Implementing these facets of inquiry learning into the lecture setting will help to stimulate active participation in a learning environment, which has proven to be an invaluable tool for enhancing student achievement. Research has shown that active participation in learning helps to facilitate recall (Craik and Lockhart 1972; Fogarty and McTighe 1993), stimulates critical thinking (Garside, 1996; Smith, 1977), and has been shown to substantially increase student learning (Astin, 1985; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Kember & Gow, 1994; McKeachie, 1990; Meyers & Jones, 1993).

   Facilitating Recall. In their paper Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research, Craik Ferguson and Robert Lockhart discuss alternative frameworks for human memory research in terms of the levels of processing, and how higher levels of processing result in better recall of information as shown in various studies. One such study by Tresselt and Mayzner (1960) tested free recall after subjects performed three different levels of processing of a list of words. The first level required simply crossing out the vowels. The second level involved copying the words, and the third level had the subjects judge the degree to which the word was an example of the concept "economic." The subjects recalled four times as many words using the third level as compared to the first, and two times as many as compared to the second level. Thus, the more active the subjects were in working with the words, the more words they recalled at some later time.

Critical Thinking. Daryl G. Smith conducted a study on the relationship between specific classroom behaviors, and critical thinking. The study involved twelve college courses, which included twelve instructors and 138 students, and were evenly divided between the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.

   The classroom behaviors in question involved four activities:

   In order to measure the classroom behaviors, each of the twelve classes was tape-recorded four times during the semester. The recordings were analyzed by categorizing the verbal behavior in three-second intervals. An average percentage over all four sessions was calculated for each category.

   Two assessments were used to measure the level of critical thinking achieved from the different classroom behaviors. First, the students took a Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, focusing on inference, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. Second, an inventory using Bloom's Taxonomy asked each student to report the percentage of time spent in each of six activities while they studied for their particular course.

   It was found that three behaviors were directly related to an increase in critical thinking: student participation, encouragement, and peer-to-peer interaction. In fact, not only did the students spend more time in higher level thinking such as analysis and synthesis as a result of those behaviors, but they also spent less time memorizing. Furthermore, students who attended classes with a low level of student participation, encouragement, and peer-to-peer interaction, showed a decline in critical thinking.

   Student Learning. David Kember and Lyn Gow conducted a study on teaching orientations and their effect on student learning. The study involved comparing data from a questionnaire used to identify two teaching orientations, and data from a longitudinal survey.

   Thirty-nine lecturers from a polytechnic in Hong Kong participated in a semi-interview in order to establish two teaching orientations and their subsets. The two orientations developed from the data were knowledge transmission and learning facilitation. The knowledge transmission orientation involves a method of teaching that focuses exclusively on the lecturer as the primary source of information with little interaction between student and lecturer or student and student. The learning facilitation orientation involves a method of teaching that is quite the opposite of knowledge transmission. The learning facilitator encourages student discussion, and sees themselves as guides to learning instead of the authority.

   The quality of student learning was assessed using the Biggs Study Process Questionnaire. The questionnaire examined the student's approach to learning on three main levels: surface approach, deep approach, and achieving approach. A surface approach to learning involves an extrinsically motivated student who minimizes the work by only memorizing those items expected to be on the test. A deep approach to learning involves an intrinsically motivated student who has an interest in the subject. As a result, the student searches for personal meaning in the learning activities. The achieving approach is similar to the deep approach with the added component of motivation with enthusiasm and a will to succeed.

   A correlation coefficient was calculated between the mean departmental scores for knowledge transmission and learning facilitation, and the mean departmental scores from the Biggs Study Process Questionnaire. Although no correlation was found between the two teaching orientations and achieving approach score, it was found that learning facilitation had a significant negative correlation with the surface approach scores, and the knowledge transmission had a significant negative correlation with the deep approach score. In addition, a positive correlation was found between learning facilitation and the deep approach score suggesting that a more interactive learning environment helps to stimulate a vested interest in the subject.

   All of these studies have one thing in common: the students learn more, remember more, and think more when they are actively involved in the learning process. Not only did active involvement enhance overall learning, two of the studies showed that students who are not actively involved in the learning process actually decline in their interest level and critical thinking. All of these findings provide a strong argument in favor of developing new and better ways of lecturing.

