Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Science Semester: Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry for Prospective Elementary Teachers

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

We describe the Science Semester, a semester-long course block that integrates three science courses and a science education methods course for elementary teacher education majors, and examine prospective elementary teachers’ developing conceptions about inquiry, science teaching efficacy, and reflections on learning through inquiry. The Science Semester was designed to provide inquiry-oriented and problem-based learning experiences, opportunities to examine socially relevant issues through cross-disciplinary perspectives, and align with content found in elementary curricula and standards. By the end of the semester, prospective elementary teachers moved from naïve to intermediate understandings of inquiry and significantly increased self-efficacy for science teaching as measured on one subscore of the STEBI-B. Reflecting on the semester, prospective teachers understood and appreciated the goals of the course and the PBL format, but struggled with the open-ended and student-directed elements of the course.

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

Notes

  1. We use the overarching term cross-disciplinary (Stokols et al. 2008) to capture the connotations of both multidisciplinary (i.e., interactions in which different disciplinary perspectives come into contact, but remain distinct) and interdisciplinary (i.e., interactions in which different disciplinary perspectives are synthesized).

  2. Researchers using project-based (Capraro and Slough 2009; Krajcik and Czerniak 2007; Marx et al. 1997), problem-based, and other inquiry pedagogies with investigation-central methodologies often use the same abbreviation (PBL) to refer to their instructional methods. Although both approaches share similar characteristics, they arise from different experiences and perspectives. In this paper, the abbreviation PBL refers to the medical model problem-based approach (Levin 2001).

  3. A limitation of this study is that all data from the measures does not come from a single set of participants, but instead from two separate groups of cohorts. There was a violation of reliability in our administration of the STEBI-B to cohorts 2003–2005, so that data was not available for direct comparison to the focus group and survey data. Similarly, later cohorts received only the STEBI survey. However, a comparison of prospective teacher responses on valid questions from the 2003–2005 cohorts with the responses to the 2006–2008 shows no significant differences. We believe the results of the 2006–2008 STEBI-B analyses accurately represent the student experience in all semesters of the project. Qualitatively, there were changes to the number and order of problems, student schedules, and rotation of instructors from semester to semester, which we acknowledge could be a limitation on our findings, however, there was a unified perspective as outlined in our framework that was consistent across each iteration.

  4. The STEBI-B was revised to improve the reliability of the Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy subscale by removing the qualifier “some” from items 10 and 13, as recommended by Bleicher (2004).

  5. The rubric was designed with the intent to measure development of knowledge of inquiry and PCK across the four year teacher education program, therefore, the top level of the rubric represents an understanding beyond the capabilities of these sophomore-level students. It is included in this paper to show the framework that underlies the Science Semester curriculum design.

  6. In subsequent semesters, we increased the field experience substantially, with positive results.

References

  • Adamson, S. L., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox, F, I. I. I., Judson, E., Turley, J. B., et al. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teazching, 40, 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G., & Solomon, J. (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D. E., Donham, R., & Fifield, S. (2007). Kids, chemicals and cancer. Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse. http://www.udel.edu/pblc. Published online 9/13/2007.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D., & Mitchner, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beiswenger, R. E., Stepans, J. I., & McClurg, P. A. (1998). Developing science courses for prospective elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 253–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 383–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R. E. (2006). Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, W. J., & Gabel, D. L. (1998). Effectiveness of a model teacher preparation program for the elementary level. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, C., & Prayaga, C. S. (2004). Teaching future K-8 teachers the language of Newton: A case study of collaboration and change in university physics teaching. Science Education, 88(6), 947–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). The development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M. (2007). A self-study of the role of technology in promoting reflection and inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 271–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2009). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach. Boston: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 361–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed-methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, C. E. (1997). Not just a method but a way of learning. In D. Bound & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem based learning (2nd ed., pp. 17–27). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fifield, S., Grusenmeyer, L., & Ford, D. Pedagogical change, loss, and mourning in elementary science teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing (in press).

  • Ford, D. J. (2005). How will I know if my students learned what they’re supposed to? Curriculum evaluation in the NCLB era. Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse. http://www.udel.edu/pblc. Published online 8/30/2005.

  • Ford, D., Fifield, S., Qian, X., Allen, D., Donham, R., Gwekwerere, Y., & Sharma, A. (2008, March). Preservice K-8 teachers’ developing pedagogical context knowledge within an integrated science and education continuum. Baltimore, MD: Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

  • Ford, D., Fifield, S., Grusenmeyer, L., Madsen, J., Nandakumar, R., Pizzini, E., & Qian, X. (2010, March). From university students to teachers of science: Researching preservice K-8 teachers’ acquisition of pedagogical context knowledge within a reform-based curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

  • Friedrichsen, P. M. (2001). Moving from hands-on to inquiry-based: A biology course for prospective elementary teachers. American Biology Teacher, 63(8), 562–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, L., & Lake, V. (2000). “Love, love, and more love for children”: Exploring preservice teachers’ understandings of caring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 861–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, B. E., Freeburg, E. M., Rasmussen, K., & Meng, D. (2006). Elementary education majors experience hands-on learning in introductory biology. Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guziec, M. K., & Lawson, H. (2004). Science for elementary educators: Modeling science instruction for childhood education majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(5), 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to implement inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howes, E. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do preservice teachers bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 845–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, P., & Abell, S. (2005). Setting sail or missing the boat: Comparing the beliefs of preservice elementary teachers with and without an inquiry-based physics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 755–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., & Czerniak, C. (2007). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach. New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krockover, G. H., Shepardson, D. P., Eichinger, D., Nakhleh, M., & Adams, P. E. (2002). Reforming and assessing undergraduate science instruction using collaborative action-based research teams. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 266–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Krapfl, L. (2002). Teaching as you would have them teach: An effective elementary science teacher preparation program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. B. (Ed.). (2001). Energizing teacher education and professional development with problem-based learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, B. A., & Holland, D. C. (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: An introduction. In B. A. Levinson, D. E. Foley, & D. C. Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 1–54). Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luera, G. R., & Otto, C. A. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based elementary science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, A. S., & Dana, T. M. (1999). Making science relevant: The experiences of prospective elementary teachers in an innovative science content course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2005). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: NSF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, K. (2000). Restructuring elementary teacher preparation programs to integrate content and pedagogy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, January 6–9, Akron, OH.

  • Norman, K., & Yamashita, R. (n.d.) The integrated Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies and Multiple Credential Program @ California State University San Marcos. Retrieved from: http://www2.csusm.edu/yamashta/ABOUT/papers/talks/2001/summary-ICP_Science.pdf.

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82, 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W. F. (1998). Introduction. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 1–47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an efficacy belief instrument for elementary teachers. Science Education, 74, 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 163–197). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, B., Burkett, R., & Leard, C. (2007). Mitigating resistance to teaching science through inquiry: Studying self. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 185–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepans, J., McClurg, P., & Bieswenger, R. (1995). A teacher education program in elementary science that connects content, methods, practicum, and student teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 158–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stofflet, R., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogies as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 35(2S), S77–S89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it on their own: Preservice teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunal, C. S., Whittaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Odell, M., Hodges, J., Edwards, L., et al. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkman, M. J., Abell, S. K., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science Education, 89, 847–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Frazer, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 119–230). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2007). Multimedia resources to bridge the praxis gap: Modeling practice in elementary science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 349–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weld, J., & Funk, L. (2005). “I’m not the science type”: Effect of an inquiry biology content course on preservice elementary teachers’ intentions about teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S., & Cameron, R. (1996). Student teacher perceptions of effective teaching: a developmental perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22, 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Starr, M., & Krajcik, J. S. (1999). Constructing a framework for elementary science teaching using pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 237–256). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M., & Barker, H. (2002). Beyond “methods” and prescriptions: Community conversations and individual spaces in elementary science education courses. Research in Science Education, 32, 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. HRD-0455781 and DUE-0088527. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

    Danielle J. Ford & Xiaoyu Qian

  2. The Franklin Institute, 222 North 20 Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, USA

    Steve Fifield

  3. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

    John Madsen

Authors
  1. Danielle J. Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Fifield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoyu Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle J. Ford.

Appendix

Appendix

Description of Investigations

We created PBL investigations to bring prospective elementary teachers face-to-face with the personal, social and policy dimensions of science and science pedagogies. We want prospective teachers to realize that as citizens they must critically engage science in their lives and in society if they are going to help children do the same thing. As a curriculum unit, each investigation has a hub-and-spoke structure, with one discipline at the core linked by unifying themes (AAAS 1989) to the other disciplines. We want prospective teachers to see the meaningful distinctions among disciplinary ways of thinking, as well as how fruitful it can be to think across and transcend disciplinary perspectives. The hub-and-spoke structure softens course boundaries and serves as a model for elementary integrated approaches. We aligned the content of the investigations with elementary science standards (NRC 1996), but restrained the scope of content coverage in favor of developing deeper understandings appropriate for undergraduates. Here we summarize the four investigations used in the original version of the Science Semester.

In the physical science investigation, “What is Energy?”, prospective teachers take part in an in-class professional development institute focused on alternative energy sources and energy conservation. They design experiments to investigate the nature of electricity, and calculate their energy footprints as a way to view the topic from technological, social, pedagogical, and personal perspectives. Earth science is integrated by considering the formation and global distribution of oil, and life science concepts emerge as prospective teachers examine how to think about the flow of energy through ecosystems. Prospective teachers also examine the content of elementary curriculum units on electricity, which deepens their awareness of and reflections on their own developing understandings of electricity.

“Kids, Chemicals, and Cancer” (Allen et al. 2007) is the life science investigation that begins with the true story of Toms River, New Jersey, and the allegedly high number of serious childhood illnesses, including cancer, in that community in recent decades. Fundamental questions that prospective teachers investigate in this case study include: What are the cellular processes of cancer? How could cancer be related to environmental contaminants? How do potential cancer-causing compounds get in the environment? And how does one decide if cancer rates in an area are unusually high? Investigating the chemistry of water, the water cycle, and watersheds develops concepts from physical and earth sciences. As future teachers our students consider the amount and type of scientific information appropriate for children and families, and the role of schools in helping children understand local environmental issues. A water quality unit taught concurrently in the education section models how to engage elementary children in science learning that is relevant to local issues. For one of the final products of this investigation, prospective teachers develop books for children and parents on childhood cancers and their treatment.

Science education takes the lead in the third investigation, “Did my students learn what they were supposed to?” (Ford 2005) in which prospective teachers critically evaluate curriculum units developed by the Lawrence Hall of Science (Full Option Science System, distributed by Delta Education) and the National Science Resource Center (Science and Technology for Children, distributed by Carolina Biological Supplies). Central issues in this investigation include instructional goals, effective learning assessment, alignment of goals and curricula with National Science Standards, and using commercial curricula to support investigations of science in social issues with local relevance. The prospective teachers microteach to their peers, and then in elementary classrooms, using approaches from the curriculum kits. As they explore, teach from, and analyze the quality of the curriculum kits, prospective teachers deal head-on with the scope and depth of their understandings of life, earth, and physical sciences. The culminating activity is a public poster session reporting on their evaluation findings to other teacher education majors, university professors, and local educators.

In the earth science investigation, “Limulus polyphemus! Delaware’s State Marine Animal,” prospective teachers explore scientific and public policy perspectives on the natural history and management of horseshoe crabs and the Delaware Bay ecosystem. Prospective teachers are usually surprised to learn about the relationships between horseshoe crabs and migratory birds, coastal fisheries, and the pharmaceutical and health care industries. The commercial and natural values of horseshoe crabs exert conflicting pressures on environmental resource managers, so for the final product of this investigation student teams develop management recommendations. Prospective teachers study the geology of the Delaware Bay estuary, integrating life sciences as they learn about the interwoven life cycles of horseshoe crabs and migratory birds. Physical science enters as prospective teachers examine the relationship of lunar and tidal cycles to the breeding season of horseshoe crabs, and calculate the energy budgets of migratory birds that depend on crab eggs. During this investigation the education sections consider the role of children’s nature and environmental literature in science teaching.

About this article

Cite this article

Ford, D.J., Fifield, S., Madsen, J. et al. The Science Semester: Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry for Prospective Elementary Teachers. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 1049–1072 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9326-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9326-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation