Student-teachers’ Dialectically Developed Motivation for Promoting Student-led Science Projects

  • J. Lawrence BenczeEmail author
  • G. Michael Bowen


School science systems tend to emphasize teaching and learning about achievements of science (such as laws and theories) at the expense of providing students with opportunities to develop realistic conceptions about science and science inquiry and expertise they could use to conduct their own science inquiry projects. Among reasons for such an emphasis, teachers’ lack of experiences with realistic science inquiry appears to be particularly problematic. Accordingly, we engaged student-teachers in a university-based course that attempted to balance instruction about science and science inquiry with student-teachers’ own theorization about science and science inquiry. Qualitative data collected mainly from nine student-teachers in four focus groups indicate that these student-teachers’ motivation for promoting student-led science inquiry projects in schools significantly increased by the end of the course. Analyses suggest that this outcome was influenced by changes in their conceptions about the nature of science, changes in how they associated science inquiry with student learning, and the inductive-deductive dialectic immersion that was built into their pre-service methods course. Implications of these findings for science teacher education are explored in this paper.

Key words

inductive-deductive dialectic immersion nature of science open-ended science inquiry projects student-directed teacher education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beane, J.A. & Apple, M.W. (1995). The case for democratic schools. In M.W. Apple & J.A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 1–25). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  3. Bencze, J.L. (2000). Procedural apprenticeship in school science: Constructivist enabling of connoisseurship. Science Education, 84(6), 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bencze, L., Bowen, M. & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90(3), 400–419.Google Scholar
  5. Bencze, L. & Elshof, L. (2004). Science teachers as metascientists: An inductive-deductive dialectic immersion in northern alpine field ecology. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1507–1526.Google Scholar
  6. Bowen, G.M. & Roth, W-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among pre-service science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, S., Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2001). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, April 10–14, 2001, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  9. Department for Education and Employment [DfEE] (1999). Science: The national curriculum for England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. Eflin, J.T., Glennan, S. & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E. & Marion, S.F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 261–295.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  13. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J. & Fensham, P.J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  17. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1988). Naturalistic and rationalistic enquiry. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 81–85). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1990). Ethnographic principles in practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Helms, J.V. (1998). Science-and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kang, N.-H. & Wallace, C.S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lawson, A.E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lock, R. (1990). Open-ended, problem-solving investigations: What do we mean and how can we use them? School Science Review, 71(256), 63–72.Google Scholar
  26. Loving, C.C. (1991). The Scientific Theory Profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Machamer, P. (1998). Philosophy of science: An overview for educators. Science & Education, 7(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millar, R. & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M. (1985). The Generative Learning Model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, W-M. & Bowen, G.M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practice, and resources in grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13(1), 73–128.Google Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M., & Désautels, J. (Eds.) (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, W-M., McGinn, M. & Bowen, M. (1998). How prepared are pre-service teachers to teach science inquiry?: Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–48.Google Scholar
  35. Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G. & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Rens, L., Pilot, A., & Van Dijk, H. (2004). Enhancement of quality in chemical inquiry by pre-university students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(4), 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wasser, J.D. & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15.Google Scholar
  39. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationMount Saint Vincent UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations