Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Steps to Opening Scientific Inquiry: Pre-Service Teachers’ Practicum Experiences with a New Support Framework

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This qualitative multiple-comparative case study investigates (1) The reported experiences and impressions of four pre-service teachers (PTs) on practicum placement in four different classrooms (grades 1–9) where a new Steps to Inquiry (SI) framework was being utilized to support students conducting open inquiry; (2) The relative dispositions of the PTs toward conducting open inquiry, as indicated by their core conceptions regarding science, the purpose of education, effective teaching, and the capacity of students. Findings indicate that (1) although there were differences in the experiences of the four PTs, all four had an opportunity to observe and/or facilitate students conducting open inquiry with the SI framework, and after the practicum, all of them reported that they would like to include open inquiry in their own classrooms in the future; (2) one PT already possessed core conceptions indicative of a favorable disposition toward open inquiry before the placement; another altered her core conceptions substantially toward a favorable disposition during the placement; a third altered her conceptions regarding the capacity of students; and one PT maintained core conceptions indicative of a disposition that was not favorable to open inquiry despite the pronouncements that she would like to conduct open inquiry with students in their own future classroom. Possible reasons for the differences in the responses of the four pre-services teachers to the practicum placement are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Notation of the examples throughout this section of the paper indicate, from left to right, the first initial of the pseudonym of the PT, P to indicate the example comes from the Participnt Journal and the page number in the journal.

References

  • AAAS (1993). American Association for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks online, Project 2061 http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1. Last retrieved February 6, 2012.

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What the research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., Bowen, G. M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90, 400–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R. (2006). Assimilation or transformation? An analysis of change in secondary science teachers following an inquiry-based field experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttemer, H. (2006). Inquiry on board! Science and Children, 44(2), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science and inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenberg, T. & Smits, H. (Eds.) (2010). Field experiences in the context of reform of Canadian Teacher Education Programs. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba.

  • Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., et al. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldworthy, A., & Feasey, R. (1997). Making sense of primary science investigations. UK: The Association for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M. (2007). Can investigative practical work in high school biology foster creativity? Research in Science Education, 37, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., & Allende, J. E. (2009). Teacher professional development in pre-secondary school inquiry-based science education (IBSE). Report on the International Conference on Teacher Professional Development in Pre-Secondary School Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE), held on 20–22 October 2008 at Santiago, Chile.

  • Hewson, P.W., Kerby, H. W., & Walter, H. (1993). Conceptions of teaching science held by experienced high school science teachers. Paper presented at: The annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P.-L., Roth, W.-M., & Mazumber, A. (2009). Natural pedagogical conversations in high school students’ internship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 481–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(6), 631–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelly, B., et al. (1994). Enacting Project-based science: Experiences of four middle-grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A., & Jones, D. (2008). Preservice teachers’ capacity for teaching inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Education Standards, NSES. (1996). National Science Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Next Generation Science Standards (draft), NGSS. (2012). www.nextgenscience.org.

  • Pardo, R. & Parker, J. (2010). The inquiry flame: scaffolding for scientific inquiry through experimental design. The Science Teacher, 77(8), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzini, E. L., Shepardon, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1991). The inquiry level of junior high activities: Implications to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. C., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, C. A. (2010). Smarter science: A visit from Jennifer Parker, Rick Pardo and Mike Newnham. Crucible online, 41(5), 1–5. http://www.stao.ca/VLresources/2008/Rees%202010%20Crucible.pdf. Last retrieved September 14, 2012.

  • Revised curricula for science in Ontario (RCSO) (2007, 2008). Last retrieved July 16, 2012. www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec.html. www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science910_2008.pdf.

  • Rocard Report. (2007). Science education now: A new pedagogy for the future of Europe. http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.lso-observatory-documents-background-documents.9003. Last retrieved January 19, 2012.

  • Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. F., & Bowen, G. M. (1993). An investigation of problem framing and solving in a grade 8 open inquiry science program. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 165–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., Van Eijck, M., Reis, G., & Hsu, P.-L. (2008). Authentic science revisited: In praise of diversity, heterogeneity, hybridity. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), Teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithsonian/NSRC (2012). http://www.nsrconline.org/professional_development/SSEAT_ECO.html. Last retrieved September 14, 2012.

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Council for Education Research (ACER) Victoria, Australia, ACER Press. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER51_ReimaginingSciEdu.pdf. Last retrieved January 19, 2012.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: MA, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. W., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Designs and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Michael Newnham, Program Director, Smarter Science, Youth Science Canada for permission to use the figures and for help and encouragement with the study. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Faculty of Education, Field Research and Development Project Fund, University of Western Ontario.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thompson Rivers University, 900 McGill Road, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8, Canada

    Carol Rees

  2. Thames Valley District School Board, 1250 Dundas St, P.O. Box 5888, London, ON, N6A 5L1, Canada

    Richard Pardo & Jennifer Parker

Authors
  1. Carol Rees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Pardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Rees.

About this article

Cite this article

Rees, C., Pardo, R. & Parker, J. Steps to Opening Scientific Inquiry: Pre-Service Teachers’ Practicum Experiences with a New Support Framework. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 475–496 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9315-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9315-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation