Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 57–79 | Cite as

Analysis of Essential Features of Inquiry Found in Articles Published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007

Article

Abstract

In order to provide a picture of how inquiry is practiced in everyday science classrooms, the articles published in The Science Teacher from 1998 to 2007 were analyzed for explicit evidence of features of inquiry. Inquiry was operationally defined by the essential features detailed in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC 2000). Few articles described full inquiry. Gathering and analyzing evidence were significantly more prominent than the other features of inquiry, which were present in less than 25% of the articles. This pattern may be related to teachers’ viewing inquiry more as a process than as a vehicle for learning science content. Each feature found was also rated for whether it was student- or teacher-directed. Most activities were teacher-directed.

Keywords

Inquiry Teacher beliefs Secondary science education 

References

  1. Abad, E. A. (2001). Boiling ice. The Science Teacher, 68, 44–45.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlock-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–404). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ash, L. E., & Luckey, J. (1998). Outdoor achievement. The Science Teacher, 65, 28–32.Google Scholar
  8. Atwater, M. M., & Brown, M. L. (1999). Inclusive reform. The Science Teacher, 66, 44–48.Google Scholar
  9. Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 177–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, F. (2000). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science course on preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 117–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  14. Carnes, G. N. (1997). Teacher conceptions of inquiry and related teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.Google Scholar
  15. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 151–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.Google Scholar
  17. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crawford, B. A. (1997). A community of inquiry: Changing roles for teachers and students. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deters, K. (2004). Inquiry in the chemistry classroom. The Science Teacher, 71, 42–45.Google Scholar
  25. Dogancay, D. (2005). Flame tests performed safely. The Science Teacher, 72, 34–38.Google Scholar
  26. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385–400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Eareckson, L. A. (2002). What do amphibians have to offer? The Science Teacher, 69, 48–51.Google Scholar
  30. Flick, L. B. (1997). Focusing research on teaching practices in support of inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.Google Scholar
  31. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 15–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Hagger, H., Burn, K., Mutton, T., & Brindley, S. (2008). Practice makes perfect? Learning to learn as a teacher. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogan, K., & Berkowitz, A. R. (2000). Teachers as inquiry learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, E., Borleske, B., Gleason, S., Bailey, B., & Scantlebury, K. (1998). Structured observation. The Science Teacher, 65(3), 46–49.Google Scholar
  39. Jorgensen, L. M. (2001). Science literates or science experts? The Science Teacher, 68, 46–49.Google Scholar
  40. Kang, N.-H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kubicek, J. P. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science and computer technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.1/kubicek.html.
  48. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 923–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 73, 34–39.Google Scholar
  51. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  55. National Research Council. (2001). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  56. National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  57. National Science Teachers Association. (2007). Member Journals. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.nsta.org/publications/journals.aspx.
  58. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  59. Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientific method based upon research scientists’ conceptions of scientific inquiry. In Proceedings of the annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science. Charlotte, SC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465618).Google Scholar
  60. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Settlage, J., Odom, A. L., & Pedersen, J. E. (2004). Uses of technology by science education professors: Comparisons with teachers’ uses and the current versus desired technology knowledge gap. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4, 299–312.Google Scholar
  62. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stiles, K. E., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Professional development strategies. The Science Teacher, 65(6), 46–49.Google Scholar
  65. Strieb, M. (1998). Signs for the tides. The Science Teacher, 65, 23–25.Google Scholar
  66. Texley, J. (2004). Cool books for hot days. The Science Teacher, 71, 20–23.Google Scholar
  67. Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89, 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United States Department of Education. (2008). The nation’s report card. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
  69. Vondracek, M. (2002). Particle physics primer. The Science Teacher, 69, 40–43.Google Scholar
  70. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wallace, C. S., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Westbrook, S. L. (1997). The lab’s done…now what? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.Google Scholar
  74. Windschitl, M. (2002). The reproduction of cultural models of “inquiry” by preservice science teachers: An examination of thought and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Witham, S. A., Krockover, G. H., Burgess, W., & Bayley, B. (2004). Digging up a CRIME. The Science Teacher, 71, 56–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and Professional Development DivisionClark County School DistrictLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations