards (2004) note d that problem based learning is inquiry instruction. The y go on to argue that problem based learning is based on constructivist principles. Dewey, (1916) emphasized the importance of reflection in education, claiming that learners must be involved in the experience both actively and cognitively, reflection during the experience process rather than simply absorbing information. Kolb (1984) also highlighted the importance of active reflection. This reflection should occur as a process during the inquiry. In problem based learning the reflection of a structured assessment does not promote true reflection in the students, which is central to the learning process. Problem based learning developed from behaviorist principles and inquiry based instruction bor n from constructivism are principally different. According to Lancelot (1929), the goal of problem based learning is to teach students how to solve problems without help. Inquiry based instruction goes much deeper than teaching students to solve problem.

PAGE 36

36 Inquiry based instruction focuses on teaching students how to think and process situations. The principle difference is that in inquiry based instruction the students observe, think, process, reflect on, and test whatever is being examined. In problem based learning students focus only on solving the problem at hand. If the problem is the only focus then consideration of extenuating variables or alternative explanations/solutions metacognition and perhaps most importantly reflection is left out of t he process (NRC, 1996) Inquiry Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs History Historically direct instruction, where content is directly taught to students, is believed to be the best method for educating students with disabilities (Kin der, Kubina, & MarchandMartella, 2005). In direct instruction, the lessons are largely instructor centered. The lessons in direct instruction are taught using the paradigm that the teachers prov ide the instruction to students and provide immediate correc tion if the student is incorrect. The ultimate goal of direct instruction is an assessment of some sort with set correct responses that are established by the instructor (Ganz & Flores, 2009). Direct instruction was born out of behaviorist ideologies like those proposed by Thorndike and Skinner. Thorndike (1911) theorized that students would behave similar to the animals in his tests that learned faster when rewards where provided. Skinner (1938) adding to those tests claimed that the reward need not be provided every time. This operant conditioning provides the basis for direct instruction where students are operantly rewarded f or correct answers (Llewellyn, 2002). Swanson and Sa chse Lee (2000) and Vaughn, Gersten, and Chard (2000) note d that students with learning disabilities learn better in environments w here the y are directly taught content and opportunities are given for repetition, guided practice and review.

PAGE 37

37 In congruence with Thorndike and Skinner, Flick (1995) claimed that inquiry teaching st rategies can cause discourse with slow learners. However, Rapp (2000) argue d that instructors of special needs students need to be more creative in their instruction and use inquiry teaching strategies. McCarthy (2005) found that when compared to a tex tbook approach to teaching thematic based, hands on science is a more effective method of teaching students with emotional disturbances. While she admitted that thematic based, hands on instruction takes more time and effort, there was a difference in ac ademic achievement. While Rapp (2000) and McCarthy (2005) both referred to active teaching strategies that are similar to inquiry based instruction, little research exists on inquiry based instruction for students with special needs. Research needs to be conducted to determine if these methods can be considered inquiry strategies. Research on Inquiry Based Instruction for Students with Special Needs Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, and Brigham (1993) studied the effects of an inquiry oriented approach t o science learning in special education classrooms when compared to a textbookbased approach. Using a quasi experimental design they determined students vocabulary, factual recall, and application test questions scores with the two treatments. They fou nd that inquiry oriented approaches helped facilitate the acquisition of content knowledge by students. They also noted that when taught through inquiry oriented approaches students learned and remembered more and also enjoyed learning more. Fuller (20 01) found that students involved in special education and inclusion settings performed comparably to regular education students when comparing perceived change in teaching and learning component scores in their classrooms. The study al so found that there was little difference in the effectiveness of inquiry in the classroom when comparing these same class types. No sig nificant difference was found between classroom types i n how much the students

PAGE 38

38 enjoyed inquiry based instruction. These findings indicate that inquiry instruction can be relevant for learners with special needs and an effective way to teach science concepts. Conceptual Model This study is guided by a conceptual model adapted from Mi t zel ( 1960), Dunkin and Biddle ( 1974), and Singer and Moscovici (2008) The model identifies several variables that need to be considered for this study. The concept for the model is based on the work of Mitzel (1960). The basic model identifies variables to be considered in teaching and learning. The str ucture for the model was developed by Dunkin and Biddle (1974). The IMSTRA framework for inquiry based instruction was developed by Singer and Moscovici (2008) (see Figure 2 1) Presage Variables Presage (teacher) variables identify teacher differ ences. Some examples of presage variables could include, experience level, teacher training, age, preferred learning style etc. All teachers are different, and these differences are important to consider ( Duncan & Biddle, 1974; Mitzel, 1960). However, f or this study efforts have been made to hold presage variables as a constant. Since the teachers have similar experience levels (more than three years), and have received similar training, these variables are somewhat similar. While variations of the ot her presage variables are expected, an assumption has to be made that these factors had no influence on the product variable.

PAGE 39

39 Figure 2 1. A model for the study of classroom teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) including the IMSTRA framework for teaching and learning (Singer & Moscovici, 2008) and the process of differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001) as it relates to this study

PAGE 40

40 Context Variables Students in any classroom can differ drastically. Their home life, the amount of sleep they ha ve had, their background knowledge and their learning preferences could have an influence on how the students learn in the classroom. These variables are known as context variables. For this study IEP status was the context variable of interest. Gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were analyzed to determine if any effect was present. Researchers (Geier et al., 2008; Wolf & Fraser, 2007; Von Secker & Lissitz, 1999; Rodriguez, 1997) have found that inquiry based instruction is biased to these lea rners. All other context variables are held as constants using statistical analysis and by having a large enough sample size. Process Variables The process variable refers to the method of instruction used by the instructor to deliver the content. The pr ocess variable can be the teaching method used, or specific delivery for the content (Mitzel, 1960; Duncan & Biddle, 1974). For this study, inquiry based instruction is used to deliver the content to the students. This method is held as a constant throug hout the study. For instruction to be effective for all students, it must flow through the lens of differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). IMSTRA Framework The IMSTRA framework for the teaching and learning cycle outlines the inquiry based instr uction process in a cyclical model. The framework identifies both student and teacher variables that take place during the process of inquiry based instruction. The framework is based on constructivist principles and built on the idea that the learner is an autonomous thinker that constructs their own knowledge. The model uses three key stages to explain the inquiry based instruction process; Immersion, Structuring, and Applying. In the Immersion phase, students begin to address a problem or issue. Her e they are probed to seek more information about the

PAGE 41

41 phenomena. As the na me, Immersion, implies students may face a problem without an obvious answer. In the second phase, Structuring, students begin to try to explain the problem presented during the Imm ersion phase. Here students may test hypothesis, relate the problem to other problems, or seek abstract conceptualization to make sense of the problem. During the final stage, Applying, students apply the abstract pattern that they learned during the Str ucturing phase to apply it to other situations. During the Applying phase, teachers are interested in assessing what students learned and determining their ability to apply it to various situations. The IMSTRA framework for the teaching and learning cycle can help teachers and students understand the inquiry process. As the circular nature of the model implies, each cycle of the model should lead into the next cycle. Inquiry based instruction should build on itself so larger concepts can be linked together. Differentiated Instruction For instruction to be effective for all students, it must flow through the lens of differentiat ed instruction. Differentiated instruction is the process of making instruction a custom fit for all students in a mixed ability classroom. According to Tomlinson (2001), differentiated instruction is a proactive, qualitative, student centered approach that is rooted in assessment, utilizes multiple approaches, and is a blend of different types of instruction. Differentiated instr uc tion involves differentiating (a) content, (b ) p rocess, and (c ) product (Tomlinson, 2001). Lessons can be differentiated by content by altering what students actually learn, or the objectives of the lesson. P rocess is differentiated by allowing studen ts to explore the co ntent through different means. P roduct differentiation refers to having different ways students can demonstrate what they have learned. According to Sternberg and Zhang (2005) differentiated instruction helps students expl ore their st ylistic preferences and allows them to engage in instruction that is unique to them and specific to their preferred learning style. George

PAGE 42

42 (2005) argued differentiation increases equality in mixed ability classrooms since students are given more flexibility and variety in their instruction. Differentiated instruction can also be useful for students with disabilities because it provides teachers with an arsenal of teaching strategies to help reach these students (George, 2005). Product Variable The product variable is the measureable outcome performed by the student. The product variable measures knowledge or skills gained by the student. Quantifying knowledge gain can be a difficult process. Standardized tests based on precise curriculum are typically used by school systems to measure learning. This method of measurement typically makes it easier for school systems, states, and more recently federal government to make comparisons among students and school (Geier et al., 2008). Assessments based on pr ecise curriculum were used for this study to measure content knowledge achievement. Evidence has been provided in this chapter that promotes the use of inquiry based instruction to promote content knowledge achievement. Chapter Summary This chapter dis cussed agri cultural teachers challenges in educating students with special needs and analyzed various teaching methods for delivering instruction to them. The theoretical framework for the study, Constructivism, questioned the behaviorist and direct inst ruction norms that are currently used to educate students with special needs. A case for inquiry based instruction was made, pointing to studies that outline the possible benefit of inquiry based instruction for students with special needs. Studies of inquiry based instruction in agricultural education were also analyzed. A limited amount of research exists on inquiry based instruction for students with special needs in agricultural education. The little research that does exist on the subject was analy zed The conceptual model for the study was analyzed. The presage variables

PAGE 43

43 were controlled in this study, and the context variable of interest was student with special needs and students without special needs The process variable was inquiry based ins truction based on the IMSRA framework (Singer & Moscovici, 2008). The produce variable measured was content knowledge achievement.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 3 M ETHODS Introduction This study was designed to demine how inquiry based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. In order to achieve the purpose of this study the following objectives were investigated: Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education students. Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. This chapter describes the preexperimental quasi experimental design used to complete this research. The population is defined by the researcher (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) Research Design This study utilized the one group pretest posttest design a quasi experimental design (see F igure 3 1) (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). This design was selected because random assignment of subjects was not practical. Moreover a true control group that receives no treatment as defined by Campbell and Stanley (1963 ) w ould not have been ethical since the students in the study were expected to learn the content of their courses Only one group was needed because IEP status served as the variable of interest for the study within one type of instruction. For this design one in tact group received a pretest, followed by the treatment of inquiry based instruction, and then a posttest to measure content knowledge achievement. For this study, pre tests and posttests measured the dependent variable (content knowledge achievement). The treatment was inquiry based instruction delivered by an experienced agricultural teacher that has attended the National Agriscience Ambassador Academy [ NATAA] The study utilized a series of seven

PAGE 45

45 treatment periods with a pretest and posttest use d to measure content knowledge before and after each lesson respectively. The pretest (Ockpre1) was adminis tered prior to the first lesson. A fter the treatment (X1) was delivered the posttest (Ockpost1) was administere d. The treatment typically lasted 12 weeks. Through the course of the study students were referred to solely by their subject ID number on the pretest, posttest, and demographic sheet to maintain student confidentiality. OneGroup Pretest Posttest Design Figure 3 1. Onegroup pretest posttest design Ockpre1 X 1 Ockpost1 Ockpre2 X2 Ockpost2 Ockpre3 X3 Ockpost3 Ockpre4 X4 Ockpost4 Ockpre5 X5 Ockpost5 Ockpre6 X6 Ockpost6 Ockpre7 X7 Ockpost7 The study took place as part of a larger quasi experimental design study that compared inquiry based instruction to the subject matter approach. Population The theoretical population of this study is agricultural education students in the United States. Th e sample of the study was limited to 204 stu dents instructed by a graduate of NATAA program selected for this study The NATAA is professional development program that allows experienced agriculture teachers to develop their ability to teach inquiry based instruction. Ten experienced agricultural teachers who have previously completed the NATAA program were selected to participate in the study. The instructors have employed inquiry strategies in their classrooms have conducted inservice workshops on inquiry instruction since completing the program Each instructor taught inquiry based lesson s to one class of approximately 20 students. To help ensure the consistency of treatment, t hese instructors have all received the same training O 1 X O 2

PAGE 46

46 on inquiry based instructions and were given special instructions and training regarding participation in the researc h project. Sample Size Individual students served as the sampling unit for the study but they were selected as members of an intact classroom. A large enough sample size was important to ensure reliabil ity and to measure the variables of the study properly. Myers (2004) suggested using a formula to determine an appropriate sample size for the study. The sample size was selected in order to minimize the possibility of a Type I error to .05, achieve the desired power of .90 and detect variances grater than .10 in the dependent variable due to the independent variables. The following formula was used to establish an appropriate sample size n = 2[Z(1 Z]2 2 In the formula Z(1 is the z score for the desired alpha level (.05), Zis the z score for the .90 w2) / w2) In which w2 represents the variance of the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variable. This study used the calculations .10) ] = .66 n = 2[1.96 ( 1.64) ]2 + .662 = 59.5 The formula de termined that a minimum of 60 participants were required to have an appropriate sample size. A 50% mortality can be expected so this number should be double to 120 (Boone, 1988; Dyer, 1995; Flowers, 1986; Myers, 2004). In order to obtain 120 students 10 in tact courses were used. Students missing more than 25% of the instructional time during the semester were remo ved from the study.

PAGE 47

47 Limitations of the Study All possible rival hypotheses were considered. Campbell and Stanley (1963) identify several threats to internal validit y, including hist ory, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, subject selection, and mortality. Since this study utilized intact classes, the randomization of groups limited the validity of the s tudy. S ince the study took place over several weeks, history and m aturation of subjects and mor tality w ere possible factors. Instructors were asked to note any significant events that caused a history effect so they can be noted in the results. The maturation effect was limited due to the time f rame of the study. The pretest and posttests were given before and after each lesson to limit the maturation effect. Respondents had 12 week s between the pretest and posttest for most objectives. There was also a possibility of a testing effect influencing the results of the posttest, however there was a week of instruction between the pretest and posttest, and alternate forms were used, therefore the effects should be limited. Mor tality was anticipated and controlled for by having a large sample of students There was a pos sible instrumentation effect ( instrumentation decay), but since the multiple choice tests were administered the same way and were different forms of the same exam the testing effects were minimal. A regression effect was also considered and controlled fo r usin g statistical analysis measures. A possible threat to validity was the differences of groups. In order to eliminate the threat to validity several groups were selected and statistical measures were taken. The study was also limited in its generalizability since the instructors participating are chosen purposefully from instructors who have attended the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy (Ary, Cheser Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorenson, 2006; Campbell & Stanley, 1963).

PAGE 48

48 Procedures The study uti lized a one group pretest posttest design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Instructors administered a pretest to g auge base knowledge, t hen taught an 1012 week inquiry based unit about properties of soils to their agricultural education students. The 1012 week inquiry based instru ction treatment was split into seven lessons guided by specific student learning objectives. The lesson plans were developed by the researcher and were created as inquiry based instruction methods. The lessons were adopted from Center for Agricultural and Environmental Research and Training [ CAERT ] curriculum for i nquiry based instruction. The lessons focused on soil science content consisting of seven units. The units included the following topics: nature of soil, soil formati on, soil color, soil texture and structure, soil profile, moisture holding capacity, soil erosion and management, soil chemistry, fertilizer formation, applying fertilizers, nutrient deficiencies, seed germination process and requirements, plant life cycle s, photosynthesis, and respiration. Students that missed more than 25% of the instructional time were dismissed from the study since the control was not properly administered during that time. Content and face validity were validated by a panel of exper t s compromised of faculty from the Agricultu ral Education and Communication Department and the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. Upon the conclusion of each inquiry lesson the instructors administered a posttest to gauge the stu dents content knowledge achievement The pretest and posttest were different forms of the same test. The pretest and posttest were developed by the researcher and piloted to a group of undergraduate students. The seven assessments have a coefficient al pha determined by a Kuder Richardson 20 (KR 20) for dichotomous data of .94, .93, .91, .86, .87, .89, and .91 respectively (Gall, Borg, & Joyce 1996) Demographic information was collected on the students including their year in school, gender, IEP st atus and any disabilities the students have. The instructors were encouraged to

PAGE 49

49 complete a differentiation check list and reflection tool prior to and after each lesson to ensure the lessons were differentiated for the students disabilities This tool a llows the instructors to explain how they differentiated the lesson for the special needs students in the class and to analyze how well the lesson was differentiated. Samples of digital audio recordings were used to ensure the treatment was delivered. Th is study received IRB approval before the study began. Instrumentation This study used a Content Knowledge Achievement Assessment developed by the researcher administered as a pretest and posttest before and after each unit respectively. Content Knowledge Achievement Assessment An assessment created by the researcher was used to gauge student content knowledge achievement of the objectives used in this study. The content knowledge achievement assessment was created based on the information given to the in structors to be taught to students. There were seven separate assessments based on the inquiry based units, with 25 questions on each assessment The assessments were guided by a matrix that listed the percentage of the lesson spent on each concept, then a representative amount of questions were asked so the amount of questions from each objective matched the time spent in class fo r each objective ( s ee A ppendix D ). The seven assessments have a coefficient alpha of .94, .93, .91, .86, .87, .89, and .91 re spectively Data Collection Data was collected using various measures. Demographic data, including IEP data was collected using a Microsoft E xcel form created by the researcher ( s ee A ppendix I ). The demographic form was then saved to a USB flash drive and mailed to the researcher. The content knowledge achievement a ssessments were completed by the students, then the results were saved on a flash drive and mailed back to the researcher. The digital audio recordings of the lessons were taken using a dig ital audio recording device given to the instructors prior to the

PAGE 50

50 study. The digital audio files were then saved on a USB flash drive and shipped to the researcher upon the conclusion of the study. Analysis of Data Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16.0 for Windows software package. The posttest scores serve d as the dependent variables and the results were analyzed u sing an analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] where the pretest served at the covariate. The independent variable was the students IEP status Chapter Summary This chapter described the methods used to conduct this study. The research design, population, sample size, limitations, procedures, content knowledge achievement assessments, data collection, and data analysis processes wer e discussed during this chapter. The study use d a one group pretest posttest design which is a quasi experimental research design The design includes seven pretest, inquiry based treatment, and posttest cycles. For this study graduates of the NATAA delivered the treatment to their studen ts. A sample size of 204 was used in order to properly measure the variables of the study while preventing Type I errors. This chapter identified and addressed several threats to validity including history, maturat ion, testing, instrumentation, regression, subject selection, and mortality. These threats were recognized and controlled for when possible. During the study 810 week inquiry based lessons were taught. The lessons were broken into 7 separate units. De mographic data was collected as well as pretest and posttest scores on a content knowledge achievement instrument. The results were analyzed using SPSS and analysis of covariates [ANCOVA] were used to determine content knowledge achievement.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study is to determine if inquiry based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. In order to analyze students with special needs, comparisons were made between those student s with IEPs and students without IEPs in School Based Agricultural Education. In order to achieve the purpose of the study the research was guided by the following objectives: Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education st udents. Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. In order to achieve the research objectives a purposive sample of School Based Agricultural Education programs was conducted from 10 schools around the country. A total of 204 students were enrolled in the selected classes used in this study. No data was received f rom three of the schools participating in the study. In one case repeated contacts were made to the instructor. After the study was completed the instructor contacted the researcher and explained their inability to participate due to personal health reas ons. A second instructor incurred family medical issues and asked to withdraw from the study. A third instructor withdrew from the study during the first week because of being assigned a new teachin g role that did not meet the guidelines of the study A total of 27 students were re moved from the study due to non participation. A further 7 students were removed from the study due to missing more than 25% of the instructional time during the semester, as was determined a priori as outlined in chapter 3. A final n of 170 students were used in the study.

PAGE 52

52 This chapter presents the findings distilled from unit pre and post tests taken by students taught using inquiry instruction and makes comparisons based on IEP status. Reliability of Assessments As out lined in chapter 3 a coefficient alpha for the dichotomous data of content knowledge achievement [CKA] exams was calculated by assessing pilot test results in order to determine the reliability of the assessments. The post test questions were asked in a r andomly selected order to reduce the overall testing effect (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The seven CKA pretest and posttests had a mean summated score of 4 8.2, 50.0, 47.8, 48.2, 56.9, 45.3, and 57.5 respectively. A Kuder Richardson [KR20] for dichotomous data was used to determine the coeff icient alpha (Gall, Borg, & Joyce 1996). The instruments were determined to have a coefficient alpha of: .94, .93, .91, .86, .87, .89, and .91 respectively (s ee T able 4 1 ) Table 4 1 Pilot test mean content knowledg e assessment scores and instrument r eliability CKA instrument Mean score KR 20 alpha 1 49.4 .94 2 50.0 .93 3 47.8 .91 4 48.2 .86 5 56.9 .87 6 45.3 .89 7 57.5 .91 Note: CKA = Content Knowledge Achievement; CKA max score 100 Audio recordings were analyzed to ensure teachers were correctly implementing inquiry based instruction. The Science Teaching Inquiry Rubric (STIR) was used as an assessment tool to analyze the level of inquiry based instruction for each class. All seven teachers in the study effectively derived inquiry based instruction ( s ee A ppendix A) Objective 1 Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education. Students Onehundred and seventy students in 7 different schools across the nation participated in this study In the study 57.6% ( n = 98) of students were male and 42.4% ( n = 72) were female.

PAGE 53

53 Instructors were asked to report the ethnicity of students, for this study 81.8% ( n = 139) were Caucasian, 9.4% ( n = 16) were Hispanic, 4.7% ( n = 8) were black, and 4.1% ( n = 7) were listed as other (see T able 4 2) Table 42. Summary of ethnicities Ethnicity n % White, non Hispanic 139 81.8 Hispanic 16 9.4 Black 8 4.7 Other 7 4.1 Students were also analyzed based on their free and reduced lunch status as a measure of socio economic status. Seventy one point eight percent ( n = 122) did not qualify for free or reduced lunch, 15.3% ( n = 26) qualified for reduced lunch, and 12.9% ( n = 22) qualified for free lunch. Instructors were also asked to indicate wheth er or not the students were assigned an IEP. In this study 79.4% ( n = 135) did not have an IEP assigned to them, 20.6% ( n = 35) did have an IEP assigned to them. There were various reasons for the assignment of the IEPs, 13.5% ( n = 23) were described as other, 2.9% ( n = 5) were described as having specific learning disability 1.2% ( n = 2) were described as having a speech or language impairment 1.2% ( n = 2) were described as having a visual impairment 1.2% ( n = 2) were described as having an emotiona l disturbance 0.6% ( n = 1) were described as having an orthopedic impairment (see T able 4 3) Since this study utilized a small portion of school based agricultural education population these results are not generalizable to the larger population. Demographic data of the students in this study serve to compare the classes in this study to larger studies of agricultural education students and determine if the sample represents the population of students in school based agricultural education.

PAGE 54

54 Table 43. Summary of IEP classifications Learning Disability n % Other 23 13.5 Specific learning disability 5 2.9 Speech or language impairment 2 1.2 Visual impairment 2 1.2 Emotional disturbance 2 1.2 Orthopedic impairment 1 0.6 Objective 2 Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors. By comparing means and standard deviations, inquiry based instruction proved to consistently improve test scores from the pre to post assessments. For test one the mean score increased by 27.92 points. For test two the mean score increased by 30.52 points. For test three the mean score increased by 37.06 points. For test four the mean score increased by 40.63 points. For test five the mean scor e increased by 43.22 points. For test six the mean score increased by 47.92 points. For test seven the mean sc ore increased by 51.41 points (see T able 44). While mean score increase does not provide a statistical significance for the basis of validatio n for this method, it is important to note that an increase in score did occur. Since a control teaching method was not used the precise comparative impact of inquiry based instruction cannot be calculated. Tabl e 4 4. Summary of central tendency measures for the seven unit content knowledge achievement pre and post assessments Pre Test Post Test Source M SD M SD Test 1 35.57 11.68 63.49 17.86 Test 2 35.72 12.78 66.24 14.86 Test 3 31.20 11.06 68.26 15.86 Test 4 36.19 13.88 76.82 13.67 Test 5 35.82 11.89 79.04 12.74 Test 6 33.72 13.78 81.65 10.32 Test 7 29.27 11.74 80.68 10.61

PAGE 55

55 Gender differences were analyzed using an analysis of covariates [ANCOVA] measures. Several factors were considered to determine what demographic factors influenced content knowledge achievement. The post test measuring content knowledge achievement serv ed as the dependent variable being measured, the pre test served as the covariate, and the fixed variable was the demographic factor being analyzed. A p value less that .05 was determined to be significant. For all seven tests gender was not a significant fixed variable, and did not explain a si gnificant amount of the difference in post test scores when prete st scores were controlled for (see T able 45). Table 4 5. Summary of ANCOVA measures for content knowledge achievement for gender Source df F p Test 1 1 0 .33 .57 Test 2 1 0 .42 .52 Test 3 1 1.32 .25 Test 4 1 0 .00 .96 Test 5 1 0 .82 .37 Test 6 1 0 .02 .88 Test 7 1 1.60 .21 Note: Pretest is the covariate Ethnicity differences were measured using ANCOVA measures. For test one ( p = .00), test three ( p = .02), and test four ( p = .05), a significant difference was evident with a partial eta squared significance of 0.09, 0.06, and 0.05 respectively (see T able 46) Using Bonferroni correction of pairwise comparisons a significant difference of .01 was found between Caucasion and Other, with a mean difference of 20.44 on the for the first post test. A significant difference of .03 with a mean difference of 10.49 w as found between Caucasian and Hispanic groups for post test three. A significant difference of .04 with a mean difference of 9.58 was found between Caucasian and Hispanic groups for post test four. No other pairwise comparisons on the other

PAGE 56

56 tests yielded a significant difference of less than .05 using a Bonferroni comparison. No significant difference was ev ident for the remaining tests (see T able 4 6). Table 4 6. Summary of ANCOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for ethnicity Source d f F p 2 Test 1 3 5.48 .00 .09 Test 2 3 1.88 .13 .03 Test 3 3 3.57 .02 .06 Test 4 3 2.62 .05 .05 Test 5 3 2.51 .06 .04 Test 6 3 0.93 .43 .02 Test 7 3 0.81 .49 .02 Note: Pretest is the covariate While a comparison of means does not provide statistical significance, it does provide some insight into how groups scored on the posttests for each unit. The mean scores for the black group are similar to those of the Caucasian group. When comparing the Hispanic the Caucasian group, the mean scores for the Hispanic group are lower. The other group mean posttest scores are higher than the Caucasian o n five of the seven posttests (see T able 47) Table 4 7. Summary of central tendency measures for the sev en unit content knowledge achievement post assessments separated by ethnicity Caucasian Black Hispanic Other n = 139 n = 8 n = 16 n = 7 M SD M SD M SD M SD Test 1 63.76 17.21 60.10 14.96 53.85 19.20 84.02 15 10 Test 2 66.79 14.96 68.00 17.24 57.75 12.65 72.57 15 90 Test 3 69.78 15.29 61.5 0 22.32 57.50 13.46 70.29 15.81 Test 4 77.83 12.71 79.25 11.80 68.00 20.34 7 4.29 1 0.03 Test 5 79.14 12.05 83.25 7.40 72.63 19.47 86.86 3.80 Test 6 82.45 9.93 78.50 13.34 78.00 11.22 77.71 11 28 Test 7 81.04 10.88 80.50 10.13 76.50 8.25 8 3.43 9.91 The mean scores for the earlier posttests seem to have more variance among the groups when the mean scor es are viewed on a line graph (see F igure 4 1). By the final posttest the scores seem to have normalized, which is evident by the line graph (see F igure 4 1) and the standard deviations (see T able 47).

PAGE 57

57 Figure 4 1 Comparisons of mean scores for the content knowledge achievement post tests A low n can result in a false signif icant influence. Since black ( n = 8), Hispanic ( n = 16), and other ( n = 7) were all low, an ANCOVA was performed grouping other ethnicities besides Caucasian in one group resulting in a n of 31. According to Israel (2009) a n of at least 20 must be present for comparative analysis of subgroups to prove significance When the ethnicities were grouped together, there was a significant different for post test 3 and post test 4 when the pre test 3 and pre test 4 were controlled for as a covariate respectivel y and had and partial eta squared effect size of 0.04 and 0.02 respectively For post test 3 the Caucasian group mean score was 6.92 percentage points higher than the other combined groups. For post test 4 the Caucasian group mean score was 5.32 percentage points higher than the other combined groups. Table 4 8. Summary of ANCOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for ethnicity Source df F p 2 Test 1 1 0.18 .68 .00 Test 2 1 1.04 .31 .00 Test 3 1 6.12 .01 .04 Test 4 1 3.83 .05 .02 Test 5 1 0.06 .81 .00 Test 6 1 2.78 .10 .02 Test 7 1 0.88 .35 .01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6 Test 7 Caucasian Black Hispanic Other

PAGE 58

58 There was no significant difference for the other assessments when ethnicity was a fixed variable (see Table 4 8). Since ethnicity was significant at the .05 level it was combined with IEP status to determine if any difference existed on the variable of interest. No significance was found when both variables were considered (see T able 4 9). Table 4 9. Summary of ANOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for ethnicity with IEP status Source df F p Test 1 1 .47 .50 Test 2 1 .09 .76 Test 3 1 1.10 .30 Test 4 1 1.14 .29 Test 5 1 .10 .75 Test 6 1 .19 .66 Test 7 1 .36 .55 When free or reduced lunch status served as the fixed variable no significant difference was found in post test scores when pretest scores were controlled as the covariate. According the ANCOVA measurement free or reduced lunch status does not have a sig nificant impact on content knowledge achievement (see T able 4 10). Table 4 10. Summary of ANCOVA measures of content knowledge achievement for free or reduced lunch status Source df F p Test 1 2 0 .76 0 .47 Test 2 2 0 .41 0 .66 Test 3 2 0 .63 0 .53 Test 4 2 0 .24 0 .79 Test 5 2 0 .01 0 .99 Test 6 2 0 .93 0 .40 Test 7 2 1.38 0 .26 Objective 3 Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. IEP status was analyzed using ANCOVA measures. The post test measuring content knowledge achievement served as the dependent variable being measured, the pre test served as

PAGE 59

59 the covariate, and the fixed variable whether or not the student had an IEP. A p value less that .05 was determined to be significant. For all seven tests IEP was not a significant fixed variable, and did not explain a significant amount of the difference in post test scores when pre te st scores were controlled for (see T able 410). Table 4 11. Summary of ANCOVA measures for content knowledge achievement post assessments for IEP status Source df F p Test 1 1 0 .51 .48 Test 2 1 0 .13 .72 Test 3 1 1.39 .24 Test 4 1 1.38 .24 Test 5 1 0 .11 .74 Test 6 1 0 .27 .60 Test 7 1 0 .30 .59 IEP status had no significant impact on students content knowledge achievement scores, which implies that students with special needs learn as much as their peers without special needs through inquiry based instruction. While a comparison of means does not indicate a statistical significance, a comparison of means and standard deviations shows that there is little difference betw een the IEP and no IEP groups (see T able 411 ). Table 412. Summary of central tendency measures for the seven unit content knowledge achievement pre and post assessments IEP No IEP Source M SD M SD Test 1 61.98 16.55 63.88 18.22 Test 2 64.69 13.70 66.64 15.17 Test 3 65.37 16.80 69.01 15.59 Test 4 74.40 18.53 77.01 12.11 Test 5 78.43 12.94 79.19 12.73 Test 6 80.57 8.52 81.93 10.75 Test 7 81.14 9.53 80.56 10.90 Summar y This chapter outlined the findings from the one group pretest posttest quasi experimental design. A n of 170 students was used for this study. 204 were originally selected for

PAGE 60

60 participation in the study, the remaining 34 were removed due to nonparticipation and missing more than 25% of the instructional time. In order to determine the reliability of the instruments, a Kuder Richardson [KR20] for dichotomous data was used to de termine the coeff icient alpha (Gall et al., 1996). The seven instruments have a coefficient alpha of: .94, .93, .91, .86, .87, .89, and .91 respectively. For this study 57.6% were male and 42.4% were female and 20.6% of students had an IEP. When compar ing posttest scores based on demographic factors using an ANCOVA no difference existed in genders, free and reduced lunch status but a difference was evident for ethnicity for three of the seven posttests. There was not a difference when comparing content knowledge achievement based on students IEP status.

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIO NS AND RECOMENDATIONS Introduction Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine if inquiry based instruction impacts content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. The research aimed to determine if students with special needs in school based agricultural education learn content through inquiry based instruction the same as students without special needs. In order to achieve the desire d purpose this research was guided by the following objectives: Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education students. Determine the impact of inquiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors Determine if inquiry based instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. Methods The study utilized a one group pre test post test pre experimental design, outlined by C ampbell and Stanley (1963). A total of 10 instructors taught one class of inquiry based instruc tion and administered a set of seven pre and post test cycles for each unit. For this study graduates of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy [ N ATAA] delivered the treatment to their students. Threats to validity including history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, subject selection, and mortality were addressed and controlled for when possible. During the study 810 week inquiry based lessons were taught. The lessons were broken into 7 separate units. Demographic data was collected as well as pretest and posttest scores on a content knowledge achievement instrument. The results were analyzed using

PAGE 62

62 SPSS and analysis of covaria tes [ANCOVA] were used to determine content knowledge achievement. Summary of Findings Objective 1 : Describe the population of special needs School Based Agricultural Education. Students The study included 170 students from seven different schools nationwi de. Of that, 57.6% ( n = 98) were male and 42.4% ( n = 72) were female. Eighty one point eight percent ( n = 139) were Caucasian and 18.2% ( n = 31) were nonCaucasian. Seventy one point eight percent ( n = 122) did not qualify for free or reduced lunch, 15. 3% (n = 26) qualified for reduced lunch, and 12.9% ( n = 22) qualified for free lunch. Seventy nine point four percent ( n = 135) did not have an IEP assigned to them, 20.6% ( n = 35) did have an IEP assigned to them. Objective 2 : Determine the impact of inq uiry based instruction on student content knowledge based on demographic factors. The difference in mean scores between the seven pretests and posttests were 27.92, 30.52, 37.06, 40.63, 43.22, 47.92, and 43.22 respectively. Gender and free or reduced lunch status did not show a significant difference in posttest scores when pretest scores were controlled for. Ethnicity presented a significant difference on posttest scores for test 1, 3, and 4, to a .05 significance level. No significant difference existed on any of the other exams. When ethnic groups other than Caucasian were grouped together and compared to the Caucasian group a significant difference was evident for posttest 3 and 4 when pretest was controlled for. Objective 3 : Determine if inquiry ba sed instruction impacts student content knowledge achievement differently based on students IEP status. For all tests IEP status was not a significant fixed variable that determined posttest scores when controlling for pretest scores. Moreover IEP status had no significant impact on students content knowledge achievement scores.

PAGE 63

63 Conclusions Based on the sample size of this study and the scope of the entire population the results cannot be generalized outside of the scope of the population of the study The following conclusions were drawn from the results of this study. Inquiry Based Instruction does not adversely affect content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. Inquiry Based Instruction leads to knowledge gain for all students re gardless of IEP status The IEP makeup of the population in this study is similar to those found in previous studies. Ethnic differences existed in content knowledge achievement for Inquiry Based Instruction in some areas/topics Discussion and Implicati ons Conclusion 1: Inquiry Based Instruction does not adversely affect content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. No difference existed in posttest scores when comparing students without IEPs to students with IEPs, which indicates that Inquiry based instruction does not adversely affect content knowledge achievement for students with special needs. While Merchand Martella, Slocum, and Martella (2004) indicate that direct instruction should be used to overtly present content for students with special needs, this study indicates that students with special needs can learn the content of the lesson through inquiry based instruction. These results match the findings of Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, and Brigham (1993) who found that inquiry ba sed instruction was an effective teaching method for students with special needs. Conclusion 2: Inquiry Based Instruction leads to knowledge gain for all students regardless of IEP status.

PAGE 64

64 According to the findings of this study, inquiry based instruction is an effective method of instruction for all student, regardless of IEP status. This conclusion corresponds with the findings of Fuller (2001), who found that students involved in special education performed comparably to other students in inclusion set tings using inquiry based settings. This study concludes that inquiry based instruction is an effective method of instruction regardless of IEP status. Conclusion 3: The IEP makeup of the population in this study is similar to those found in previous studies. In this study 20.6% of the students had IEPs. Dromody, Seevers, Andreasen, and VanLeeuwen (2006) found 19% of New Mexico school based agricultural education [SBAE] students had IEPs, compared to 23% in Illinois as was found by Pense (2008). This study reflected those previous studies population of students with special needs in the SBAE classroom. Conclusion 4: Inquiry Based Instruction has no difference in effectiveness for different genders. This study found that there was no difference in content knowledge achievement for males and females, which contradicts the findings of Geier et al. (2008), Wolf and Fraser (2007) and Von Secker and Lissitz (1999) who found that inquiry based instruction had more of a benefit for males that females. Geier et al. (2008) noted that inquiry based instruction helped males close the achievement gap that females had. Since there was not a difference in males and females pretest or posttest mean scores, a gender gap was not an issue. Conclusion 5: Ethnic differe nces existed in content knowledge achievement for Inquiry Based Instruction in some areas/topics

PAGE 65

65 This study indicated that ethnic differences in content knowledge achievement did exist. These results correspond to the findings of Rodriguez (1997) who cla imed that standards inquiry based instruction omits ethnic issues. Since a difference only existed on three of the seven posttests individual lessons or posttests could have had an unintentional ethnical bias. These unintentional ethnical biases should be further explored so they can be avoided in SBAE inquiry based instruction. Although a significant difference was significant level for each test was below 10% for each assessment Recommendations Recommendations for Practice Based on the findings and c onclusions the following recommendations for practice should be considered. School Based Agricultural Education instructors should use Inquiry Based Instruction when appropriate. Professional development should be conducted to help train School Based Agricultural Education instructors to make modifications to instruction based on the students IEP status. Recommendation for practice 1: School Based Agricultural Education instructors should use Inquiry Based Instruction when appropriate. Since other research ers (Grier, Blumenfield, Marx, Krajcik, Fishman, Soloway et al., 2008; Wolf and Fraser, 2007; Gibson and Chase, 2002; Von Secker, 2002; Huber, Smith, and Shotsberger, 2000; Yerrick, 2000; Von Secker and Lissitz, 1999) found benefits to inquiry based instru ction prior to this study, inquiry based instructions merits are apparent. The findings of this study confirm that inquiry based instruction is an effective teaching method and should be used when appropriate. Inquiry based instruction is effective for a ll students, including those with special needs, as long as their needs are accommodated for.

PAGE 66

66 Recommendations for Further Inquiry Based on the results and conclusions the following recommendations should be an emphasis for further inquiry. A larger study with more participants should be conducted. A sample should be selected based on ethnicity to determine the impact of Inquiry Based Instruction for students with different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. A sample should be selected based on IEP types to determine the impact of Inquiry Based Instruction for students with different special needs. Research should be done to compare Inquiry Based Instruction to other teaching methods using these variables. Research should be done to determine the impact o f a more open inquiry teaching style for students with special needs. Research should be done to determine if Inquiry Based Instruction is related to and can coexist with Differentiated Instruction. Research should be done to determine how Inquiry Based Instruction affects content knowledge achievement for other subject matters. Research should be done to determine how Inquiry Based Instruction affects content knowledge achievement for other settings. Research should be done to determine if Inquiry Based Instruction makes differentiation of instruction a more automatic process for instructors. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 1: A larger study with more participants should be conducted. This study did have enough participants to make some comparisons of statistical value however some comparisons could not be made due to the low number in the subgroups A larger study could provide some insight into how students with different ethnicities, socioeconomic status, and special needs sub groups learn thro ugh inquiry based instruction.

PAGE 67

67 Recommendations for Further Inquiry 2: A sample should be selected based on ethnicity to determine the impact of Inquiry Based Instruction for students with different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. Since this study found a difference between different ethnic groups, more research should be done with larger subgroups of different ethnic groups to understand how students in different ethnic groups respond to inquiry based instruction. Since this study focused on students with special needs, this was not a significant variable of interest for this study, but ethnicity should be a variable of interest for future inquiries. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 3: A sample should be selected based on IEP types to determine the impact of Inquiry Based Instruction for students with different special needs. This study did have enough statistical strength to determine that no difference exists in content knowledge achievement between students with special needs and students without special needs being taught using inquiry based instruction, however there was not enough statistical significance to make comparisons between subgroups of special needs. This comparison of subgroups would be useful in gaining further insight in how stude nts with different needs respond to inquiry based instruction. A larger study with more intact classes would be beneficial to the body of research surrounding inquiry based instruction in SBAE. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 4: Research should be done to compare Inquiry Based Instruction to other teaching methods using these variables. This study did not compare the effectiveness of inquiry based instruction to other methods of instruction. Future studies should focus on these comparisons to determi ne if inquiry based instruction is a more effective method of instruction than other methods used in SBAE.

PAGE 68

68 Recommendations for Further Inquiry 5: Research should be done to determine the impact of a more open inquiry teaching style for students with specia l needs. This study focused on a specific style of inquiry based instruction designed by the instructor and done the same by all of the instructors participating in this study. To control the presage variables, the inquiry based instruction lesson was fai rly structured. For future studies, a more open form of inquiry should be used to determine if students with special needs can learn as effectively through an open inquiry approach. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 6: Research should be done to determi ne if Inquiry Based Instruction is related to and can coexist with Differentiated Instruction. Since the assumption was made that instructors are modifying their instruction for students with special needs while teaching using inquiry based instruction mor e research should be done to determine what types of modifications were made for students. Differentiated instruction was identified in chapter 2 as an effective way to modify instruction for students with special needs. Since inquiry based instruction a nd differentiated instruction are both student centered approaches for learning, further research should be done to determine if the two can coexist in the classroom and to determine what similarities and differences they have. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 7: Research should be done to determine how Inquiry Based Instruction affects content knowledge achievement for other subject matters. This study was limited to SBAE, since inquiry based instruction could be beneficial to other science oriented cou rses more research should be done to determine the effectiveness of inquiry based instruction for other subject matters. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 8: Research should be done to determine how Inquiry Based Instruction affects content knowledge achievement for other settings.

PAGE 69

69 Many studies, including this study have identified the benefits of inquiry based instruction in formal education settings, however little research exists on the effectiveness of inquiry based instruction in other educational se ttings like informal education or adult education. Recommendations for Further Inquiry 9: Research should be done to determine if Inquiry Based Instruction makes differentiation of instruction a more automatic process for instructors. This study operated under the assumption that teachers were differentiating instruction for students with special needs but did not explore how the instructors were differentiating instruction. Further research should be done to determine if inquiry based instruction makes th e differentiation process easier or more difficult for instructors than differentiating instruction using other methods Research should also examine if inquiry based instruction leads to a natural differentiation as scaffolding.

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX A SCIENCE TEAC HING INQUIRY RUBRIC (STIR)

PAGE 71

71 Figure A 1. Science Teaching Inquiry Rubric (STIR )

PAGE 72

72 Figure A 1. Continued

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX B INQUIRY BASED INSTRUCTIONAL PLANS Nature of Soil Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1: Explain how the resources soil provides help in supporting life. Ask the entire class: What do humans need to survive? o Expected answers: (write answers on the chalk board) Food Water Shelter Others Take student answers and ask students what food provides. o Expected they will answer with the providing of nutrition Ask students how plants differ from humans in this regard. o Expected answers: They are plants, they need sunlight, they need soil (although this is not 100% true b/c of hydroponics) plants need water, plants need nutrients. o If students cannot develop the answer nutrients, ask them what plants use for food. o Ask student: In regard for shelter, how can soil pr ovide this to plants? Possible answers: foundation for germination and roots. Lead students into the need for the correct temperature of the soil for germination of plants. Soil provides temperature through absorbing heat from the sun. (This can be dem onstrated by turning light on and facing it close to the soil before the lesson begins.) Turn off the light and pass the soil around to show students the soil is holding the heat from the light bulb. After students have felt the heat in the soil ask them to place their hand under the light bulb (the heat will be gone). This will demonstrate that soil holds heat after the sun has gone down for the day or in the case that the sun is not out for a couple days. o To have students develop the answer carbon ask them what the building block of life is. If they do not know have a student look the answer up on the internet. Once students have developed this set of answers they have achieved the answers for objective one. o Review: What are the resources that soil helps provide in supporting life. Oxygen Temperature Water Carbon Nutrients Ask students to develop their own list of why the above 5 are important. Allow for up to (5 minutes for students to develop their answers)

PAGE 74

74 Have students explain their answers to the class; asking others to expand on or share their thoughts. Allow students to discuss answers and their reasoning out loud. o Guide students and indicate: Oxygen for root growth Temperature seed germination and plant growth Water for growth Car bon for growth Nutrients minerals that is provided from other decaying plants that provides for plant growth Objective 2: Examine the components of soil. Place students into groups suitable for your classroom. Provide a flat of potting soil or a flat of soil from your area for each group of students. (Provide at least one of each example. Groups do not need both examples.) Ask students to investigate the soil making note and pulling out examples of different contents in the soil. Ask students to estimate the percentage of each component contained in the soil. Allow students to look through the soil for 5 minutes. o Students should provide examples of sand, silt, and clay in the soil. They may not call the soil particles sand, silt, and clay at th is time. o Students also pull out samples of decaying plant material or animal matter. They may not identify this material as organic matter, but they will know it is different than the other soil particles of sand, silt, and clay. Ask them to estimate the percentage of these particles on the soil. Once students have completed the above steps have them examine other groups soil, findings, and estimations. After students have examined other groups findings allow time for students to make adjustments to t heir findings. In their groups have students reason what the components they have identified in the soil. You may allow a group member to consult other groups or a computer. Allow up to 10minutes for students to develop their list. o At this time you c an expect students to develop a list consisting of: Sand, silt, clay, other dead plants (or organic matter). o As the teacher guide the students to organize sand, silt, and clay into a category called mineral matter because they derived from rocks. o As the te acher guide student to organize decaying plant material into organic matter. Ask students to note the color of the sand, silt and clay. What color are those particles? Are they lighter or darker than the soil as a whole? (this answer should be: they are lighter) Lead students into the explanation that the organic matter is what gives the soil a darker color. In the examination of pore space (50% of the soil volume). o Provide students with a wide mouth jar or glass. o Ask students to fill up the jar with t heir soil, but not to compact the soil.

PAGE 75

75 o Ask them if there is any moisture in the soil. (there will always be some moisture in the soil how much depends on the conditions of the soil) o To determine the amount of air in the soil provide the students with w ater. o Ask the students to determine the percentage of air in the soil and to document their hypothesis, steps of their experiment, results, and conclusions. Students should compact their soil and not use the water at the beginning (but do not tell them tha t from the start). Once students have compacted their soil they will want to place water on the soil and the soil will further compact. (Students should not empty too much water on the soil; if they do they will need to pour out the access). o Have students document their results and present to other peer groups to determine a final answer they wish to share with you. o You will then guide the students to determine air and water make up about 50% of the soils volume while mineral matter and organic matter make up the other 50% (the results may vary somewhat depending on where you live). o Review: Soil consists of mineral matter: sand, silt, clay (45%); Organic matter: dead plant and animal matter (5%); Pore Space Air (25%) & Water (25%). Objective 3 : Identify the organisms found in soil and recognize their benefits to the soil. After objective 2 ask students if there is anything else in the soil (perhaps students found living organisms in the soil already). o Have students identify types of life in the soil. Guide students to think about what breaks down plant and animal matter (to have students determine bacteria and fungi). o What purpose does each provide? Guide students into a discussion of symbiosis o Have students use the remaining soil in the flat to demonstrate advantages earthworms and other organisms can provide for plant growth. (students should connect holes i n the soil provide easier air and water movement. You can explain the term tilth during this process. Objective 4: Describe four ways plants use soil. From the above objectives have students explain 4 basic needs plants require of soil. Ask students to draw off of their prior experience to develop their own list and reasons why. Allow at least 5 minutes for students to look over notes and gather their own thoughts. Ask students to present their rational of their thoughts. Guide students to develop the list provided in objective four. Objective 5: Describe some agricultural uses of soil. & Objective 6: Describe some nonagricultural uses of soil. Appoint students into a production agriculturists and non production agricultural. o Have students develop a li st of how they would use soil. o Have each group(s) present their answer and reasoning. o Lists will probably be larger than provided and that is fine as long as they are accurate. Make sure students take note of each use and explanation.

PAGE 76

76 Soil Formation Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Prior to this lesson identify different places on or near the school grounds that has different topography and ground cover. You will want to prepare these areas to contain a few different factors. You may place rocks in the soil or on a soil surface (which will slow movement and lead to less runoff. You may place several holes in one area to represent holes from earthworms and other insects. You may wet down one area of investigation. If there is a place on the school ground that has a wash or other unique features use them also. Each of these areas may only need to be 2 feet long by 1 foot wide. Preparing 3 samples for each group to investigate wi ll be sufficient. Supply students with a timer, water, paper towels, weigh scale, and a liquid measuring device to design an experiment that leads to the explanation factors effecting soil formation. Hint: Student will want to pour the water down a s lope, time the runoff, collect the runoff in the paper towels, and weight the paper towels. Groups may develop a different process to investigate. At the end you should discuss the processes each group chose. Students will need to report on observations that would affect soil formation. Explain to students that their observations and experiment would happen over many years so they will need to observe and predict what may happen with each sample area. Each group should look for factors that affect so il formation. In the discussion after their investigation guide students through the objectives (students will identify rocks, slope, and worm holes as factors but you will need to discuss and indentify terms parent material for them or guide them to us e those terms through questions).

PAGE 77

77 Soil Color Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Display several different samples of soil (one sample should be potting soil). Allow students to inve stigate each sample making notes on what they find as differences in the soil. Provide soil samples and water. Have students document their findings. Students will identify key terms in objective one. From the students observations guide them to focus on color. Ask why the potting soil is so much darker, and have students develop reasons why potting soil is used rather than regular soil and the reason it is darker. Question students about the differences in color and what color might mean for drainage. If possible take students to a few soil pits. Have soil pits dug in different locations. One location being in a well drained area (perhaps on the side of a hill or incline; another in a low area that holds water from time to time; and finally a mod erately drained flat area). Ask students to identify differences in color and guide students to make connections with soil color and drainage. You may wish to show students two pieces of similar unpainted metal. For a period of a few days, allow one of the pieces to become wet or damp. Place the other piece in the bottom of a pail of water for the same period of time. Students should see that the metal allowed to be wet and dry will oxidize or rust, whereas the metal that is kept under water will not. Explain that the iron will only oxidize if both moisture and air are present. Relate these findings with the iron compounds found in the soil. The status of the iron compounds in the soil indicates the type of natural drainage found in the soil.

PAGE 78

78 S oil Text ure and Structure Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1: Describe the concept of soil texture and its importance. Provide students with sand, silt, and clay samples of soil. Place students in groups that work best for your class. Provide students with water, measuring cups, cups and coffee filters. Ask students to make observations and design a soil that has the best Water holding capacity, Permeability, and soil workability (documenting proof of each). Give students the definitions of each term before they begin. Students should examine each sample then create a mix of all three to achieve the best soil. Each group should prepare a soil sample and document the percentage of each used to present to the class. Allow students to share ideas and present why their mix is the best and allow other to challenge their reasons. Have student groups answer why soil texture is important. They should also note the structures of the sa nd, silt and clayy size, water holding, and what happens when the soils become saturated with water. This objective may take one class period. Objective 2: Determine the texture of a soil sample. In consideration of Objective 2: After completion of the above activity (which may take an entire class period) present the soil texture triangle (VM C) to students and demonstrate the ribbon method to the students. Students should conduct the ribbon method on their created soil to determine their created soils texture. Objective 3&4: Explain soil structure, its formation, and importance. Differentiate various soil structures. Use soil samples, draw or use (VM D) to teach objectives 3&4. Ask students to note differences in the soil structures and develop posi tives and negatives for each structure. Guide them to think about water, plant roots, and nutrients.

PAGE 79

79 Soil Profile Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1: Explain the soil profi le. Ask the entire class: To identify different aspect of a soil profile from their past experiences. o Expected answers: (write answers on the chalk board) Surface is contained of decaying plant matter Top soil Horizon A Has a darker color due to organic matter; contains roots and organisms Subsoil Horizon B Lighter soil with more fine soil particles, fewer roots Subsoil Horizon C Parent material, rocks, and some leached materials Horizon R Bedrock Objective 2 &3 : Use lesson plan outline to guide students Construct a soil profile to predict a changing soil profile over time. Have student groups construct a soil profile using the internet or any objects they wish to express the profiles. o Potential ways to construct are pictures of differing soil typ es and weathering such as the soil in the badlands, black top soil in central Illinois, or sandy soil in Florida. o Student groups may choose to construct an actual soil profile by gathering leaves, top soil, sand, clay, rocks o Have groups explain their soil profile using the correct terms o Allow groups to critique each others construction of the soil profile and also the selection of materials used. o Direct groups to reason through and explain why they chose the materials and also why they constructed thei r soil profile the way they did.

PAGE 80

80 Moisture Holding Capacity Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 and 2 : Describe moisture holding capacity. Explain what determines soil mois ture holding capacity. Provide students with two or three dry soil samples (each group may have different soil samples). If possible heat soil in an oven or enclave to remove existing moisture. Have s tudents to make observations and design a soil that has the best w ater holding capacity Give students the definitions of each term before they begin. After they read objective one and two have students design an experiment to determine what the main components in their soil are. Students should document their experiment and results and report back to the group. Supply student groups with stopwatch, coffee filters, measuring cups, soil samples, water, a balance, paper towels, a balance (electronic scale), and collection bowl. Facilitate if groups believe they need more materials. The groups goal should be to demonstrate the terms in objective one to the rest of the class. It is anticipated groups will place soil samples in coffee filters and pour water over the sample. Measure the water (in weight) before and after pouring it over the soil, also measuring the weight of the soil before and after. This will determine the soil water holding capacity. It is anticipated each group will determine gravitational water by timing the flow of the water throug h the soil. The paper towels can be used to extract water from the soil, after drained, to explain the water available to plants. The final weight is water unavailable to plants (hygroscopic moisture). Objective 3 : Determine the moisture holding capacit y in a soil profile. Use (VM B) to allow students to calculate their soils moisture holding capacity. Students should determine what texture their soil is using previous knowledge and also knowledge gained from the previous experiment. Tell students the soil sample they have is their top soil and in a soil profile it would be 9 inches thick. The B horizon soil is a texture of clay loam and is 31 inches thick Finally, C horizon is clay texture and is 20 inches thick. Students should cal culate the soil moisture holding capacity and present to the class and explain why they reached the results they did.

PAGE 81

81 Soil Erosion and Management Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Ob jective s 1 6 : Allow students to see the content in the original lesson plan. Organize students in groups suitable for your learning situation (groups of 3 or 4 suggested) Student groups should organize and collaborate with each other and divide up t he content in the lesson plan. Each group should then make a model describing their portion of the lesson. Models could be computer generated, using posters and other material, or actual soil. Upon completion students should then teach their peers. This can be done as a class presentation or may be set up as a display and students present to small groups as in a science fair setting.

PAGE 82

82 Soil Chemistry Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 2, 3, 4: Identify soil chemistry issues. Hold a round table discussion using students previous knowledge from subsequent lessons to answer the following problem. o Give the student the following scenario: A local gardener is trying to grow tomatoes in her garden. She has been having all kinds of trouble getting the tomatoes to establish in the spring and by midsummer the fruit they are producing is substantially less than the neighbors tomato plants. She and her neighbor share fertilize r and have applied nearly the same amount as her neighbor they even bought the tomato plants at the same time and the same store from the FFA chapter. Nonetheless, her plants simply do not produce the same amount of fruit. People in the community have told her that she should talk to your agricultural class about this problem and that you will help her solve the problem. She appears in your class with a soil sample asking for help today. What could the problem be? (TEACHER NOTES): USE the content from l esson one to guide student through their thinking of possible problems. Potential problems: Soil pH, Soil Fertility, Poor drainage, insects, drought, compaction, too much organic matter, not enough organic matter, insects.others. Potential answers: Soil pH You check the soil pH and it is 6.3 o Is this an acceptable soil pH for tomatoes? Have a group of students find out. Asked them to report to the group about soil pH and what soil pH means. (They can use the lesson plan for notes, but it would be bett er they research soil pH for themselves using resources or internet). Organic matter It student bring this issue up, the local gardener spreads manure from her rabbits on her garden year around and each fall puts all her leaves in the garden and during t he spring she tills the soil to work in all the leaves. Soil Fertility you could give a group of students a soil test kit and a soil sample. If not the soil is found to have correct soil fertility levels. Poor drainage After talking with her you find out that the soil contains a lot of clay at a depth of 8 inches. She uses a tiller that only goes about 8inches. Direct a group of students to investigate this issue and how to overcome it they believe this is a problem.

PAGE 83

83 One place to begin research is t o identify how deep tomato plants roots go in the soil. Too wet or too dry she waters the same amount at the neighbor and the neighbors plants are just fine. Does this mean it is not a problem? Possible explanations for why it is or isnt. Compaction soil is clay at a depth of 8in with a heavy layer of organic matter on top due to the leaves and rabbit manure. She tills the garden 3 to four times a year and has had the garden in the same place for 25 years. Possible solutions with compaction? If this is an issue Not noticeable insect damage on the plants leaves. Not sure about soil insect though. She knows nothing about potential soil insects. What are some possible answers for insects? Direct students to trouble shoot the problem. Students can naturally break into groups or work on potential problems individually (depending on the class size). If the student(s) choose to tackle a potential problem/solution they MUST present everything they learn to the entire class and argue for or against WHY this is or isnt the problem the gardeners faces. o YOU AS THE TEACHER: Can choose the correct answer at the end, but allow the students to discuss possible answers. THE TEACHER MAY HAVE TO PROVIDE OTHER INFORMATION TO GUIDE STUDNETS to achieve an an swer. This content provided may not be direct enough to provide a single answer. However, it MAY be several factors that are involved. Direct students to formulate a plan of action the gardener should take. Once the group has found possible solutions have the group discuss what they will present to the gardener. The students should not appear that they do not know how to solve the gardeners problem. The class should prioritize action items in an order steps the gardener should take in order to rea ch a conclusion. Students must reason why the steps are in the correct order (It may be more feasible to have students develop a plan and explain individually then form the round table discussion to finalize a report to the gardener for the final presenta tion. Use the content from the subject matter lesson plan to guide students. Conduct labs attached in this lesson when needed for student understanding of the content.

PAGE 84

84 Fertilizer Formulations Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain not es, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 and 2 : Explain the development of a nutrient management plan. Describe organic and inorganic fertilizers Use the previous tomato garden lesson to expand on the need for a management plan. What ar e things the gardener could have done to prevent the problem in the first place. Help her make a plan for her garden. What about a nutrient management plan of action so she does not over utilize organic and inorganic fertilizers? Students should be able to answer the first portion of the plan from previous knowledge. However, most students will have a felt need to understand organic and inorganic fertilizers. Use lesson plans notes to guide the learners or allow students to seek information about organi c and inorganic fertilizers. This could be an individual activity and have student report back to the class. o When students report on the types of fertilizers be sure they understand and maintain notes on the specific pieces in the lesson plan and other im portant items you have determined. Objective 3, 4, 5: Explain fertilizer analysis, grade, and ratio mixing fertilizer, correct selection Maintain the same gardener example with your students. In directing the gardener about fertilizer students will need to explain to the gardener mineral elements, fertilizer analysis, grade, and ratio. Split the class into six groups and have them research these components and create a report and presentation (that they present to the rest of the class on the topic they w ere given). o Mineral elements o Fertilizer analysis o Fertilizer grade o Fertilizer ratio o Mixing fertilizers o Selection of the correct fertilizer for a crop Student may use portions of the lesson plan if you want to provide copies or they can research in text books or internet. Finally utilize Lesson plan labs to work through calculation with the class.

PAGE 85

85 Applying Fertilizers Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 : Explain the applic ation of fertilizers to field crops and urban areas. Have students read the following article (either print or have students read online) o http://www.sptimes.com/2007/03/29/State/Florida_may_go_green_.shtml Use this article to discuss overuse of fertilize rs and describe the levels presented in the lesson plan for objective one. If there are shortages (typically a concern in agricultural commodity production) three methods can help determine: Visual, Tissue testing, and soil testing. o Ask students distinguish between the 3 methods: noting which is easiest, which is most effective, most efficient. Objective 2 & 3: ID methods of fertilizer application, Explain rate of fertilizer application Present students objective two and three as suggested in the subj ect matter lesson plan. Break students into groups or have them work individually (depending on class size). Assign different crops essential to your area. Have student groups research and present fertilizing methods as referred to as identified terms in objective 2

PAGE 86

86 Nutrient Deficiencies Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1: Students should research nutrient deficiencies and create a dichotomous key (flow chart) that explains how they could narrow the nutrient deficiency problem s plants face. You could supply them with as much knowledge as they need or they could use the internet or university documents to build their dichotomous key. I have attached an example of a dichotomous key. Allowing students to create their dichotomous key will allow them to learn the deficiencies in plants. Then they will apply their key to a situation that is attached as a PowerPoint you can work through with the students. After students complete their dichotomous key use the following lesson plan and attached PowerPoint (or create handouts from the PowerPoint). S ituation: Instructional Objectives: 1) Students will be able to propose logical solutions to the problem based on the given information. 2) Students will be able to adapt their proposed answers based on changing information. 3) Students will be able to visually analyze plants specimens and determine nutrient deficiency. 4) Students will be able to define basic terms associated with the diagnosis of nutrient deficiencies in plants. Materials Needed: Student Handouts: Scenario, What We Know, Nutrient Deficiency Diagnosis Charts, Helpful Hints Plant specimens (pictures or real) Interest Approach: Explain to the students that I urgently need their help all of our plants are dying and I dont know why. Transi tion directly in to the scenario and the students tasks. (determine the problem, recommend how to fix it) Lesson: Present students with the scenario Have them work in small groups to brainstorm a list of possible causes Write all of the possible causes on the board Distribute What We Know Have students modify their lists

PAGE 87

87 Determine the most likely cause (Nutrient Deficiency) Distribute Nutrient Deficiency Diagnosis Chart explanation may be required Distribute Helpful Hints if needed Show plant speci mens encourage class to take notes Have students use the specimens and the chart to determine what nutrient is deficient. When each group has reached a conclusion have them present their findings and recommendations. Record each groups findings and recom mendations on the board Reveal the final answer Review the process of how the correct answer was reached.

PAGE 88

88 Figure B 1. What happened to our plants power point

PAGE 89

89 Figure B 1. Continued

PAGE 90

90 Figure B 1. Continued

PAGE 91

91 Figure B 2. Nutrients flow c hart

PAGE 92

92 Seed Germination Processes and Requirements Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 2 and 3: Design and conduct an experiment that explains the seed germination process. Lead a discussion about seed germination. Students should have some level of prior knowledge about how seeds germinate. Utilize student knowledge and guide them through the contents of the subject matter lessons plan. Students should then utilize LS B but develop their own steps to conduct a warm germination test. They should develop their methods and procedures of investigation. You should push students to reason and defend their methods based on a scientific approach considering any flaws they might have in their experiment and how they are addressing them. Do they have a control? Do they have the same seeds? What is different about their locations? How many seeds to they need to test? These are just a few questions suggested. Allow students monit or their seeds on day 2, 5, and 7 and document results. Students should then present their hypothesis, research methods, results, and findings to the class in the form of a poster or PowerPoint presentation. o Peer students should evaluation and ask questions based on data and the presentation. o The groups presenting should be able to acknowledge and defend their answers and ways to address anticipated questions.

PAGE 93

93 Plant Life Cycles Inquiry based Lesson Outli ne Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 2, 3 and 4: Identify differences between plant life cycles Ask students about their favorite flower. Why is it their favorite flower? Ask them details about thei r favorite flower. Be prepared with pictures of flowers if they do not have a favorite flower or plant. What makes flowers different? When does their flower bloom? How often? How long? Why? This should lead into a discussion about plant life cycles. Use these questioning strategies to lead and teach about plant life cycles. Have students develop ways to determine ways they can determine one type from another. Also, guide students to think about advantages and disadvantages of the different life cycles and applications for horticulture and agricultural production. Example: how expensive would roses be it they were simply annuals? How profitable would raising corn be if it were a perennial?

PAGE 94

94 Photosynthesis Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 2, and 3: Evaluate research that focuses on improving photosynthesis in plants. Allow students to have a copy of the lesson plan or create guided notes. Group students up according to what is best for your class. The group task is to find research that supports better production (higher yields) from crops due to more efficient plants. Suggested to browse Google scholar and university agronomy websites. o Groups have 2 options and s hould choose one of the following: Design a research study that investigates improved methods of photosynthesis. (They need to address the following) How will they develop this research? How will it be conducted? What results do they anticipate? How will t hey report the results? Who are the results important too? What impact does this have on the agricultural industry? Design and describe the process of photosynthesis and how the study they researched improves the production of the crop/plant? They need to use technical terms as much as possible. Explain in detail the study and the terms and the meanings of those terms. Explain the products of photosynthesis and how the factors effecting the process have been altered or changed in the study they researched. Encourage this group to conduct lab A in the subject matter lesson plan and include descriptions in their presentation to the class. (LS A) Both (types) of groups should turn in their results and present their findings to the entire class. Conduct lab ( LS B) with the inquiry group. Do not tell the inquiry which coleus plant was in the dark room and which plant was in the light. Have groups develop reasoning and defend their decisions based on what they have learned. If you want an extension activity experiment with the amount of days without sunlight.

PAGE 95

95 Respiration Inquiry based Lesson Outline Students should maintain notes, reasoning, and observations in a notebook. Objective 1 2, and 3: Define describe and i dentify cellular respiration. Ask students to develop ideas as to why few deciduous trees grow at high altitudes. o Ask students what they base their answer/beliefs on. o Ask students about oxygen levels and how that may affect plant type and growth. Use this to lead them into aerobic r espiration and anaerobic respiration. o So do plants breathe? It is called respiration Ask students to describe what they believe takes place during respiration. Expect confusion between photosynthesis and respiration. Use these questions and student misconceptions to teach objective 2 Use the do plants breathe during germination question to lead into students (entire class) designing a way to find out the answer. You can use LS 1 as a guide to guide student thinking or provide hints as to how they many find this out. BUT allow students to brainstorm as a class to seek the answer to their inquiry. If there are a couple different options provided by the group direct them to acknowledge faults and/or good aspects of the research question, and conduction of the experiment. Remind them to determine and record observations or ways they will observe or tables/measurements they will conduct. Allow students to conduct the experiment at the end of the following content. o Factors affecting cellular respiration (obj ective 3) Ask students what makes them breathe faster. Use this to determine the content in objective 3 on the subject matter lesson plan.

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX C PRETESTS/POSTTESTS All assessments were taken through the MYCAERT testing service and appeared in a di fferent format and scores uploaded via the computerized testing system. Questions were asked in a random order. Assessment 1Nature and Formation of Soil Instructions: Circle the best answer to the following questions. 1. ____________ is/are utilized in the form of organic matter in the soil. a. Nutrients b. Carbon c. Oxygen d. Zinc 2. The following are resources, provided by the soil, which allow for the growth of plants and animals. a. carbon, nutrients, oxygen, water, and zinc b. oxyge n, and water c. nutrients, oxygen, temperature, and water d. carbon, nutrients, oxygen, temperature, and water 3. The primary components that make up soil are: a. organic matter, air, and water b. organic matter, mineral matter, air and water c. organic matter and mineral matter d. organic matter and sand 4. What term is used to describe partially decayed plant and animal matter? a. organic matter b. mineral matter c. natural matter d. decay matter 5. Pore space make up approximately _____% of soil. a. 5% b. 25% c. 45% d. 50%

PAGE 97

97 6. Organic matter makes up approximately _____% of soil. a. 5% b. 25% c. 45% d. 50% 7. What effects do soil organisms have on soil? a. They have almost no effect. b. The activities increase the available mineral matter. c. They enhance drainage and improvement of air exchange. d. They deplete the soil of e ssential elements for plant growth. 8. Bacteria and fungi in the soil __________________. a. will eventually cause plants to die b. break down organic matter and release nutrients c. beak down mineral and organic matter d. cause reduced root growth from plants 9. Symbiosis is the living of together unlike ___________. a. organisms b. plants c. fungi d. nutrients 10. Plants depend on soil for: a. anchorage, water, air, and nutrients b. anchorage, water and nutrients c. water and air d. water and nutrients 11. Oxygen provides _________ for the s oil. a. aeration b. dark color c. symbiosis d. tilth 12. An example of an agricultural use of soil is: a. forestry b. cropland c. water structures d. all of the above 13. An example of a nonagriculture use of soil is: a. grazing land b. vegetable production land

PAGE 98

98 c. waste disposal d. pond 14. What are the five factors that affect soil formation? a. temperature, moisture, plant type, organic matter, organisms, and pore space b. climate, topography, organic material, parent material, and time c. glaciers, lakes, wind, bedrock, and organic deposits d. alluvium, parent material, loess, glacial till, and chemical weathering 15. Soils formed by former shallow ponds with swamp vegetation are __________. a. glacial till b. alluvial c. loess d. organic 16. What type of water holding capacity does loess soils have? a. worst of any soil b. poor c. average d. excellent 17. Which living organisms have the greatest effect on soil formation? a. ants b. burrowing animals c. earthworms d. native plants 18. What gives soil its dark color and is found primarily in the surface layer of the soil? a. alluvium b. loess c. mineral matter d. organic matter 19. What is a large long lasting river of ice that is formed on land and moves by gravity? a. alluvium b. glacier c. loess d. outwash 20. Timer soils tend to have _________________. a. a deep organic layer b. an average organic layer c. a thin organic layer d. no organic layer

PAGE 99

99 21. Weathering by wind, water, and temperature is known as __________ weathering. a. alluvial weathering b. physical weathering c. climatic weathering d. chemical weathering 22. Freezing, thawing, rainfall, wind, and sunlight are all examples of which soil forming factor? a. climate b. loess c. topography d. weathering 23. Soils that have a steep topography are _____________________. a. subject to ponding b. poorly drained c. moderately drained d. well drained 24. Soils formed from soil particles that have not been layered from the effects of wi nd and water are called ______________. a. alluvium b. bedrock c. glacial till d. outwash 25. Prairie soils are high in __________________. a. bedrock b. living matter c. mineral matter d. organic matter 26. Soils in _________ regions are subject to leaching. a. arid b. glacial c. humid d. windy

PAGE 100

100 Assessment 2 Soil Color, Texture, & Structure 1What determines the colors found in the surface layer of soil? a. Drainage b. Organic matter c. Oxidation d. Reduction 2Subsoil colors are determined by the degree of _____________________ present when they are formin g. a. Drainage b. Earthworms c. Sandiness d. Organic Matter 3Why are prairie soils dark in color? a. Partially decayed roots over a long period of time. b. Water drained rapidly from the soil surface trough the soil. c. High iron content d. Course soil texture 4Poor drainage creates subsoil that is ___________ in color. a. Brown b. Reddish Brown/Yellowish Brown c. Mottled d. Gray/Olive 5Which is not a physical feature used to differentiated soil? a. Texture b. Structure c. Moisture d. Color 6What percentage of organic matter in soil will yield a very dark color? a. 0% b. 2% c. 3.5% d. 5% 7Organic matter on the surface (such as leaf litter) decays ___________ than organic matter in the soil (roots of plants) a. Slower b. Faster c. The same d. None of the above Leaf litter and roots do not decay 8Mottled refers to __________________. a. Bright and dull colored soil mixed together b. Soil with red and grey colors mixed c. Brightly colored soil d. Dull colored soil 9What causes a soil to form mottled coloration?

PAGE 101

101 a. Good Drainage b. Poor Drainage c. Somewhat poor drainage d. No drainage 10Soils on a hill tend to have color that is ___________________ than soils on flat ground. a. Darker b. Lighter c. Deeper d. Mottled 11Which is not one of the three particle sizes of soil. a. Sand b. Silt c. Clay d. Loam 12The largest soil particle is __________. a. Sand b. Silt c. Clay d. Loam 13The smallest soil particle is ___________. a. Sand b. Silt c. Clay d. Loam 14The 12 classes of soil can be identified using the ____________. a. Soil finder b. Textural triangle c. Soil map d. Topography map 15What type of soil produces the longest ribbon using the ribbon method? a. Course textured b. Fine textured c. Medium textured d. Moderately course textured 16What term refers to clumps of soil that are caused by tillage? a. Clods b. Crumbs c. Peds d. Prisms 17What textural class contains some of each size of soil particle? a. Loam b. Sandy clay c. Silt d. Silt clay 18What two types of soil structure appear structureless? a. Blocky and crumb

PAGE 102

102 b. Columnar and granular c. Massive and single grain d. Platy and primatic 19Good soil structure does all of the following except _________________. a. Improves tilth b. Improves permeability c. Minimizes the formation of crusts d. Limits water infiltration 20Which soil structure has the poorest water permeability? a. Granular b. Crumb c. Prismatic d. Platy 21Blocky aggregates are three dimensional aggregates with at least how many sides? a. 3 b. 6 c. 9 d. 12 22Plant roots, freezing and thawing, soil tillage and ____________ clump soil together loosely. a. Fungal activity b. Acid rain c. Compaction d. Air 23All of following act as cementing agents for soil except ________________. a. Water b. Clay c. Iron oxides d. Organic matter 24What term is used to describe the ability of the soil to retain water for plants? a. Soil Workability b. Soil Structure c. Soil Texture d. Water Holding Capacity 25Using the soil textural triangle what type of soil has 30% clay 30% Silt and 40% Sand? a. Clay Loam b. Silt Loam c. Silty Clay Loam d. Silty Clay

PAGE 103

103 Assessment 3 Explaining Soil Profile & Moisture Holding Capacity 1. A vertical cross section of soil is known as ______________ a. A horizon b. A profile c. A substratum d. An illuvium 2. What term is used to define materials being altered in the soil? a. Additions b. Losses c. Translocations d. Transformations 3. What term is used for the A horizon? a. illuvium b. Subsoil c. Substratum d. Topsoil 4. What makes up the O horizon? a. Clay b. Iron c. Organic matter d. Silt 5. Which horizon consists of underlying bedrock? a. O b. B c. C d. R 6. Which horizon is best suited for growth of plant roots? a. A b. B c. C d. E 7. The standard depth of the soil profile is ____________. a. 12 feet b. 35 feet c. 810 feet d. 1 mile 8. Fallen leaves on the soil will eventually be ____________. a. Addition s b. Losses c. Translocations d. Transformations 9. The correct order (from top to bottom) of soil horizons is _____. a. A B C E R O b. A E C R O B c. O A E B C R

PAGE 104

104 d. O A B C E R 10. The substratum is also known as ___________ and usually consists of parent material. a. The solum b. The C horizon c. The R horizon d. The subsoil 11. What is the solum? a. The A, E, and B horizons b. The C and R horizons c. The entire soil profile d. The substratum 12. Illuviation occurs when _________. a. Leached minerals form an E horizon between the A and B horizons b. Chemicals are leached from the A and E horizons c. Organic matter accumulates in the O horizon d. The C horizon weathers to make the B horizon 13. The E horizon is usually very light and occurs in forest soils high in ______. a. Sand b. Clay c. Organic matter d. Silt 14. Organic matter is most likely to be found in which horizon? a. A b. B c. C d. R 15. Erosion is an example of (a/an) ____________. a. Addition b. Loess c. Translocation d. Transformation 16. What is the primary factor in determining how much moisture a soil can hold? a. Color b. Profile c. Texture d. Structure 17. Which soil holds the most plant availabl e moisture? a. Clay b. Silt Loam c. Sand d. Sandy Clay 18. What is the soil water that tightly clings to soil particles called? a. Available b. Capillary c. Gravitational

PAGE 105

105 d. Hygroscopic 19. Which soil type would hold the least amount of water? a. Fine textured b. Moderately fine textured c. Medium textured d. Course textured 20. What happens as the water in the soil us used by plants? a. Soil moisture tension increases b. Soil moisture tension decreases c. Soil water becomes more available d. Plants extract water more easily 21. The process of water soaking into t he soil is known as __________. a. Infiltration b. Percolation c. Permeation d. Soil moisture tension 22. Clay soils hold water more tightly due to ______________. a. Hygroscopic moisture b. Leaching c. Infiltration d. Capillary action 23. Available water holding capacity depends on ______________. a. Soil profile depth b. Soil texture c. Neither A or B d. Both A and B 24. Calculate the total water holding capacity of this soil. A horizon 9 medium textured B horizon 23 moderately fine textured C horizon 28 medium textured a. 14.85 b. 16.85 c. 18.25 d. 18.35 25. Calculate the total water holding capacity of this soil. A horizon 7 fine textured B horizon 18 medium textured C horizon 35 course textured a. 10.30 b. 12.22 c. 12.85 d. 14.25

PAGE 106

106 Assessment 4 Understanding Soil Erosion and Chemistry 1. Soil erosion is the process by which ________________________. a. Soil is moved b. Soil become polluted c. Water is infiltrated into the soil d. Gasses are exchanged in the soil 2. What is a ridge or row of earth mound called that is placed across a slope to allow a gradual drop for the flow of water in order to reduce erosion? a. Diversion ditches b. Grassed strips c. Terrace d. Windbreak 3. What is the process that involves planting crops with little or no plowing and leaving crop residue on the surface to protect the soil? a. Conservation tillage b. Crop rotation c. Stripped cropping d. Vegetation cover 4. What is runoff? a. The deposition of soil in the bottom of streams, riverbeds, ditches etc. b. Erosion that occurs on slopes that are saturated with water and slips down the hillside or mountain c. When the front edge of a glacier pushes soil, rocks, fallen trees, and other materials d. When rain falls faster than it can be absorbed into the soil and the water flows over the surface into streams and rivers 5. What type of erosion results when thin layers of soil are removed from the surf ace and often go unnoticed? a. Gully b. Rill c. Sheet d. Surface creep 6. Erosion that occurs on land not impacted by humans is _________________. a. Accelerated erosion b. Land slippage c. Anthropomorphic erosion d. Geologic erosion 7. Wind erosion is likely to occur in all of the following except which? a. Newly plowed fields b. Construction sites cleared by equipment c. Land where vegetation had been grazed too closely d. A field with a cover crop planted on it 8. Another name for a landslide is: a. Glacial erosion b. Gully erosion c. Land slippage

PAGE 107

107 d. Salt ation 9. Which is not a commonly used erosion management practice? a. Mulching b. Silt fences c. Cover crops d. Heavy grazing 10. Erosion that happens when small rills continue to wash away and become more sever is known as: a. Complex rill erosion b. Sheet erosion c. Gully erosion d. Ditch erosion 11. The process of wind lifting medium size particles into the air, but are too heavy to remain in suspension is: a. Saltation b. Suspension c. Surface creep d. Rill erosion 12. A row of trees planted to slow wind and help prevent wind erosion is knows as: a. Terrace b. Diversion hedges c. Vegetative break d. Windbreaks 13. A natural soil pH is: a. 2 b. 4 c. 7 d. 10 14. A soil with a pH of 1 is considered: a. A strong acid b. A strong base c. A weak acid d. A weak base 15. A soil with a pH of 6.0 has ____________active H+ than 7.0. a. 10 times more b. 10 ti mes less c. 100 times more d. 100 times less 16. Soils formed under rainy conditions are typically _______________than soils formed under dry conditions. a. More acidic b. More basic c. Have a higher pH d. Has more calcium and magnesium 17. As a general rule soil acidity generally ______________ with soil depth.

PAGE 108

108 a. Increases b. Decreases c. Stays the same d. Varies 18. Nitrogen fertilizers typically __________ soil pH. a. Raises b. Lowers c. Does not change d. Initially raises then lowers 19. Cation exchange capacity is the ability of a soil to: a. Move water through the soil b. Prevent erosion c. Change its pH to promote plant growth d. React to chemicals added to the soil 20. What is the effect of adding lime to a soil with a pH of 5? a. Will lower the pH b. Will raising the pH c. Will increase water holding capacity d. Will decrease water holding capacity 21. Which is not a type of liming agent? a. Calcium oxcide (CaO) b. Calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] c. Calcium carbonate (CaC) d. Calcitic limestone (CaCo3) 22. Soils that have a high cation exchange capacity (CEC) have a high _______ content. a. Clay b. Sand c. S ilt d. Parent material 23. A soil with a high cation exchange capacity: a. Retains a high amount of cations b. Likely has a high clay content c. Likely has a relatively high organic matter content d. All of the above 24. Organic matter contains about a ______% nitrogen a. 2 b. 5 c. 20 d. 80 25. If the soil permits, roots will extend ______ in depth. a. 12 feet b. 36 feet c. 910 feet d. 1520 feet

PAGE 109

109 Assessment 5 Fertilizer Formulations, Applications, and Nutrient Deficiencies 1.) _________________ is considered an organic fertilizer. a. Blood meal b. Dried and ground sewage sludge c. Cottonseed meal d. All of the above 2.) A sensitive area that might need special consideration when applying fertilizer is ______________. a. 20 acres of soy beans b. An open hay field c. A drainage ditch d. All of the above 3.) Fertilizers that come from nonliving sources are called ___________________. a. Inorganic fertilizers b. Organic fertilizers c. Green fertilizers d. Complete fertilizers 4.) Water insoluble nitrogen (WIN) can also be referred to as _____________. a. Quick release nitrogen b. A complete fertilizer c. Turf fertilizer d. Slow release nitrogen 5.) How many pounds of nitrogen are in a 50 lb bag of 10255 a. 5 b. 10 c. 12.2 d. 25 6.) Which of the following fertilizers have a 11 1 ratio? a. 10155 b. 61212 c. 101010 d. 1066 7.) Which fertilizer grade is least likely to be found at a feed and s eed store? a. 101010 b. 304030 c. 51530 d. 2005 8.) Which adds more nitrogen to a field?

PAGE 110

110 a. 1/2 lb of 203010 b. 1 lb of 101010 c. 2 lbs of 555 d. They all have the same amount of nitrogen 9.) Which of the following is not a complete fertilizer? a. 101010 b. 2038 c. 1050 d. All of the above are complete 10.) Which of the following is a single grade fertilizer? a. 1000 b. 555 c. 2053 d. None of the above 11.) Which level of nutrients is most desirable? a. Level I b. Level II c. Level III d. Level IV 12.) What can be done to determine the nutrient levels in the soil ? a. A soil test b. Tissue testing c. A soil injection d. Top dressing 13.) The simplest way to fertilize is to ________. a. Broadcast b. Inject c. Top dress d. Site specific application 14.) Which type of fertilizer application is applied on the growing crop rather than mixed into the soil? a. Top dressing b. Side dressing c. Chiseling d. Post emergence 15.) Which type of fertilizer application is applied directly to the leaf of the plant? a. Top dressing b. Side dressing c. Foliar feeding d. Broadcast

PAGE 111

111 16.) Which type of fertilizer application is applied after planting but before the crop begins to grow? a. Top dressing b. Side dressing c. Pre emergence d. Post emergence 17.) Fertigation is ________________? a. Fertilizing the field before crops are planted b. Injecting the fertilizer into the ground c. Applying the fertilizer directly to the plant d. Injecting fertilizer into the irrigation water 18.) Site specific application (variable rate technology) involves ______________ to apply fertilizer to a field. a. Lasers b. Computers/GPS c. Foliar feeding d. Fertilizer injectors 19.) Build up is the amount of fertilizer that ________________________. a. Is required to increase the soil nutrients to its desired level b. Is the amount that will be moved when the crop is grown c. Amount needed to reach the desired level plus what will be removed when the crop is grown d. Should be appli ed every year (1 ton of lime per acre) 20.) The rate of fertilizer of application depends on ________________. a. What is typical for farmers in the area b. What has been done on the farm c. The fertilizer applied the previous year d. The soil sample 21.) How many macronutrient s are there? a. 3 b. 6 c. 9 d. 16 22.) What are the primary nutrients? a. Calcium, Magnesium, & Sulfur b. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, & Potassium c. Chlorine, Iron, & Boron d. Copper, Molybdenum & Zinc 23.) A plant with light green or yellow leaves could have a ____________ deficiency. a. Nitrogen

PAGE 112

112 b. Phosphorus c. Sulfur d. Potassium 24.) A plant with yellow/brown discoloration and scorching along the outer margin of the leaves could have a _______________ deficiency. a. Nitrogen b. Phosphorus c. Sulfur d. Potassium 25.) A plant with purple cast to leaves and stems, and stunted leaves could possibly have a _______________. a. Nitrogen b. Phosphorus c. Sulfur d. Potassium 26.) A plant with yellowing colors of the bottom/oldest leaves could have a __________________ deficiency. a. Copper b. Magnesium c. Sulfur d. Calcium 27.) A plant with yellow, almost white, lea ves with green veins could have a/an ______________ deficiency. a. Zinc b. Iron c. Magnesium d. Iron 28.) An acidic soil __________________ the amount of available calcium, magnesium, sulfur, potassium, phosphorus, and molybdenum. a. Reduce b. Increase c. Neither reduce or increase d. Increase some while decreasing others 29.) A deficiency of boron, copper, and potassium can be caused by _______________. a. Wet soil b. Dry soil c. Deep soil d. Shallow soil

PAGE 113

113 30.) Soils with hardpans require _______________ and ______________ to increase fertility. a. Lime and i ron b. Calcium and manganese c. Phosphorus and potassium d. Chlorine and sulfur

PAGE 114

114 Assessment 6 Seed Germination & Plant Life Cycles 1.) What term defines the beginning growth of the seed embryo? a. Germination b. Stratification c. Scarification d. Imbibitions 2.) Seeds with a strat ification dormancy mechanism must experience ____________ to germinate? a. Fire b. Acid c. Water and Oxygen d. Cold 3.) What enzyme breaks down proteins and changes them to amino acids? a. Amylase b. Acids c. Protease d. Phytochrome 4.) Most seeds are ______ water? a. 12% b. 510% c. 2030% d. 4050% 5.) Water becomes imbedded into the seed during the first phase of germination through a process known as: a. Imbibition b. Turgidity c. Stratification d. Scarification 6.) The radicle is another term for: a. The first leaves b. The seed coat c. The water in the cell d. The first root 7.) What triggers the germination process? a. Temperature b. Water content c. Soil nutrients d. Pressure 8.) Seeds germinate at a temperature of 32 105 F but the generally accepted optimal temperature for germination is: a. 3244 b. 4560 c. 6580 d. 85100 9.) Seeds that are light sensitive have ____________ found on the seed coat.

PAGE 115

115 a. Photosynthesis b. Phytochrome c. Stomata d. Pores 10.) Viability refers to the ______________. a. Seeds ability to germinate under optimal conditions b. Ability of the seed to germinate under different conditions c. Ability of the seed to germinate when it is cold d. Ability of the seed to germinate with little water 11.) What temperatures are best to store seeds? a. 20 F b. 40 F c. 60 F d. 80 F 12.) What humidity is best to store seeds? a. 15% b. 40% c. 60% d. 100% 13.) All of the following are life cycles of plants except for which of the following? a. Annual b. Biennial c. Herbaceous d. Perennial 14.) A plant that completes its growing cycle in one year is known as a/an: a. Annual b. Biennial c. Herbaceous d. Perennial 15.) A plant that completes its growing cycle in two years is known as a/an: a. Annual b. Biennial c. Herbaceous d. Perennial 16.) A plant that completes its growing cycle each year is known as a/an: a. Annual b. Biennial c. Herbaceous d. Perennial 17.) A typical annual plant will require ________ days from germination to produce a seed. a. 60 b. 80 c. 120 d. 160 18.) An example of a summer annual is ___________.

PAGE 116

116 a. Corn b. Wheat c. Strawberries d. Carrots 19.) An example of a winter annual is ______________. a. Corn b. Wheat c. Strawberries d. Carrots 20.) An example of a biannual is ______________. a. Corn b. Wheat c. Strawberries d. Carrots 21.) An example of a perennial is ______________. a. Corn b. Wheat c. Strawberries d. Carrots 22.) Trees and shrubs that lose their leaves in the fall are: a. Evergreen b. Annuals c. Herbaceous perennials d. Deciduous 23.) Plants that have shoots that die back in the winter but has roots that survive are known as: a. Woody perennials b. Deciduous c. Evergreen d. Herbaceous perennials 24.) During winter perennials go through a ___________period. a. Germination b. Growth c. Dormancy d. Latency 25.) A typical evergreen leaf lasts _________ before dropping. a. 12 months b. 46 months c. 13 years d. 35 years

PAGE 117

117 Assessment 7 Examining Photosynthesis & Respiration 1.) The green pigment in leaves is known as a. Chlorophyll b. Chloroplasts c. Mesophyll d. Stroma 2.) The fluid filled region within the chloroplast is known as the __________. a. Chlorophyll b. Grana c. Mesophyll d. Stroma 3.) The mos t important type of chlorophyll is _______________. a. Carotenoids b. Chlorophyll a c. Chlorophyll b d. Grana 4.) The yellow green chlorophyll is ______________. a. Carotenoids b. Chlorophyll a c. Chlorophyll b d. Grana 5.) Interconnected sets of flat, disk like sacks are ____________. a. Grana b. Mesophyll c. Stroma d. Thylakoids 6.) A group of thylakoids are known as _________. a. Stroma b. Grana c. Mesophyll d. Cartenoids 7.) The chlorophyll transfers the energy in sunlight into high energy compounds known as ____________. a. ATP b. NADPH c. Cellulose d. All of the above 8.) Duri ng the light independent reaction (dark reaction) a. ATP is produced b. ATP and NADHP are used to make highenergy carbohydrates c. Photophosphorulation occurs d. 6 carbon molecules are split into 2 three carbon molecules that join with simple sugars 9.) Which of the following is not a C4 plant? a. Corn

PAGE 118

118 b. Crab grass c. Sugar beets d. Sugar cane 10.) Which is not a trait of a C4 plant? a. Bundle sheath cells b. High levels of carbon dioxide c. High rate of photosynthesis d. Calvin cycle takes place 11.) What will happen to a plant during a lack of water? a. Bundle sheath cells rapidly produce carbon dioxide b. NADPH and ATP are rapidly produced c. Chlorophyll levels decrease d. Stomates close 12.) Can photosynthesis occur without sunlight? a. Yes, at a very high rate b. Yes, but at a very low rate c. Not at all d. Depends on how much water is present 13.) Which statement is the most correct? a. A C3 plant grows slightly faster than a C4 plant b. A C 4 plant grows much faster than a C 3 plant 14.) Respiration takes place in which organelle? a. Mitochondria b. Nucleus c. Ribosome d. Nucleotide 15.) When oxygen is in short supply, plants must rely on: a. Aerobic respiration b. Anerobic respiration c. Glycolysis d. Cytosol 16.) The process of plants removing oxygen is known as: a. Cellular respiration b. Fermentation c. Glycolysis d. Reduction 17.) The fluid of a cell in which the organelles are s uspended is known as: a. Mitochondria b. The golgi complex c. Cytosol d. Ribosome 18.) Carbohydrates are broken down in the plant to form all of the following except: a. Oxygen b. ATP c. Carbon dioxide d. Water

PAGE 119

119 19.) An example of anaerobic cellular respiration is: a. Tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle b. Ctylosol c. Glycolysis d. Fermentation 20.) During the third stage of the aerobic respiration _____________ enter the mitochondria. a. Pyruvate molecules b. Cytosol fluid c. Tricarboxylic acid (TCA) d. Bacteria 21.) During the third stage of aerobic respiration, the ______________ takes place, releasing Carbon dioxide and hydrogen. a. Tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle b. Glycolysis c. Reduction d. Fermentation 22.) As temperature increases respirations _____________. a. Increases b. Decreases c. Stays the same d. Varies 23.) What type of plant has the hi ghest respiration rates? a. A young plant in a very wet (water logged) soil b. An old plant in a very wet (water logged) soil c. A young plant in an average soil d. An old plant in an average soil 24.) Respiration occurs: a. In the light b. In the dark c. In the light and dark d. In t he absents of carbon dioxide and water 25.) Low levels of carbohydrates = ___________________. a. High rates of respiration b. Low rates of respiration c. High temperatures d. Low temperatures

PAGE 120

120 APPENDIX D CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AS SESSMENT PLANNING MATRICS Lessons 1 & 2 Lesson#/Objective # % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the Assessment Questions 1/1 7 7 1,2 1/2 18 21 3,4,5,6,7,8 1/3 7 7 9,10 1/4 6 3 11 1/5 11 7 12,13 2/1 12 14 14,15,16,17 2/2 13 14 18,19,20,21 2/3 13 14 22,23,24,25 2/4 13 14 26,27,28,29 Lesson 3 & 4 Lesson#/Objectives# % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the assessments Questions 3/1 5 4 5 3/2 5 4 6 3/3 10 8 1,3 3/4 10 12 2,4,8 3/5 5 4 9 3/6 10 8 7,10 4/1 20 20 11,12,13,19,24 4/2 15 16 14,15,17,25 4/3 10 12 16,22,23 4/4 10 12 18,20,21 Lesson 5 & 6 Lesson#/Objectives# % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the assessments Questions 5/1 10 8 1,7 5/2 10 12 2,8,15 5/3 40 40 3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14 6/1 15 16 18,21,22,23 6/2 10 8 17,20 6/3 15 16 16,19,24,25

PAGE 121

121 Lesson 7 & 8 Lesson#/Objectives# % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the assessments Questions 7/1 5 8 1,6 7/2 5 8 4,8 7/3 10 8 3,11 7/4 10 8 5,10 7/5 5 8 7,9 7/6 10 12 2,3,12 8/1 5 0 8/2 20 20 13,14,15,16,17 8/3 10 12 19,22,23 8/4 20 20 18,20,21,24,25 Lesson 9, 10, & 11 Lesson#/Objectives# % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the assessments Questions 9/1 5 4 2 9/2 5 2 1,3 9/3 15 16 4,5,6,7 9/4 10 12 8,9,10 10/1 5 8 11,12 10/2 20 24 13,14,15,16,17,18 10/3 5 8 19,20 11/1 20 20 21,22,23,24,25 11/2 5 4 26 11/3 5 8 27,28 11/4 5 8 29,30 Lesson 12 & 13 Lesson#/Objectives# % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the assessments Questions 12/1 25 24 1,2,3,4,5,6 12/2 10 12 7,8,9 12/3 10 12 10,11,12 13/1 5 0 13/2 15 16 14,17,18,19 13/3 5 8 15,20 13/4 30 32 13,16,21,21,22,23,24,25

PAGE 122

122 Lesson 14 & 15 Lesson#/Objectives# % Instructional time (lessons combined) % of the assessments Questions 14/1 25 24 1,2,3,4,5,6 14/2 25 24 7,8,9,10,11,13 14/3 5 4 12 15/1 5 8 14,15 15/2 25 24 16,17,18,19,20,21 15/3 15 16 22,23,24,25

PAGE 123

123 APPENDIX E INTRODUCTION LETTER

PAGE 124

124 APPENDIX F EXPLANATION AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY Explanation of the Study To the teacher: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. I hope this study not only tells us information about the two teaching methods but also allows me to share valuable information with NATAA stakeholders, teacher preparation programs, fellow agriscience teachers and science teachers, and administrations. I hope the lessons and lab investigations are something you find useful along with the data and results I gather. I hope your classes will work through this study and find the units and topics interesting. I t is anticipated you will read over all content information and instruct the lessons as described in the lesson plans. In order for this study to have validity, it is important each person teach the lessons in the same manner. Please look over the lessons and labs as there may be items you have to order. If you could order the material needed, I will likely write you a personal check and pay you back for the materials you had to purchase. I know from being an Ag teacher sometimes we can be creative on h ow to get the materials we need.so I know there are a couple times I am asking you to do that. However, if you are paying for something out of your personal money please let me know and I will pay you for it. I appreciate your participation, but I dont want you to have to pay to participate in this study. I hope you understand the value the study can bring to the profession, but I cannot willingly ask you to pay for some of it with your own money. Setting up the study is very important. All teacher s/schools involved in the study have at least 2 sections of Agriscience. Please set up the following arrangement: If the instructor has 3 sections, please have the 3rd section follow the same schedule as Group 1. If the instructor has 4 sections please have the 4th group follow the same schedule as group 2.

PAGE 125

125 Design of the Study (you can use the down the center so you know where you are in the study and what is next) Step # Inquiry based instruction (Group 1) Subject matter approach (Group 2) 1 Assign students ID#s, Introduce them to the computerized testing system, Student take Pretest 1 Assign students ID#s, Introduce them to the computerized testing system, Student take Pretest 1 2 Teach lesson 1 Teach lesson 1 3 Teach lesson 2 Teach lesson 2 4 Students take Posttest 1 Students take Posttest 1 5 Students take Pretest 2 Students take Pretest 2 6 Teach lesson 3 Teach lesson 3 7 Teach lesson 4 Teach lesson 4 8 Students take Posttest 2 Students take Posttest 2 9 Students take Pretest 3 Students take Pretest 3 10 Teach lesson 5 Teach lesson 5 11 Teach lesson 6 Teach lesson 6 12 Students take Posttest 3 Students take Posttest 3 13 Students take Pretest 4 Students take Pretest 4 14 Teach lesson 7 Teach lesson 7 15 Teach lesson 8 Teach lesson 8 16 Students take Posttest 4 Students take Posttest 4 17 Students take Pretest 5 Students take Pretest 5 18 Teach lesson 9 Teach lesson 9 19 Teach lesson 10 Teach lesson 10 20 Teach lesson 11 Teach lesson 11 21 Students take Posttest 5 Students take Posttest 5 22 Students take Pretest 6 Students take Pretest 6 23 Teach lesson 12 Teach lesson 12 24 Teach lesson 13 Teach lesson 13 25 Students take Posttest 6 Students take Posttest 6 26 Students take Pretest 7 Students take Pretest 7 27 Teach lesson 14 Teach lesson 14 28 Teach lesson 15 Teach lesson 15 29 Students take Posttest 7 Students take Posttest 7 30 Students take the argumentation instrument (I will e mail this to you same for both groups) Students take the argumentation instrument (I will e mail this to you same for both groups) 31 Students take the scientific reasoning instrument (Included on jump drive same for both groups) Students take the scientific reason ing instrument (Included on jump drive same for both groups) I know the design and the above table can be overwhelming. Basically, there are 15 lessons you will be teaching. As I think you will agree, I found it is better to assess students in smaller

PAGE 126

126 chunks. The lessons break down well to assess students after each pair of lessons with the acceptation of lesson 9, 10, & 11. Lessons 9, 10, & 11 go together for one assessment. I can understand that it looks like I am testing the students often. The reason for the pretest (which is the same as the posttest) is to establish a prior knowledge of the student and the groups. I will use the pretest to control for differences between the groups, thus allowing me to find which met hod is more successful de spite differences in student prior knowledge. I am randomly assign ing your class section to inquiry based instruction or subject matter teaching (traditional method). The random selection is the best way to determine what group receives each teaching m ethod. It is of GREATEST importance that you do not cross the two styles of teaching. This is the reason that I ask you to audio tape your class, I need to assure my committee and the people I present the results of the study to that the two methods were different and separate. Therefore, each group (class) need s to be taught under one method the entire length of the study Example: You have your Agscience Class 3rd and 6th period. Third hour you teach using the subject matter the entire length of the study and 6th period you teach using inquiry based instruction the entire length of the study At the end of the study the students will take an argumentation instrument I created. The purpose of this instrument is to assess students ability to work through a problem and explain the choices they made to develop their answer, why it is the best answer developed, as well as ot her potential answers. The scientific reasoning instrument will also be given to students at the end to establish if the group has developed a better scientific reasoning Have students write their school, method taught, and student ID number at the top of the page on all the instruments. I will likely have you mail the hard copies of the instruments back to me. The argumentation instrument is not included on the jump drive. I will e mail you the argumentation instrument later in the study. I antici pate the study to be 100% complete by Thanksgiving break.

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX G EXPLANATION OF INQUI RY BASED INSTRUCTION AND SUBJECT MATTER LESSON PLANS Explanation of Inquiry based Instruction and Subject matter Lesson Plans Your participation in the study will provide valuable information to the NATAA, DuPont and other stakeholders involved in the program, fellow teachers in the NATAA program, teacher preparation programs, fellow inservice teachers, administrators, and the research community in agriscience education and science education. You will be selecting one class to receive the inquiry based instruction and one class to receive the subject matter lessons Once I have randomly assigned ONE method or the other you will not be able to switch. This is an important part of the study. Each group will receive the same method the entire study. I will be comparing the two groups. Students will take a pretest to establish previous knowledge and thus allow me to statistically control for difference between th e groups prior knowledge. When teaching the Subject matter lessons there are suggested ways to teach each objective below the content. You will need to follow the teaching methodology as best you can for the subject matter approach to teaching. The I nquiry based instruction lesson plans are truly a supplement to the subject matter lessons. You will not teach the material the same way as the subject matter approach; instead you will use the inquiry based instruction supplement to guide the inquiry met hod of instruction. There are times the inquiry based instruction asks you to guide students to obtain the content contained in the subject matter lessons. Furthermore, there will be times the inquiry supplement may ask you to provide students with the t echnical terms or information as they investigate beyond the scope of the subject matter lesson. Please follow the directions as closely as possible allowing students the ability to obtain the knowledge level material because they are assessed on the know ledge level exams. Inquiry based instruction students should be pushed and expected to maintain a notebook of their observations, learning, content knowledge level material, reasoning, and reflections. I know you are familiar with the notebook style us ed at NATAA. The subject matter students should be asked to use the traditional method you direct. It is possible at times the two groups will not be learning the same lesson. This is okay for this to occur. I know it may be difficult to keep the two groups at the same place and taking the tests on the same day. This is fine, just keep the two groups separate in your teaching. Overall, the two groups will finish approximately at the same time. As you know the inquiry based instruction develops an instructor as a facilitator role. Please guide students when needed toward the objectives of the lesson so they stay on track.

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX H EXPLANATION OF SCHOO L, METHOD, STUDENT I D NUMBER, DEMOGRAPHI C SHEET, AND COMPUTER BASED TESTING SYSTEM Explanati on of School, Method, and Student ID Number Demographic Sheet Computer based Testing System Each school is given an ID number, each method is given an ID number, and each student is given an ID number. To maintain the highest level of confidentiality for the students I do not need to see student names. Your jump drive identifies your school number. On your jump drive you will find a word document that has your school identification number. Example: School12 This means you are school 12 of the study. You will use this for all purposes during the study. When asked about school ID number you would enter 12. If your jump drive has a word document named: School7, you are school 7 for all purposes. You can find the information on your jump drive in the folder titled school ID # and click on the folder and a word document will be named with your ID # and inside and contains your name, address, and e mail address I intend to use during the study. The method of instruction will be 01 and 02. 01 means the inquiry method and 02 means the subject matter method. You should have every student in the inquiry method class be 01 and every student in the subject matter method be 02 Finally, student ID#. Each student should have an ID number. You can designate students a number alphabetically or however it is easiest for you to remember. I assume you have students listed in your grade book alphabetically. So the first student in each section (inquiry and subject matter) is number 1. The second student is number 2 etc. You can have the student ID number begin at 1 for each section. This is fine because the previous number designates what method the student is being taught. Final example: ID# 010113 The fi rst two numbers (01) means school number 1 of the study. The second pair of numbers means the method (01). 01 means this student is receiving the inquiry method The third pair of numbers denotes the student ID in his/her section. 13 means this student is the 13 student in the section. One for practice: ID#080215 What does this mean? Answer: School eight, subject matter method, and student fifteen

PAGE 129

129 Demographic sheet In completing the demographic sheet you will find the ID#s useful. You will place you r school ID number in every cell, or you may chose to identify it on the first cell. The following cell you will enter the method used, followed by the student ID number. Please indicated the grade the student is in during the instructional time, keep tr ack of the days the student is absent and enter this into the next column. In the next five cells there are drop down items to select from. You may have to obtain help from your school administrator to complete all the information. If there is NO IEP th en there is NO need to complete the last cell. If there is an IEP, please identify the nature of the students IEP. We are interested in IEP data b/c a Master student is completing his masters degree requirements studying the IEP data of my dissertation study. What do students need to know? Students will need to know AND remember their ID# when logging onto the testing system to take their pretests and posttests. They will need to remember their entire ID number. So if your school number is 05 and they are being taught with the inquiry approach, and you have identified that student as 18 their number is ID#: 050118. I suggest you give them a piece of paper that has their ID number on it or a place where they can write their ID number on in their notebook.

PAGE 130

130 Computer Based System I will e mail you a log in and ID to log into MyCAERT. Once logged in you on the left side of the page you will see an icon you can click that says Thorons study in the area of My Courses. Click Thorons study. Once you click Thorons study the 15 lessons will appear. The pdf icon will allow you to acces s the pdf document that is included on your jump drive. You will also notice near the center of the gray box a PPT files and can click on the APSS icon and access a PowerPoint for your use during the subject matter portion of the study. There is also an icon to the right of the PowerPoint that will allow you access to an E unit. E units are not used in this study, but could act as a reference or you could download them for use after completion of the study. Computer Based Testing I will be sending out an e mail in the future to explain the testing system. You will likely get the e mail explaining the testing system before this packet arrives. However, you will have to assign each student their ID # (as explained above) and password. The students wil l use the assigned number and password to access the test. The student will have to click on the test that they are to take. Once into the testing system they will click the correct answer. Once they complete the 25+ question multiple choice exam they w ill be finished. You will have to make sure the student clicks the correct assessment to complete the correct test. If they are taking Pretest one please ensure they select Pretest one. If a student is taking the Posttest one they need to select Posttes t one and so on.

PAGE 131

131 AP P ENDEX I STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS SHEET

PAGE 132

132 Student Demographics Sheet DIRECTIONS: Please complete the following information for all students in the class. Schoo l ID# Studen t ID# Grade Days Absent Gender Ethnicity National School Lunch Program IEP Status Nature of IEP Male Female Black Hispani c White Other Does not participate Reduced lunch Free lunch IEP No IEP Mental Retardation Hearing Impairment Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairments Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Deaf Blindness Specific Learning Disability Developmental Delay Other _____________ Male Female Black Hispani c White Other Does not participate Reduced lunch Free lunch IEP No IEP Mental Retardation Hearing Impairment Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairments Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Deaf Blindness Specific Learning Disability Developmental Delay Other _____________ Male Female Black Hispani c White Other Does not participate Reduced lunch Free lunch IEP No IEP Mental Retardation Hearing Impairment Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairments Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Deaf Blindness Specific Learning Disability Developmental Delay Other _____________

PAGE 133

133 APPENDIX J EXPLANATION OF JUMP DRIVE, AUDIO RECORDI NG, AND IRB

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX K IRB APPROVAL

PAGE 135

135 APPENDIX L INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDENTS

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX M INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARENTS

PAGE 137

137 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, G. L. & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (1990). Americans with Disabilities act of 1990. Retrieved July 13, 2009 from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf Andreasen, R. J., Seevers, B. S., Dormody, T. J., & VanLeeuwen, D. M. (2007). Trainin needs of New Mexico agricultural education teachers related to inclusion of students with special needs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 117129. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, L., Levine, P., & Newman, L. (2005). Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence. Palo Alto, CA: SRI. Borich, G. D. (2000). Effective Teaching Methods (4 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall,Inc. Bradley, D. F., KingSears, M. E., & Tessier Switlick, D. M. (1996). Teachi ng students in inclusive settings: From theory to practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brooks, M. G. & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), pp. 1824. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 rd ed., pp. 328375). New York: MacMillan Brown, B. L. (1998). Using problem solving approaches in vocational education. ERIC Digest (ED 418325) Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Chambers, J. G., Parrish, T. B., Lieberman, J. C., & Wolman, J. M. (1998). What are we spending on special education in the U. S.? Center for Special Education Finance, CSEF Brief 8. Colburn, A. (1998). Constructivist and science teaching. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Coln, K. N. (2008). The status of inquiry based science instruction in a mid size s chool district for grades 3 8 as mandated statewide testing begins: A survey of teacher practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3320937.

PAGE 138

138 Crunkilton, J. R. & Krebs, A. H. (1982). Teaching agriculture through problem solving (3rd ed.). Dan ville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experien ce & education. New York: Touchstone. Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 2346. Dormody, T. J., Seevers, B. S., Andreasen, R. J., & VanLeeuwen, D. (2006). Challenges experienced by New Mexico agricultural education teachers in including special needs students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47 (2), pp. 93-105. Duncan, M.J. & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The study of teaching New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Dyer, J. E. & Osborne, E. (1996). Effects of teaching approach on problem solving ability of agricultural education students with varying learning styles. Journal of Agr icultural Education, 37(4), 3845. Eggen, P. D. & Kauchak, D. P. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Elbert, C. D. & Bagget, C. D. (2003). Teacher competence for working with disabled students as perceived by secondary level agricultural instructors in Pennsylvania. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 105115. Eisenman, L. T. (2000). Characteristics and effects of integrated academic and occupational curricula fo r students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23(1), 105119. Falvey, M., Blair, M., Dingle, M., & Franklin, N. (2000). Creating a community of learners with varied needs. In R. Villa & J. Thousands (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 186207). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishing. Flick, L. B. (1995). Complex instruction in complex classrooms: A synthesis of research on inquiry teaching methods and explicit teach ing strategies. ERIC Digest (ED383563). Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega analysis of meta analysis: What works in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(6), 4 9. F rew, T. W. & Klein, N. K. (1982). Instructional models for children with special needs. Theory Into Practice, 21(2), 97105.

PAGE 139

139 Fuller, J. L. (2001). An integrated hands on inquiry based cooperative learning approach: The impacts of the PALMS approach on student growth. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, Seattle, WA. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. and Joyce, P. G., 1996. Educational research: an introduction (6th ed ed.),, Longman, White Plains, NY. Ganz, J. B. & Flores, M. M. (2009). The effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching language to children with autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 7583. Ga ona, J. (2004). The effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on career and technical education: Implications for students with special needs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 41(2), Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/ v41n2/gaona.html Gejda, L. M. (2006). Inquiry based ins truction in secondary science classrooms: A survey of teacher practice. AAT 3209927. George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 185193. Gibson, H. L. & Chase, C. (2002). L ongitudinal impact of an inquiry based science program on middle school students attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693705. Geier, R., Blumenfield, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E. et al. (2008). Standard ized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of research in science teaching, 45(8), 922939. Giffing, M. D. (2009). Perceptions of agriculture teachers towards including students wit h disabilities. ProQuest (AAT 1462600). Giffing, M. D., Warnick, B. K., & Tarpley, R. S. (2009, May). Perceptions of agriculture teachers towards including students with disabilities Paper presented at the American Association for Agricultural Educa tion Research Conference, Louisville, KY. Glaserfeld, H. V. (1996). Sensory experience, abstraction, and teaching In Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J. (Eds.) Constructivism in Education (pp. 369384). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Harvey, M. W. (2001). Vocational technical education: A logical approach to dropout prevention for secondary special education. Preventing School Failure, 45(3), 108121. Huber, R. A., Smith, R. W., and Shotsberger, P. G. (2000). The impact of a standards guided equity and problem solving institute on participating science teachers and their students. ERIC publication ED 443621.

PAGE 140

140 Israel, G. D. (2009). Determining sample size. Agricultural Education and Communication, Program Evaluation and Sampling, IFAS University of Florida. PEOD6. Jones, L. T. & Moore, E. A. (2000). Attitudes of Michigan agriscience teachers towards diversity. Dissertation Abstracts International Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie Richmond, D. (2009) Preparing teachers for inclusiv e classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 535542. Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Kafai, Y. B. & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Kafai, Y. B. & Resnick, M. (Eds.), Varieties of memory & consciousness (pp. 18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum, Inc. Keys, C. W. & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Coconstructing inquiry based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38( 6), 631645. Kinder, D., Kubina, R., & MarchandMartella, N. E. (2005). Special education and direct instruction: An effective combination. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5(1), 1 36. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing. Lancelot, W. H. (1929). Handbook of teaching skills. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Lembo, J. M. (1969). The psychology of effective classroom instruction. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Marchand Martella, N. E., Slocum, T. A., & Martella, R. C. (2004). Introduction to direct instruction Columbus, OH: Merrill Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Sciecne for students with disabilities. 62(4), 377411. McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic based, hands on science teaching verses a textbook approach for stude nts with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 245263. McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social constructivism and the world wide web: A paradigm for learning. Paper presented and the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia. Mercer, C. D. & Snell, M. E. (1977). Learning theory research in mental retardation: Implications for teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

PAGE 141

141 Mitzel, H. E. (1960). Teacher effectiveness. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Third Ed ition). New York: Macmillan. Moore, E. A., Ingram, P. & Jones, L. T. (2001). Attitudes of Michigan agriscience teachers towards diversity. NACTA Journal 45 (March), 3242. Moran, D. J. (2004). The need for evidence based educational methods. In D. J. M oran & R. W. Malott (Eds.), Evidence based educational methods (pp. 37). London, England: Elsevier Academic Press. Myers, B. E. (2004). Effects of investigative laboratory integration on student content knowledge and science process skill achievement across learning styles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy. (2009). Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.ffa.org/index.cfm?method=c_aged.nataa National Research Council. (1996). N ational science education standards. National committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M. (Eds.) Constructivism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 924). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Parr, B., & Edwards, M. C. (2004). Inquiry based instruction in secondary agricultural education: Problem solving An old friend revisited. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(4), 106117. Pense, S. L. (2008). Teacher perceptions of learning disabled students curricular needs in Illinois agricultural education programs Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Agricultural Education, Reno, NV. Pense, S. L., Watson, D. G., & Wakefield, D. B. (2009, May). Curriculum re design to meet the needs of learning disabled students in Illinois agricultural education programs Paper presented at the American Association for Agricultural Education Research Conference, Louisville, KY. Perkins, C. D. Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. (2006). Carl D. Perkins career and technical education improvement act of 2006. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from http://frweb gate.access.gpo.gov/cgi bin/getd oc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s250enr.txt.pdf Person, P. D. & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), pp. 151165.

PAGE 142

142 Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008). Handbook on agricultural education in public school (6th ed.) Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Book s Inc. Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion. Rapp, W. H. (2005). Inquiry based environments for the inclusion of students with exceptional learning needs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 297310. Retish, P., Hitchings, W., Horvath, M, & Schmalle, B. (1991). Students with mild disabilities in the secondary school White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Richardson, J. M. (2005). Strategies employed by North Carolina agriculture teac hers in serving students with mild to moderate learning disabilities. Masters thesis, University of Florida. Rodriguez, A. J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National Research Councils national science education stan dards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101109. Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 rd ed., pp. 392431). New York: Macmillan. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading verses doing: The relative effects of textbookbased and inquiry oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1 15. Singer, F. M. & Moscovici, H. (2008). Teaching and learning cycles in a constructivist approach to instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 16131634. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: A experimental analysis. Oxford, England: AppletonCentury. Smith, D. D. (2007). Introduction to special education: Making a difference (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. (2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated instruction. Theory Into Practice, 44 (3), 245253. Suchman, J. R. (1962). The elementary school training program in scientific inquiry. ERIC Digest (ED003530). Supovitz, J. A. & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and cl assroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963980. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse Lee, C. (2000). A meta analysis of single subject design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 114136.

PAGE 143

143 Taba, H., Levine, S, & Elzey, F. F. (1964). Thinking in elementary school children. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State College. Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children. San Francisco, CA: San Fran cisco State College. Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R., & Croom, D. B. (2005). Foundations of agricultural education. Catlin, IL: Professional Educators Publications, Inc. Thomas, G. J. (2008). The theories and practices of facilitator educators: Conclusions from a naturalistic inquiry. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 9, pp. 413. Thorndike, E. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan. Tom linson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. U. S. Department of Education. (1994). Final report to congress: Summary and recommen dations the future of Perkins. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008a ). The Condition of Education 2008(NCES 2008031), Table 8 1. U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008b). The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008031), Ind icator 8 U S Department of Education. (2008). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July, 1 2009, from: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99114. Vogel, R. & Annau, Z. (1984). An operant discrimination task allowing variability of reinforced response patt erning. In B. Schwartz (Ed.), Psychology of learning: Readings in behavior theory (pp. 9097). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151160. Von Secker, C. & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of research in science teaching, 36(10) 11101126. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2003). Changes overtime in the early post school outcomes of youth with disabilities A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International Retrieved July 20th, 2009 from: www.nlts2.org/pdfs/str6_execsum.pdf.

PAGE 144

144 White, W. A. T. (1988). Meta analysis of the effects of direct instruction in special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 364374. Wolf, S. J. & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning envi ronment, attitudes and achievement among middle school science students using inquiry based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education 38(3). Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.springerlink.com/ content/h18358k752803n26/ Wonacott, M. E. (2001). Students with disabilities in career and technical education. ERIC Digest (ED459324). Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of research in science teaching, 37(8), 807838.

PAGE 145

145 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH R. G. Easterly III (Tre) grew up in Mars Hill, North Carolina. During high school at Madison High in Marshall, North Carolina he decided that he wanted to be an agriculture teacher to help students learn more about their natural world around them and to have an appreciation and respect agriculturalists. In 2008 he graduated Cum Lade from North Carolina State University where he received his Bachelors of Science in Agricultural Education with a concentration in Anim al Sciences. He compl eted his student teaching at Tri ton High School in Dunn, North Carolina with John Hardee as part of the requirement for teaching certification. He was provided an opportunity to have an assistantship at the University of Florida to study Agricultural Education. Upon graduation he plans to teach Agriscience in a public secondary school.