   In an attempt to include the aforementioned three facets of inquiry teaching, this study utilized a "think, pair, share" method of lecturing to help stimulate active learning on the part of the student (King, 1993). Each element in this method was designed to enhance student involvement in lectures in order to capitalize on the findings that were favorable towards information retention found in previous research.

   Providing students the opportunity to think about scientific questions before they are taught will provide the chance for them to actively participate in the lecture, and will help to foster independent thinking, which has been shown to increase student learning in a study conducted by Chun-Yen Chang and Song-Ling Mao (Chang, Mao, 1999).

   Chang and Mao's study involved 612 ninth graders in sixteen Earth Science classes in Taiwan. The classes were randomly divided into two groups of eight, with the control group experiencing the traditional lecture based instruction and the experimental group participating in the inquiry group based instruction.

   The inquiry group focused on discussions and interpretations of data in a cooperative learning setting, which had the following characteristics:

   The teachers in the control group stressed lectures, the use of textbooks and other materials, along with occasional demonstrations and clear, detailed explanations and directions.

   At the conclusion of the four week unit, each student was tested individually with an Earth Science Achievement Test as well as an Attitude Toward Earth Science Inventory. It was found that the students in the experimental group scored significantly higher on the achievement test than did the students in the control group. However, those gains were on the knowledge level questions. There was no significant difference between the two groups on higher level thinking questions. The experimental group also scored significantly higher on the Attitude Toward Earth Science Inventory, which included classroom involvement and confidence level in the subject matter.

   Chang and Mao believe their results suggest that the students in the inquiry group instruction achieved higher scores due to the opportunity for them to actively construct their own meaningful learning (Chan, Mao 1997). This independent thinking resulted in better learning and a better attitude toward the subject as well.

   Having students discuss their ideas will ensure the desired active participation. In addition, it has been found in a study by Elaine Coleman that students have a better understanding when they are engaged in the process of explaining and justifying concepts with one another (Coleman, 1998).

   Coleman's study involved 48 students in classrooms with both fourth and fifth graders. They were put into three groups based on their responses to the open-ended individual Implicit Learning Theory interview. Twelve students scored over 80 percent and were put into the High Individual Learner group (HI). The remaining 36 students were randomly selected and equally divided into an Average Learning group (AI) and an average control group.

   Each group was divided into collaborative learning teams consisting of three students. They all learned a unit on photosynthesis, experiencing the same amount of instruction, lecture time, experimental time, and collaborative time. However, during the collaborative group time, the AI group was given procedural facilitation prompts in the form of written questions or prompts, and was instructed to either answer the question individually or discuss as a group.

   At the conclusion of the four week unit, each student was tested individually on three tests: a comprehensive unit test, a concept-mapping task, and a problem-explanation task. It was found that the AI group retained more information by scoring significantly better on the unit test, made more scientifically correct relational links on the concept mapping task, and constructed more advanced explanations about photosynthesis as compared to the control group. Furthermore, the AI group scored similarly to the HI group in all three assessments.

   Providing each student the opportunity to weigh other perspectives before asserting their own decision was accomplished in this study by means of open discussion and debate. The debate does three things. First, it encourages students to work cooperatively in arriving at the correct conceptual answer, which has been shown to significantly enhance performance (Chang, Mao 1999). Second, it encourages verbal interactions of scientific ideas among students, which has also been shown to make improvements on performance (Sandoval, 1995). Third, it allows students to actively engage in intellectual conflict. Moreover, this conflict can be exercised in a non-competitive environment, meaning their answers do not result in a grade. According to the Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods, this type of environment promotes higher achievement, higher-level reasoning, greater retention, and greater creativity as opposed to competitive or individualistic learning (Sharan, 1999).

   In summary, the research has shown that active participation in learning enhances critical thinking, learning, independent thinking, understanding, performance, and achievement. It also showed that students who attend classes with very little active participation actually decline in those areas. Therefore, this study intended to investigate whether or not these elements, which are outcomes of active participation stimulated through the interactive lecture method, would help to enhance information retention.