INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2003, VOL. 25, NO.

1, 13–33

RESEARCH REPORT

Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school

chemistry classrooms: perceptions of a group of
motivated learners

Charles J. Rop, The University of Toledo, Toledo, USA;

e-mail: [email protected]

This ethnographic research explores the perspectives of a subset of American suburban Midwestern
high school chemistry students on the motivations for and implications of a particular form of classroom
questioning behaviour. These students describe the intellectual curiosity that drives them to ask ques-
tions that are related to content but bring them beyond the delivered or expected curriculum. These
same students explain that teacher and peer responses often encourage them to abandon their curiosity
for social conformity. Although educators and policy makers call for the freedom to explore, test ideas,
throw out conjectures and practice scientific discourse, these students suggest that the social atmosphere
in high schools is stacked against scientific inquiry. They feel that their questions are not always valued,
encouraged or given time to flourish. This study has significant implications for implementing the
vision for scientific inquiry in high school science classrooms (NRC 2000).

Introduction
This research explores student perspectives on their questioning behaviour in high
school chemistry. Although students ask a variety of questions in their high school
classes, the majority of the questions focus on ‘doing school’: ‘Do we have to know
this for the test?’; ‘How do you do question number 10?’; ‘When did you say this is
due?’ A very small subset of student questions are more substantive and give
evidence of genuine intellectual curiosity. These are ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘what
would happen if’ questions that are related to the content of the lesson. My interest
is in the fact that they ask these questions and that they do not often feel encour-
aged to question. I am less interested in the particular questions asked. In an effort
to explore the reasons some students ask intellectually probing questions and to
attempt to understand the meaning these questions might have for the students,
I asked students to discuss their own intellectual questioning behaviour. They not
only described why they ask the questions they do, they also described the power
of their teacher’s responses to their questions, some of the social implications of
their questions, and the corresponding modifications they make in their behaviour.
The findings suggest that students want their teachers to value, encourage and
support active intellectual inquiry and powerful learning experiences. However,
students also demonstrate what I thought was an unexpected willingness to
accommodate their teacher’s and fellow students’ responses to their questioning
behaviour.

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09500690210126496
14 C. J. ROP

Research about classroom questions

Teacher questions in science classrooms

There is a large body of literature on the questions teachers ask and how teachers
use questions in their teaching (for example, see Redfield and Rousseau 1981,
Dillon 1983, Dillon 1985, Cazden 1988, Shepardson and Pissini 1991, Watts
et al. 1997a, b, Dori and Herscovitz 1999, Marbach-Ad and Sokolove 2000).
Lemke (1990) examined classroom dialogue and suggested that if you sit in on
almost any US classroom, you will notice that most of the dialogue between
students and teachers is characterized by whole-class interaction and the repeated
three-turn sequences that constitute ‘Triadic Dialogue’ (1990: 8). The teacher
begins each sequence by asking a question that either targets the whole class or
singles out one particular student hoping that student will provide a good answer.
Sometimes, as Lemke explains, a student breaks the discursive sequence by asking
a related or tangential question and interrupts the smooth flow of the lesson. These
student questions stimulate certain teacher reactions that Lemke suggests relate to
maintaining classroom control. However, these questions may represent student
curiosity and self-directed learning. They may represent an interested student’s
efforts to conceptualize a topic or make it relevant to life.

Student questions in science classrooms

Far fewer studies address the questions students ask their teachers during class
time (e.g. Tobin 1988, Van Zee 2000, Yerrick 2000). In a study about student
participation patterns, Dillon (1988) was surprised by how infrequent original
student questions actually are, even in classrooms in which teachers carry out
discussions with students. Dillon found that when students did ask questions,
they were seldom designed for increasing their personal knowledge or understand-
ing. Instead, he found that student questions were usually procedural, informa-
tional and focused on the content covered in the next test. In recent work on
student questions, researchers found that although student questions are relatively
infrequent, they can be indicators of interest, conceptual engagement and concep-
tual change (Watts et al. 1997a). Watts et al. (1997b) suggest that teachers should
carefully listen to what their students say and apply what they learn to their teach-
ing. These researchers found that student questions often put thoughtful teachers
‘on the spot’ and that they force them to seriously reflect about what they do.
According to the authors, teachers who are reflective and who want to improve
their practice for better student learning actually favour a ‘question rich environ-
ment’ and become ‘primed for queries’ (1997: 1034). They also suggest that
teachers can use student questions to tell if their classroom environment is con-
ducive to a free flow of ideas.
Marbach-Ad and Sokolove (2000) suggest that even if teachers feel uncomfor-
table about not covering enough content material in an active learning classroom,
they should try as much as possible to encourage thoughtful student questions
because they can be indicators of student thinking. However, as Carr (1998) found,
most student questions are about how to do assignments or carry out procedures
and therefore are of little value in diagnosing conceptual development. He also
found that older and more experienced secondary school students seldom asked
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 15

any questions in class. When they did, the questions were usually not cognitive
questions. The apparent paucity of cognitive questions causes Carr to raise a set of
serious questions about what happens in high schools: ‘What does this say of our
science curriculum and teaching, if pupils are not asking questions? And ‘How can
a more obvious enquiring mind be encouraged among our pupils?’ (1998: 50).
Carr’s research suggests that we need to understand more fully students’ motives
for asking or not asking questions.

Motivation for student questions

A few researchers have addressed the issue of what might motivate student ques-
tions. The National Research Council (NRC 2000) makes the point that questions
are clearly linked to motivation and that it is the natural curiosity of children that
maintains motivation in school and in the rest of the life of a learner (2000: xii).
Watts and Alsop (1995) suggest that some students might ask questions because
they are willing to think aloud, conceptualize a problem and to clarify what will be
on the next test. Some other questions might be like ‘thought experiments’ that are
not intended to interrupt class time or to be answered (Watts and Alsop 1995).
They might also be attempts to gain some autonomy in learning. These are
exploration questions like ‘What will happen if . . . ?’ and ‘Why is it that . . . ?’
Some require elaborate speculation such as ‘Why do spiders have eight legs?’ or
‘Why do some birds migrate and others don’t?’ Some authors suggest that the most
interesting and perhaps most useful form of student questions is the question that
is motivated by engagement with and exploration of the topic at hand (Martin and
Brouwer 1993, Watts and Alsop 1995).
Tobin and Gallagher (1987) and Tobin (1988) found that some Australian
‘salient students’ actively participated in classroom interaction in a self-motivated
manner. Some of these students were observed projecting themselves into whole-
class interactions by raising their hands or by calling out responses to teacher
questions, asking questions and evaluating the responses of other students
(Tobin and Gallagher 1987: 69). These researchers suggest that classrooms may
therefore contain a steering group of most able or most vocal students (1987: 74)
who act confidently, are willing to take risks, are willing to interrupt the flow of
things and are not afraid of being wrong (Tobin 1988). Although the teacher
certainly has a role in selecting and encouraging these students, they often trans-
cend significant peer pressure (Tobin 1988, Rop 1999) to reveal their own poten-
tial contributions by the questions they ask.
In a recent American ethnographic study, Crawford et al. (2000) claims that
learning of science is a social accomplishment in school as it is in academia. In
school settings, the author found that social practices helped define science for
class members as students used their knowledge in inquiry processes that involved
all participants. This makes student questioning a vital part of the social construc-
tion of knowledge. However, rather than opening up discussion where students ask
original questions, teachers seem to use a variety of methods to actually limit
student input, direct and constrain contributions, and control the learning experi-
ences so that pre-ordained discovery and content learning outcomes are reached as
efficiently as possible (Cazden 1988, Lemke 1990, Oaks 1990, Fine 1991). As
Tobin (1988) explains, teachers wanting to maintain momentum, smoothness,
and group co-operation might actually limit student participation (1988: 318).
16 C. J. ROP

In a similar way, Newton et al. (1999) found that teacher-felt time constraints and
pressures to conform to the national curriculum with its heavy content load
resulted in little classroom time devoted to meaningful discussion thus restricting
student intellectual involvement (1999: 564). McRobbie and Tobin (1997) call this
perceived ‘shortage of time, a need to cover content rather than build understand-
ings, to be in control of students and to prepare students for success on examina-
tions and tests, cultural myths (1997: 206). By ‘cultural myth’, they refer to
‘intuitive action in social settings’ for which a teacher must find alternatives if
students are to understand science.

Research about students’ perspectives

Although the literature described above provides a valuable context for thinking
about student questions, the voices of the high school students themselves are
seldom heard. Very few studies have gone to the source of student questions,
exploring students’ opinions about their own participation. In one rare and recent
exception, Yerrick (2000) studied his own classroom by tuning in and listening to
his students talk about scientific phenomena. He came to the conclusion that it is
possible for a teacher to renegotiate norms for classroom discourse by taking the
freedom to engage with student questions and adopting a certain amount of
instructional flexibility. However, he also makes it very clear that in allowing
this flexibility, he faces a difficult dilemma. He points out that there are clear
advantages to spending two weeks on a student-originated idea, but this also
means two valuable weeks away from the school’s prescribed curriculum.
According to Yerrick, some teachers might feel very uncomfortable spending so
much time on a topic that isn’t explicitly on the course of study.
In another recent study, van Zee (2000) examined the nature of discourse in
her university research seminar in which students talk to each other about what
they think about their own learning. In one reflection, a student asks: ‘What
happens when the assumed ‘professor’ does not profess?’ (2000: 129). In answer
to her own question, she presents five assertions: The instructor listens actively,
shifts focus to the learner, focuses on the process of learning, encourages open-
ended exploratory conversation and facilitates a ‘meeting of the minds’ (2000: 129).
VanZee and her students imply that in a climate where students are free to go
where questions lead, the classroom atmosphere comes closer to student-generated
inquiry discussion called for in her countries national standards (NRC 1996: 23).
In reporting on how her students felt about their learning experiences, her purpose
was ‘to reflect on what happened in ways that other instructors might find mean-
ingful’ (2000: 135). One lesson from this study is that teachers should listen to
what their students have to say.

The need for student perspectives on their questioning behaviours

My research focuses on the questioning behaviour of high school chemistry
students and goes directly to the source by asking students to reflect on their
participation during classroom instruction. The classroom engagement of these
students quite clearly exemplifies the kind of authentic inquiry that is supported
by all the recent curriculum reform initiatives (Rop 2000). For example, the
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 17

national standards for science teaching in the USA include posing questions as one
of the vital behaviours associated with scientific inquiry:
Inquiry is a multi-faceted activity that involves making observations, posing ques-
tions, 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 explanations. (NRC 1996, p. 23)
The National Research Council (NRC 2000) explains that questioning behaviour
is based in curiosity about how the world works. Inquiry is ‘intimately connected’
to questions (2000: 13). The NRC therefore challenges science educators to create
environments that both stimulate and harness the natural curiosity of young
people.
The literature suggests, however, that in spite of the fact that the call for
classroom inquiry has been heard for more than a century, student curiosity-dri-
ven questioning behaviour is still very rare in US classrooms (NRC 2000). It
seems clear that although it is important to research any of the possible factors
that influence scientific inquiry and specifically the questioning behaviour of lear-
ners, more attention should be given to the perspectives of the students them-
selves, the source of the curiosity that drives the scientific questioning. My
research indicates that students do have opinions about why and how inquiry
questions fit or do not fit classroom life. We should listen to them. They explain
that questions that originate in a desire to learn are not intentionally drawn out by
the teacher, usually receive only brief attention, and are generally regarded as
rather eccentric by the rest of the students.

Methodology
This report is part of a larger ethnographic study of US high school chemistry that
included participant observations, informal interviews and extended time on site.
This report is the result of close study of one particular chemistry class in one of
the US suburban high schools I visit. Ethnography is an appropriate methodology
for trying to understand student participation events in the context of the school
and classroom culture (Erickson 1986, 1992). As Vygotski indicated, people make
sense of their situation in context of their socio-cultural situation (Wertsch 1985).
Understanding participant point of view depends on being there. I regularly used
field notes written on site and expanded field notes written immediately after the
site visit to record observations of events and records of interactions (Jackson 1990,
Sanjek 1990). I also tape recorded class sessions as well as interviews with the focus
students or ‘special respondents’ (Gordon 1987). In a very real sense, these
students identified themselves by asking, more than occasionally, questions that
seemed to originate in curiosity or efforts to extend subject matter knowledge.
Interviews were informal and conversational. Serendipitously, the class met just
before the students had their lunch period. Hence, I met with students as they ate
their lunch, while events were fresh in their minds. I met groups of 3–4 students in
a conference room down the hall from the classroom or in the school cafeteria
during the lunch hour. Classroom events were the most common subjects of con-
versation. I considered stories elicited in conversations the participant’s version of
18 C. J. ROP

reality and a personal version of their situation (Bruner 1986). I analysed informal
interviews and conversations between interview sessions. The conversations
gained continuity as questions evolved and assertions were formed and tested
(Ives 1974).

An operational definition of student inquiry questions (SIQs)

Although there are many forms of student questions asked in the daily life of
classrooms, this report deals only with a specific type of student question I
observed as a regular part of classroom participation. Interestingly, these questions
were most often just called out during lecture or discussion rather than being
prefaced by raised hands, and did not seem to depend on the teacher’s acknowl-
edgement. It is also important to note that these questions were related but not
necessarily central to the topic of the lesson, which of course was the teacher’s
primary concern.
As I examined student participation, I set three criteria for identifying the
SIQs:
(1) The question is related in some way to the content under discussion.
(2) The question seems to originate in student curiosity.
(3) The question is self-described as an attempt to pursue personal inquiry
beyond the delivered or expected curriculum.
These criteria were identified during the research from participants’ descriptions
of their questions and their explanations of the reasons they ask these kinds of
questions in class.

The setting
Green Lake High School is an American Midwestern public high school with a
mainly Caucasian, middle-class constituency. I selected this school because
administrators, teachers, students and parents spoke of their pride in high aca-
demic standards. I wanted a public school with a high proportion of students who
reported a concern for high academic standards and were college-bound. I thought
that in this environment, the students would feel pressure from parents to do well,
be concerned with grade point averages and earning their diplomas. I hoped that
along with these academic goals, student participation would be indicative of a
self-motivated desire to understand subject matter. Annual reports submitted to
the school district record a high percentage, consistently during the last decade,
between 85% and 90%, of students pursuing higher education after graduation.
The total student population has been about 1000 for the last few years.

Research participants
The purpose of selecting a focus group of students for interviews and conversa-
tions was to better understand the nature of students’ personal views. Similar
groups of students could be found in the other schools that were part of the
larger research project. The group of six special research participants (Parsons
1963: 9–11) from this school were chosen for this study for reasons of access
and scheduling. All were Caucasian, 16 or 17 year-old sophomores or juniors in
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 19

the same chemistry class. Two of the participants were female; four were male.
Two participants had immigrated with their families to the USA when they were
about 5 years old. Most of them work after school and on weekends and have
complicated, busy social lives. All of the students in the study want to be known
as good students and several spoke of earning scholarships and having a desire to
attend prestigious institutions of higher learning.

Mr Carlton. Mr Carlton has been teaching chemistry and physical science in

Green Lake High School for 5 years. His chemistry classes are filled with 24–28
10th- and 11th-grade students. When I asked students why they elected to take
chemistry, their first response was invariably ‘It’s required’ for a college bound
course of study. However, many of these students immediately followed this com-
ment be explaining how they enjoyed Mr Carlton so much in physical science that
they wanted to ‘have him again in chemistry’. He is well known in the school
district as a good teacher who prepares his students very well for their future
science courses – both in high school and in college. He also coaches American
football and can often be found talking to his students between classes and at
lunchtime about whatever sport is in season. The school principal once said ‘All
his students just love him’.

Troy. Troy likes to think of himself an artist and musician. He enjoys playing the
trumpet in the school band and in his church’s orchestra. His favourite sport is
soccer and he plays for the school team. In the spring, Troy is on the tennis team.
It was not until after the second semester began that he started an after-school job
at a local fast-food restaurant. However, he also explains that he needs to save for
college and needs some spending money.
During my first interview with Troy, he talked about his desire to be a good
student but that his tendency to procrastinate often stands in the way of a higher
grade. He seems to have a rather laissez-faire attitude about his school work and is
quite satisfied with his 3.0 grade average. He is rather quiet, most often attentive
and seems interested while in chemistry class. Over all, he is quite satisfied with
the education he is receiving. He plans to attend a private college that has a good
music department in which he can develop his talents.

Paul. Paul works at a local garden centre where he does odd jobs, stocks shelves
and waits on customers. He tries to keep his hours down to about 18–20 hours each
week but also likes the money he takes home. He explained that the money he
earned was nice but it made it especially difficult to spend time or find energy for
doing his schoolwork. Soccer and golf also compete for his time.
He likes mathematics and the mathematical part of the sciences but explains
that grades take much of the enjoyment out of school subjects. Like Troy, Paul
explains that B grades are fine but As are better. Paul spends most of his time in
chemistry listening quietly. However, when something catches his attention and
seems interesting, he initiates a question-and-answer session with his teacher. He
likes school and likes to think about practical applications for the information he is
gaining because he wants to pursue a future in engineering, just like his father.

Kurt. Kurt is an intelligent and articulate young man who seems able and willing
to stand on his own socially. His chemistry teacher describes Kurt as interesting
20 C. J. ROP

but also ‘an enigma’: ‘Kurt will find more ways of offending social groups of
people than anyone I have ever seen. No social skill at all. Very bright – extremely
bright’.
According to his chemistry teacher, Kurt often does not do his school work. In
the beginning of the year, Kurt explained that he did not have much use for school
learning that is not practical. He still thinks there are some interesting things about
what they do in his classes, but often sees no real lasting value for what he is
expected to learn. When I asked him why he elected chemistry, he explained
that he wanted to be in Mr Carlton’s class.

Andrea. Andrea likes to think of herself a poet. She explains that poetry is also a
way out of boring classes: ‘I start thinking about other things – like poetry’. We
laughed because then chemistry has some value because it stimulates poetry. A
stanza from one of Andrea’s poems serves to summarize her feelings about school
learning.
So what about education?
The teachers – are tired,
tired of teaching,
tired of seeing a lack of hope.
The students – are tired of rules,
on top of rules,
so they act like fools.
The parents – think the school should be the educator.
Mr Carlton said she is a ‘real right-brained kind of kid . . . actually a bright kid.
She’s just not an analytical kind of kid’. He explained that Andrea has a rather
difficult time with her schoolwork but that he has a lot of respect for her continual
effort to do well. She says that she is not really challenged intellectually in school.

Kyrsten. Kyrsten works every night after school and Saturdays in a store in the
local shopping mall. She explained that even though it was against state law to
work more than 18 hours, she is often asked to fill in for other, less responsible
student workers who fail to come to work or ask for time off. She explained that
her work schedule was probably the most important reason she was having trouble
getting her homework assignments done. She tries to keep up with her school work
during school hours but explained that there is a limit to how much can be done
between classes and at lunch times. She also explained that her work schedule
virtually eliminates her social life because it seems that she spends all her time
either in school or at work. She said that her work schedule hurts her socially and
academically but at the same time she does not want to disappoint her boss. It is
very important to her to maintain her good reputation at work so that she can save
money for college.
Kyrsten spoke often about the pressure she feels from family to do well. Her
mother is a teacher in a local public school, and her father has a professional career.
Kyrsten describes her mother as the source of most of the pressure from home to
get good grades. But then she explains that it is really difficult to balance work,
school work and her social life. Kyrsten explained that it is not her work ethic, but
her lack of motivation, time and energy that stand in her way of getting excellent
grades. She explains that her B average will have to be good enough.
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 21

Jeff. Although he does not work outside of school during the school year, Jeff
certainly has many life pressures to preoccupy him. Recently, he became a father
and the resulting responsibilities, stress in relationships and significant family
trauma weigh heavily on Jeff’s shoulders.
According to Mr Carlton, Jeff’s family immigrated recently and brought much
of their homeland culture with them. Jeff told me that his parents are very strict
and maintain many of the traditions of the ‘home country’. According to Jeff, part
of this tradition is to work hard in school. Jeff often described the pressure he feels
to be successful specifically in chemistry: ‘Everyone in my family is either a doctor
or a chemist, including my grandparents’. Mr Carlton also describes Jeff as a
‘fairly bright kid’ who is ‘extremely naturally inquisitive’ even though he might
have a ‘little over-inflated ego’. Mr Carlton explains that although Jeff likes to
think he is one of the best in his class, there are actually a few students who out-
perform him and get slightly better grades.

Findings
The students represented in the present study were observed to follow a pattern of
participation similar to one of the types found in Tobin and Gallagher’s (1987)
study: they not only were the students most likely to respond to the teacher’s
queries, but also regularly projected themselves into the classroom conversation
by asking SIQs.
The findings section of this report is divided into two parts. In the first set of
findings, students explain their reasons for asking SIQs in class. Their answers
support the assertion that these questions originate in curiosity and a desire to
learn the content of the lesson. The second set of findings examines what students
say about how others in the classroom respond when they ask SIQs. The consis-
tent theme of these discussions is how their teacher responds and how these
responses are important factors they consider when deciding how to act in class.
Although they might not always like the way the teacher responds to their ques-
tions, they are ready to excuse him because they understand that teachers are
under significant pressures to keep their lesson flowing well. Students also reflect
on the social risks associated with this questioning behaviour. Students describe
the pressures they feel from classmates to conform to traditional classroom parti-
cipation patterns.

Students give their reasons for asking SIQs in class

Although there might be many unspoken reasons for asking SIQs, these students
clearly described two reasons for asking SIQs:
(1) To alleviate boredom and engage in intellectual challenges.
(2) To fill an intellectual hunger to understand subject matter better.

Some students say they ask SIQs to alleviate boredom and engage in intellectual
challenges. A reason some students gave for asking SIQs was the appeal of taking
on an intellectual challenge. During a lesson about electron configurations, Kurt
was observed asking a somewhat peripheral question about halfway through the
class: ‘What makes sodium react so violently with water?’ His teacher looked at
22 C. J. ROP

him for a brief moment but did not pause in his lesson presentation. Immediately
after this class session, I asked Kurt why he asked this particular question. Paul,
also present, answered first by explaining that their social studies teacher taught
them ‘Bloom’s taxonomy and that we can understand things differently at different
stages of development’. He said that when they ask these questions in any of their
classes, they want to challenge themselves to think at a higher level than is
required: ‘We’ve got that part, we have it done and then we’re going up the ladder
and we want to go farther . . . We want more’. Kurt agreed, saying, ‘We’re not
satisfied’. They explained that, in contrast, memorizing for a test, writing lab
reports and doing assignments on time were so very familiar and relatively easy
to do. It is the intellectual challenge that they seek; for these students it is far more
interesting to think hard about difficult things than about the mundane tasks that
tend to fill their days.
Andrea related her schooling to the real world of work as she explained how
good it would be for her if her school would be more intellectually difficult:
But I don’t get mentally challenged here. I mean what is going to stimulate us to get
mentally challenged and like, ready for a world where – I am not saying that the school
is a good pre. into life you know? It is not a very good one because they are teaching us
book smarts and not like street smarts you know what I am saying? They are now
going to teach you how you are going to be manipulated in the workplace and stuff
like that.

Jason also explained that hard work and intellectual challenges are better than
merely ‘going for the grade’ and trying to make schooling easy:
Well, when you read something and you don’t understand it, you should work at
learning it you know? So if there is something in chemistry that you don’t understand,
you should keep on working to understand it inside the book. But, I think most of the
people in the class feel it should come easy and when it doesn’t, they are just not going
to get it. . . . They just don’t want to work hard. I mean, I don’t even want to work
hard. I’ve been trying to change my attitude and I have been trying to think of school
in a different way.
Some students explained that the cause of intellectual boredom is the very slow
pace of a lesson. For example, in October Jeff complained that everything so far
had been review of material they ‘covered last year in physical science’. He wanted
to learn new content and not ‘just keep going over the same old stuff’. He sug-
gested that the teacher’s pace of content coverage was often far too slow to suit
him. He said, ‘I ask questions. I always want to go ahead because it’s too slow right
now’. For Jeff, a slowly paced lesson is quite closely related to boredom and asking
an SIQ might allow him to intervene in the intellectual pacing of the lesson and
therefore help guard against it.
Two other students, Paul and Kurt, also discussed how their contributions to
chemistry class discussions sometimes mean that the intellectual pace of the lesson
was just too slow to suit them. They said they attempt to ‘keep things interesting’
by asking interesting questions about the content. I erroneously interpreted this to
mean that SIQs represent conscious efforts to push themselves intellectually. Paul
corrected me, ‘No, the brain just wanders. It just gets sick of the same things’.
Kurt asked, ‘You know, I get at the end of that chapter and I just: ‘Oh, man, when
are we going to be done with this? . . . How many times can you sit down and write
the same essay before you are sick of it?’ The class had drilled the process of using
the periodic table to assign oxidation numbers to elements for two weeks before
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 23

this conversation. Evidently, these two young men had wearied of the homework
and quiz questions on the same set of skills and procedures. Kurt later dramatically
described the feeling he has in class if he doesn’t ask questions:
If you just drone on and on and on and on. You know, memorize this, memorize that,
memorize this, memorize that, everyone’s head gets closer and closer to the desk . . .
everyone like . . . till you – bonk (he closed his eyes and let his head slip down until his
forehead rested on the table).

Some students say they ask SIQs because they want to understand specific subject
matter better. A second reason that students gave for asking this type of questions
revealed their interest in knowing and understanding the lesson content.
Immediately after a chemistry class session in which Troy asked several SIQs
about the subject matter of the lesson, I asked him why he asks such questions
in class. For him, SIQs can reflect a personal desire to learn subject matter in
deeper ways:
There is a difference between just learning it [chemistry] and learning it for the grade.
I have found that with most teachers, the tests and everything are just made so that
you just memorize it and you don’t learn it . . . You just study and do home work and
you’ll get an A but you don’t have to go beyond to the knowledge and comprehending
stuff. (original emphasis)
For Troy, ‘learning it’ represents his desire to learn more than is required. It goes
beyond traditional classroom behaviours, such as answering teacher questions and
doing homework, to gaining knowledge and comprehension of subject matter.
Troy goes on to say that because such comprehension is not usually required for
a good grade, he and others like him must find intrinsic motivation for it: ‘There
are some students who learn it, but they take it on themselves to learn it’.
Andrea also made it clear that she would rather learn about her world than be
constantly preoccupied doing school work that does not require much conceptual
understanding:
I mean I’d rather have a grade that represents what I learned about this. . . . But if I
can come up and never learn anything and it’s just a grade, you know at that point it
doesn’t mean anything–even if it gets me to a different physics course next year, it
doesn’t mean I know anything about chemistry.
Kurt also described a process by which he hears something interesting during the
lesson and wants to know more about it – to know more about the subject of study.
He said, ‘I just . . . there’s just a little voice in the back of your head: ‘‘Why does
this work? Why does that work?’’’.
Kurt went on to explain that before he asks an SIQ, he understands that, from
a practical perspective, he already has the skills and information that are required
for to get a good grade. However, he says he is not satisfied with that form of
understanding and wants more: ‘to go farther’ conceptually; ‘I don’t want to know
that it works. I don’t want to just accept it. I want to know why and how, you
know?’ Kurt acknowledges that he does not necessarily get what he wants even
when he questions things:
Why does this thing work like this and why doesn’t it work like that? Why can’t we
split an atom in half and keep the energy in light, take the energy and blow up, you
know, this table? . . . Mr Carlton says it doesn’t work that way. I don’t like it when he
says that – I hate it when he says that: ‘It just doesn’t work that way’.
24 C. J. ROP

Troy also explained that he asks questions in class because he ‘just want[s] to know
more’ than is required for the next test. And Jeff, like the rest of these students, in
describing why he asks questions, explained that asking questions in class will
result in deeper understandings in one way or another: ‘But I am interested . . . in
what is going on. That’s why I ask questions in class’.
Whether questions are asked to alleviate boredom or because of interest in and
enjoyment of what is going on in class at a given moment, or to find out more about
a specific topic, the success of the process really depends on the classroom teacher.
The teacher holds the key to providing an atmosphere that encourages or dis-
courages this kind of classroom participation. The next section of this report
addresses this issue from student perspectives.

Students reflect on how their teacher and classmates respond to their

SIQs
During interviews and conversations, students reflected on the kinds of responses
their SIQs elicited. In this section, I discuss their reports about a common way the
teacher responded: ‘He’ll put us off’. Students reflect on possible reasons why
teachers might respond this way. Finally, students reflect on their peers’ responses
to their SIQs. They also discuss the resulting social pressure they feel to refrain
from asking too many questions in class. (Note: I first interpreted some of their
comments as negative criticisms of the teacher. On the contrary, they pointed out
that, ‘It is just the way things are in school’. It was very important to them that I
not think they were critical of Mr Carlton or his teaching.)

Teacher response: ‘the put off’. During conversations and informal interviews,
students described their frustration with what they called the ‘teacher put off’.
By the students’ definition, the ‘put off’ refers to events when, in response to an
SIQ, the teacher responds in a way that students do not really consider an answer
to their question. The ‘put off’ means that their teacher is so busy ‘slamming
content’ [pushing as much content as efficiently as possible] that he brushes off
the question. One version of the ‘put off’ is to be told, ‘We’ll get to that later’.
From Jeff’s perspective, this kind of a ‘put off’ is the typical response to his
questioning. He complained, ‘We are going too slow. That’s why I ask all those
questions and he is always like: ‘‘Oh, I don’t have time to explain it right now’’’.
He interprets that response as evidence that Mr Carlton judged his question to be
inappropriate at the time and plans to cover the content of the question at a later
date. Paul also reported that frequently when he asked an SIQ the teacher
responded by saying: ‘We’ll get to that later, Paul’. Kurt reported that ‘[Mr
Carlton] always says: ‘We’ll get into this later’ or, ‘It’s too complicated to explain’.
Troy reported that if he asked questions that went beyond the teacher’s agenda,
Mr Carlton would tell him, ‘We’ll get to it later’.
Some students reported another version of the ‘put off’: the teacher’s sugges-
tion that the questioner come to him after class to discuss the question privately.
Troy explained that ‘he’ll just say: ‘‘Stay after class’’’. However, he did not con-
sider this a satisfactory solution: ‘We never do [stay after class] because by that
time, your brain is not working on that stuff any more’.
Andrea echoed this perception of the ineffectiveness of this solution: ‘He
means well when he says ‘‘Come up after class’’. . . . And, I do. But he is always
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 25

so busy . . . I need to get to my next class’. Kyrsten, however, offered a different

response. She said she knows from experience that ‘if I come in after school, he
will help you out’. She also described an added benefit of going after class to ask
specific questions – it helps her convince her teacher that she is serious about
putting effort into her chemistry work.

Teacher response: ‘he gets mad’. A number of these students also reported another
teacher response to SIQs to be common: annoyance. Jeff – who by his own
description ‘asks too many questions’ – described this as the teacher getting
‘mad’ (angry). Near the end of the school year, when I asked him to talk about
why he asked one or two SIQs during each class session throughout the school
year, he responded: ‘I ask questions. He gets mad at me when I ask questions, but
if I don’t understand what’s going on, I am going to ask questions anyway’. Jeff
illustrated his perception of this response by mimicking for me, in a voice edgy
with frustration, what he perceived to be his teacher’s frequent response to his
questions: ‘just accept it for now, OK? We won’t figure it out till later’.
Kyrsten also identified anger as a possible teacher response to questioning.
Interestingly, while Jeff accepted the annoyance as a consequence of asking the
questions he was interested in, for Kyrsten the potential for teacher displeasure
constrained her in-class questioning. She explained that it is often better to go to
the teacher after class to ask specific questions than to ask frequent questions in
class. ‘Yeah, you have to go with specific questions and it is not like in class where
you can’t keep asking like 20 questions. . . . He might get angry’.

Student perspectives on their teacher’s responses

It clearly disturbs students to feel that their questions are often put off and not
dealt with. Kurt was visibly upset when he said to me, ‘But I mean . . . its kind of
bugging me right now. . . . You know, I don’t want to get into it later, I want to get
into it now. I want to know now!’ (original emphasis). He explained the teacher’s
attitude as ‘Don’t bother me now!’ And that ‘I think he just wants to get out of
here. I think he needs a vacation!’ Jeff says, with great frustration in his voice, that
he ‘really hates’ it when his teacher says, ‘just accept it for now, OK?’
However, students in this study frequently exhibited a certain amount of
objectivity about their teacher’s lack of support for their SIQs. Some students
even seemed sympathetic about the pressures that might have contributed to
that response. For example, in spite of his frustration, expressed earlier, Kurt
explained that he understood that teachers are ‘pressed for time’ and need to
keep on task in order to cover a huge amount of content. It was Kurt who called
this teacher strategy to rush through content the ‘teacher slam’. Teachers just
‘crunch it in’ or try to ‘slam this all into our heads’:
[All they ever do is] just slam this all into our heads. They’re pressed for time and so
they just gotta crunch it in. ‘I really wish I could teach you guys this, but I’m pressed
for time and I gotta fill this time and you know, it ought to be a two-year course – so
much stuff to cover that it already should take me twice as much time as I already
have’.
Kurt refers to ‘the slam’ with negative connotations but also justifies his teacher’s
response by saying he understands the pressure his teacher faces to cover the
26 C. J. ROP

prescribed amount of course content as efficiently as possible. Their teacher had

explained a few days before this that: ‘We need to push on because there is so much
to do. This really should be a two-year course’. Kurt suggests that teachers have no
choice, they ‘just gotta’ do this for various reasons. To confirm this opinion, Kurt
quoted his teacher as saying that although he might actually enjoy teaching this, he
has ‘so much stuff to cover that it already should take me twice as much time as I
already have’. During another discussion, Kurt suggested that the teacher will
answer SIQs in class ‘unless he’s hard pressed’. ‘Hard pressed’ refers to having
too much content to cover in the available class time.
Other students also reported understanding that the course has a pace that
must be kept up. Troy confirmed this opinion about the ‘teacher slam’ this way:
‘It’s what [Mr Carlton] does. He isn’t waiting for us to all understand it. He has a
format at the beginning of the year and he’ll follow that to the end of the year’.
Troy understands that his teacher has a pedagogic approach and a pace for his
presentation of content and that the object is to cover a prescribed amount of
content during the academic year. Prescribed in the sense that the teacher needs
to ‘cover the book’ before the end of the academic year. Troy understands that any
divergent question or demand for classroom time conflicts with the prescribed and
pre-planned agenda. If this is true, then it is understandable to Troy why the
teacher must put the student off – SIQs would threaten the efficient flow of the
lesson and the course.
Jeff, in explaining that he ‘wants to go far deeper’ into the subject matter than
his teacher requires, also explained that his teacher ‘can’t always spare the time to
explain’. Jeff reasoned that teachers generally have a need to keep things running
smoothly – a mark of a good teacher. They must continue on their agenda in order
to cover the book during the academic year.

Students reflect on social pressures to refrain from questions

Students reported considerable pressure to limit or refrain from asking too many
SIQs in class. This was attributed both to their feelings about the teacher’s
response to questions, as described above, and to the subtle responses of class-
mates. During a conversation in the spring of the year, several students were
reflecting on how the teacher responds to Kurt’s questions and how other students
notice this. This creates a climate of social pressure to inhibit questioning.
According to Troy, this pressure is especially significant for Kurt:
If he (Kurt) wanted to, he could get an A in every class. But he gets D’s and E’s
because, every class I have with him he asks questions and the teachers can’t answer
them. He just constantly asks questions. It’s frustrating for him because he knows
how to get a good grade. Kurt is like a scapegoat for everything and teachers pick up
on that and, like when everyone else is talking, they don’t say anything but when Kurt
starts, its like: ‘Kurt, be quiet’. I notice that a lot and he just gets frustrated. He
doesn’t even want to listen to teachers anymore.
Kurt’s persistent questions during class were frequently greeted with sighs and
other not-so-subtle body-language reactions from classmates that were, of course,
not lost on Kurt. In the spring of the year, Kurt seemed quite disillusioned with
his own questioning behaviours and wondered out loud whether or not questions
were worth his effort: ‘Sometimes I just don’t care’. When I asked Kurt about this
he responded: ‘ Just give them what they want and get a good grade. That’s all you
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 27

have to do. Give them what they want and get a good grade and next year, you get
another class’. Kurt seems to be implying that sometimes it might be wise to
refrain from trying to do anything out of the ordinary and to merely conform to
classroom expectations – just listen, respond to teacher questions, do your home-
work and ‘go for the grade’. He indicates that it is much easier to be a traditional
student and ‘just give them what they want’ and perhaps next year, things will be
different.
After Kyrsten explained that she doesn’t feel right about ‘asking like 20 ques-
tions’ in class (as quoted above), she explained that she too is not only worried
about the teacher’s intolerance but her peers’ as well. Other students, she
explained, have a vested interest in having the class proceed smoothly, without
interruption. She stated that her classmates believe their performance on the next
test depends in a large part on how well Mr Carlton ‘covers’ the material in class.
Tests are every Friday and her teacher consequently has only a limited time to
‘cover the chapters’ and prepare students for the test. She implied that students
feel that too many student questions might take too much valuable class time and
actually hurt test grades if the teacher tries to fit SIQs into an already over-full
course schedule. Good teachers keep things moving.
This student intolerance of other’s classroom questions is particularly directed
at certain students who tend to dominate classroom conversation. This attitude
became explicit when two focus students joked about Jeff’s participation patterns.
Jeff throughout the year averaged one SIQ per chemistry class session. Classmates,
even those who were participants in this study because they themselves were
questioners, disparaged his questioning. Paul volunteered that ‘I get sick of it
after a while. He just keeps asking and asking. It’s good to ask questions to
learn or whatever, but you can overdo it’. Kurt, agreeing with Paul, described
Jeff’s questioning as ‘excessive’. Paul and Kurt’s attitude was reflected by other
members of the class who frequently responded to Jeff’s questioning behaviours
with sighs and rolling eyes.
In a conversation with Andrea and Jeff about what they do when they are
having trouble understanding a concept in chemistry, the subject of asking ques-
tions in class came up. Andrea said, ‘in class . . . you can’t keep asking questions. I
mean . . . ’ – then she looked at Jeff and laughed – ‘I can’t keep asking questions like
over and over ’cause every one else will . . . Hmm’. Clearly, she was indicating that
other students looked askance at frequent questions. At this reminder of the atti-
tudes of classmates to his questioning, Jeff was unabashed: ‘If I don’t ask ques-
tions, I am not going to get it. So, if I have a question, I am going to ask’.
However, it is clear that most of these questioners are more susceptible to the
social pressures to conform.

Discussion
The focus students in this sample explain that they ask SIQs in class because they
desire deeper, more meaningful understandings of the subject matter. It is striking
that their desires conform so closely to the NRC (2000) conception of scientific
questioning and classroom inquiry. To these students, schooling should include
questions like this because they represent sincere motivation and intellectual
efforts to learn.
28 C. J. ROP

Although students do not seem to question the teacher’s motives, they

describe two teacher responses as typical: The teacher either puts them off or
gets angry. They explain that the nature of the ‘teacher slam’ – teachers trying
to deliver large amounts of content in a very limited amount of time – help explain
some of this teacher behaviour. Although students describe these responses as
frustrating and they often feel ‘put off and put down’, they also suggest that the
teacher has little choice in acting this way because of his responsibility to prepare
them for their future – which they agree he does very well. These students have
resigned themselves to the ‘put off’, they find it understandable, even reasonable,
that their personal intellectual questions have little or no place in the classroom.
Although they indicate that they would like schooling to be, at least sometimes,
about intellectual growth, the schooling that they have experienced through the
previous years has clearly taught them what it means to teach and to learn in
school – that school is really just about doing school work. They accept the fact
that their teacher is just doing his job, and doing it well, when he keeps them on
track from test to test without any interruptions that might sidetrack the journey.
It is easy to sympathize with the positions of the students, their peers and,
indeed, with the teacher, because student participation seems to put them in con-
flicting roles. The teacher, perhaps especially because he is expected to serve many
masters, walks a daily tightrope of trying to culture a ‘question rich’ environment
while keeping one eye clearly focused on the high-stakes testing and clear pressures
for efficient content coverage (Gardner, 1999).
There are at least two important, ongoing debates one hears in educational
circles that are implicated in the findings of this study and the conflicting roles of
the participants. Both debates have been going on in US educational circles for a
very long time. The first debate is the ‘depth vs. breadth’ argument – whether
teaching for fuller understanding of fewer concepts is better or worse than cover-
ing a wide range of concepts more superficially. The breadth argument is based on
a desire to expose students to all the appropriate basics in the discipline. Trying to
teach everything of importance in very limited time allotted in the academic year,
teachers need to make things run smoothly. These teachers feel they need to
‘maintain momentum and smoothness’ in their lessons (Tobin 1988). Therefore,
good teaching is often measured by efficiently covering large amounts of content.
Similarly in McRobbie and Tobin’s (1997) study, Mr Jacob, a high school physics
teacher and Kay, his student, make sense of what is happening in their classroom
in terms of efficiency (1997: 199). Teachers feel responsibility to be sure their
students are ‘getting the work done’ because students need to cover the content
to perform well on tests and to succeed at the next educational level (Tobin 1988,
McRobbie and Tobin 1997, Rop 1999). In similar findings in the UK, Newton
et al. (1999) point out that classroom talk is teacher directed partly because
teachers are constantly under the pressure of time to present the content they
are expected to cover. This time pressure comes from the common expectation
to ‘cover’ the National Curriculum of their country. Consequently, there are few
opportunities for students to construct knowledge in lessons and participate in
whole-class discussion. This, according to the authors mitigates against the greater
intellectual involvement of pupils.
In an alternative model, van Zee (1997) viewed herself as an organizer of
learning events in which her university students ‘generated knowledge themselves
rather than transmitter of knowledge through lectures, judge of knowledge
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 29

through recitations, or facilitator of knowledge construction through guided dis-

cussions’ (1997: 134). She reports that adopting this metaphor for teaching freed
her students to generate inquiry discussions. However, she also states that in her
seminar, ‘no curriculum guide was imposing science subject matter goals’ (1997:
128). She explains that she felt free to spend considerable time letting the discus-
sion about the moon evolve instead of trying to cover a lot of concepts that would
be expected in any other astronomy course. High school chemistry teachers and
their students do not often feel so free from curricular constraints.
The other debate implicated in the findings is a matter of control. The
question is how much control the teacher should command over the pace and
focus of learning and how much control to relinquish to student interest and
motivation. On one hand, Mr. Carlton controls the pace of his lesson by the
way he controls discourse in his classroom. On the other hand, he and his students
feel that he has little control over the amount of content to cover during the
academic year. According to Wertsch and Toma (1995), studies in American class-
rooms have consistently shown that about 80% of the oral discourse is taken up by
teacher talk and that this is one way that teachers control what happens in their
classroom. Lemke (1990) also states that teachers control their classrooms by
controlling the discourse. They do this by using triadic dialogue or three-turn
sequences. If the pattern is interrupted by a tangential curiosity question, the
teacher gains control again by creatively bringing the sequence back in line. In
addition, there is considerable evidence the student related discourse that does
occur in high school classrooms is generally limited to procedural rather than
conceptual matters (Ritchie and Tobin 2001). The result, according to these
authors is often reproductive understandings instead of the transformative under-
standings we desire in science learning (2001: 295).
The findings of this research also remind us that the argument for covering
large amounts of content and for greater teacher control naturally go together. In
Kurt’s words, teachers ‘slam content’ because they are under pressure to cover a
huge amount of content in a very limited amount of time. Neither Kurt nor I
would criticize the teacher for this. As Kurt explains, ‘that is just the way it is’.
The teacher is a making his way through the prescribed content of his course by
maintaining a clear focus on content coverage, an unwavering schedule, and a
teacher-controlled delivery. Additionally, the students are themselves concerned
about being prepared for future science classes and for college. McRobbie and
Tobin (1997) found this a concern of Australian students and called it a cultural
myth. These American students suggest that at least in some ways it is better to
learn in broad strokes across disciplines in order to gain exposure to as many ideas
as possible, even if the treatment of those ideas is superficial. Thus, they feel they
really should not stand in the teacher’s way or clog the wheels of efficiency.
However, the findings also suggest that these same students are not content
with this arrangement. Their discontent suggests a valuable resource for support-
ing inquiry in science classes. Inquiry teaching needs inquiring minds. In these
students’ perspectives, depth of understanding and more freedom to ask questions
go together. They agree with current standards (NRC 2000) that classroom learn-
ing should be characterized by thoughtful, intellectual, intrinsically motivated
learning that has lifelong implications beyond school and future science classes.
In their opinion, ‘slamming content’ precludes taking time to seriously provide for
thoughtful inquiry. I must conclude that student inquiry is possible in high school
30 C. J. ROP

science. These young people teach us that we must find a way to let these student
questions, and the spirit of inquiry they represent, flourish in high school class-
rooms. They also teach us that solutions are complicated by social, cultural and
institutional pressures that limit inquiry in favour of traditional instructional
expectations and practices. The following section discusses this dilemma.

Implications

Implications for high school curriculum and teaching

It is disturbing that students like Andrea, Jeff, Kurt, Kyrsten, Paul and Troy are
caught between content coverage and depth of understanding. In high school
classrooms, students and teachers are put in conflicting roles by differing agendas.
These students want to learn deeply and yet they understand that they need to
have covered the material they will be expected to know on the next test and next
year. Teachers want to teach for understanding but feel guilty if they do not cover
the book before the end of the year. They are also very conscious of the high-stakes
state and national proficiency testing which is the focus of intense district and
parental concern. Teachers want to give students some freedom to orchestrate
their own learning experience but at the same time, need to carefully maintain
control over classroom events in order to keep a focus on test-related learning
outcomes.
In the ideal high school science classroom, students and teachers who learn
with them would follow intellectually intriguing byways, model scientific thinking
for each other, celebrate the art of questioning and challenge each other by articu-
lating different points of view. Thought patterns would include mustering evi-
dence, using argumentation effectively and testing one another’s ideas. Both
teachers and students would be given the freedom and time to learn, and the
knowledge and confidence that real intellectual engagement is compatible with
both immediate and future goals. Participants would learn and understand deeply
a wide range of ideas and concepts. These students are describing something very
similar to the science talk Lemke (1990) explains is missing in so many high school
science classrooms and the ‘reflective discourse’ van Zee (1997) observed in an
American high school physics class. She explains that in this classroom, vigorous
interactions occur among students and teachers. She explains that in reflective
discourse, students as well as teachers ask questions as well as elaborate on their
own reasoning instead of ‘accepting or rejecting claims made by their teacher’
(1997: 210). Rather than asking questions that test student knowledge, the
physics teacher tries to ‘reflect their thinking’ back to the students for further
consideration.
In most real-world science classrooms, however, participants are caught
between demands for breadth of content coverage and desires for depth of content
understandings. Time constraints, pressures to teach to high-stakes proficiency
tests, concern for national and state curricular standards, limited resources, tradi-
tion and the resulting resistance to change are real and powerful. The only real
solution to this dilemma can come from a complete restructuring of the educa-
tional context, creating new incentives for learning, and changing the rules for
success. As a starting point, however, the students in this study make a convincing
case for teachers in classrooms to begin to slow down, listen for the intellectual
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 31

hunger in student questions and encourage scientific thought patterns. As

teachers, we need to reassess our use of class time to make space for authentic
inquiry and re-assess the way we present content to make space for stimulating
wonder and a spirit of inquiry. As Yerrick (2000) found, this can be a very uncom-
fortable exercise.
The challenge raised by these students also makes a strong case for the need
for more dialogue about curriculum goals along a PreK-16 continuum, for asking
questions about what ‘the basics’ really should be and what content, performances
and perspectives students really need. The National Standards (AAAS 1989, 1993,
NRC 1996) are effective resources for such a re-assessment.
Additionally, this research challenges teacher preparation. Good, dedicated
teachers like the one who teaches the students represented here tend to teach the
way they were taught and teach the discipline they know and have come to under-
stand. Before teachers can teach a different ‘real chemistry’ (Barrow 1990), one
that is more in tune with the National Standards for Science Literacy, and that can
respond to the questions and challenges of engaged, intellectually curious students,
they will have to know it differently themselves. College teaching of chemistry
should be inquiry and discovery based (NRC 2000). The training of pre-service
teachers needs to include experiences with original scientific research, academic
writing and participation in disciplinary discourse. Teacher education pro-
grammes also need to help prospective teachers address the political and institu-
tional difficulties of reshaping traditional curricular expectations and become
leaders in changing the culture of schools and schooling.

Implications for research

The students in my study describe themselves as a small, interested minority of
motivated learners. Generally, in these students’ perspectives, the cognitive level
of teacher questions and normal classroom tasks is quite low. SIQs however, are
described by students themselves as representing personal attempts to stretch the
limits of intellectual inquiry and ‘move up the ladder’ of cognition (Kurt). These
students also know that their inquiry questions separate them academically from
the rest of the class and might have the power to threaten them socially. This
academic separation and social nonconformity means that only a very few students
persist in this type of classroom behaviour. Further research is needed to deter-
mine how the social and cultural forces at work to influence student attitudes and
behaviour might vary in different Midwestern schools serving different constitu-
encies. They might be different in other parts of the country and certainly different
in other parts of the world.
Further research should also examine the source and the nature of the courage
and motivation of those who persist in SIQs when everything is stacked against
them. If we as educators want serious and powerful inquiry to happen regularly in
classrooms, we need to better understand the social and cultural forces at work in
schools and in classrooms that permit and enable such occurrences

End note
Listening to these students, I am again reminded that the real challenge facing
educators is to awaken in young people the pleasure of learning that lasts a lifetime.
32 C. J. ROP

Our aim should be to develop in students a life-long thirst for inquiry and inde-
pendence in learning. To nurture this spirit in students, teachers need to establish
clear inquiry priorities and habits of mind so that thoughtful questions are the
norm and students become good questioners. Because inquiry always involves
asking good questions, a good test for a modern curriculum is whether it enables
students to see how knowledge grows out of thoughtful questions. It is not just the
held facts, retrievable knowledge or demonstrable skills that determine whether
one is truly educated, the real test is in the development of a spirit of thoughtful
curiosity and the disciplined habits of inquiry to support it. A central role of
instruction in high schools should be to teach students to ask better questions
and to create an environment where it is socially and academically rewarding to
do so.

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1989) Project 2061:
Science for all Americans (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1993) Benchmarks for
science literacy (New York: Oxford University Press).
Bruner, J. S. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press).
Carr, D. (1998) The art of asking questions in the teaching of science. School Science
Review, 79, 47–50.
Cazden, C. B. (1988) Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning
(Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann).
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J. and Brown, C. (2000) Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws
of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific prac-
tices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237–258.
Dillon, J. T. (1983) Teaching and the art of questioning (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappan Educational Foundation).
Dillon, J. T. (1985) Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1,
109–121.
Dillon, J. T. (1988) The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 20, 197–210.
Dori, Y. J. and Herscovitz, O. (1999) Question-posing capability as an alternative evalua-
tion method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 411–430.
Erickson, F. (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan).
Erickson, F. (1992) Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L.
Milroy, and J. Preissle (eds), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (San
Diego: Academic), 202–224.
Fine, M. (1991) Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school (Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press).
Gardner, H. (1999) The disciplined mind: What all students should understand (New York:
Simon & Schuster).
Gordon, R. L. (1987) Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics (Homewood, IL: The
Dorsey Press).
Ives, E. D. (1974) The tape recorded interview: A manual for field workers in folklore and oral
history (Knoxville: University of Tennessee).
Jackson, J. E. (1990) ‘I am a fieldnote’: Fieldnotes as symbol of professional identity. In
R. Sanjek (ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press), 3–33.
Lemke, J. L. (1990) Talking Science (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
SPONTANEOUS INQUIRY QUESTIONS IN CHEMISTRY CLASSROOMS 33

Marbach-Ad, G. and Sokolove, P. G. (2000) Can undergraduate biology students learn to

ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854–870.
Martin, B. and Brouwer, W. (1993) Exploring personal science. Science Education, 77, 441–
459.
McRobbie, C. and Tobin, K. (1997) A social constructivist perspective on learning envir-
onments. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 193–208.
National Research Council NRC (1996) National science education standards (Washington,
DC: National Academy Press).
National Research Council NRC (2000) Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards: A guide for teaching and learning (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press).
Newton, P., Driver, R. and Osborne, J. (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogy
of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
Oaks, J. (1990) Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on
opportunities to learn mathematics and science (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation).
Parsons, T. (1963) Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall).
Redfield, D. L. and Rousseau, E. W. (1981) A meta-analysis of experimental research on
teacher questioning behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51, 237–245.
Ritchie, S. M. and Tobin, K. (2001) Actions and discourses for transformative understand-
ing in a middle school science class. International Journal of Science Education, 23,
283–299.
Rop, C. J. (1999) Student perspectives on success in high school chemistry. Journal of
Research in Science Education, 36, 221–237.
Rop, C. J. (2000) Student perspectives on participation in high school chemistry class: A
subculture of questions? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April.
Sanjek, R. (1990) The secret life of fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek (ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of
anthropology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 187–271.
Shepardson, D. P. and Pizzini, E. L. (1991) Questioning levels of junior high school science
textbooks and the implications or learning textual information. Science Education, 75,
673–682.
Tobin, K. (1988) Target students involvement in high school science. International Journal
of Science Education, 10, 317–330.
Tobin, K. and Gallagher, J. J. (1987) The role of target students in the science classroom,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61–75.
Van Zee, E. H. (1997) Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics
classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209–228.
Van Zee, E. H. (2000) Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International
Journal of Science Education, 22, 115–142.
Watts, M. and Alsop, S. (1995) Questioning and conceptual understanding: The quality of
pupils’ questions in science. Science Education Notes, 76, 91–95.
Watts, M., Alsop, S., Gould, G. and Walsh, A. (1997) Prompting teachers’ constructive
reflection: Pupils’ questions as critical incidents. International Journal of Science
Education, 19, 1025–1037.
Watts, M., Gould, G. and Alsop, S. (1997) A question of understanding: Pupils’ questions
for conceptual understanding. School Science Review, 78, 101–107.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Wertsch, J. V. and Toma, C. (1995) Discourse and learning in the classroom: A socio-
cultural approach. In L. P. Steffe and J. Gale (eds), Constructivism in Education
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 159–174.
Yerrick, R. (2000) Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruc-
tion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838.