Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 449–474 | Cite as

Open Guided Inquiry Laboratory in Physics Teacher Education

  • Ville Nivalainen
  • Mervi A. Asikainen
  • Pekka E. Hirvonen
Article

Abstract

This study has investigated the use of an open guided inquiry laboratory course in which a group of pre-service teachers planned and implemented practical work for school purposes. A total of 32 pre-service teachers (physics, mathematics, and chemistry majors) participated in the study. Each participant wrote a reflective essay after completing the course, and three pre-service teachers were interviewed four times during the course. The results show that the use of an open guided inquiry environment provides support for pre-service teachers to discover the limits of their understanding of subject matter knowledge, allowing them to construct knowledge in a different kind of environment from any they had possessed previously, and helping them to understand the possibilities of practical work in teaching. In the course of developing their competence in these aspects, pre-service teachers also gain an understanding of various aspects of teachers’ knowledge.

Keywords

Physics teacher education Teacher knowledge Practical work Open guided inquiry 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What teachers say about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung, D. (2008). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.Google Scholar
  8. Danielsson, A. T., & Linder, C. (2009). Learning in physics by doing laboratory work: towards a new conceptual framework. Gender and Education, 21(2), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Jong, O., & Van Der Valk, A. E. (2007). Science teachers’ PCK and teaching practice: learning to scaffold students’ open-inquiry learning. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from Science Education Research (pp. 107–118). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Chemical Education Research, 76(4), 543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duran, L. B., McArthur, J., & Van Hook, S. (2004). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of an inquiry-based physics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing, the art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361–376). California: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. France, B., & Haigh, M. (2009). The pedagogy of practical work. In S. Ritchie (Ed.), The World of Science Education: Handbook of Research in Australasia (pp. 217–234). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Retrieved from http://www.acds.edu.au/docs/teachsci.pdf.
  16. Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Lab work. SET: Research information for teachers, number one. Canberra: Australian council for education research.Google Scholar
  17. Hirvonen, P. E., & Viiri, J. (2002). Physics student teachers’ ideas about the objectives of practical work. Science & Education, 11, 305–316.Google Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, A., Simon, S., Black, P., Fairbrother, R., & Watson, J. R. (1992). Open work in science: Development of investigations in schools. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  21. Kansanen, P. (2009). The curious affair of pedagogical content knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 3(2), 5–18.Google Scholar
  22. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Kurki-Suonio, K. (2011). Principles supporting the perceptional teaching of physics: A “practical teaching philosophy”. Science & Education, 20, 211–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lavonen, J., Byman, R., Juuti, K., Meisalo, V., & Uitto, A. (2005). Pupil Interest in physics: A survey in Finland. Nordina, 1(2), 72–85.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Constantinou, C. P. (2000). Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry. Physics Education, 35(6), 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A., & Jones, D. (2008). Experience and reflection: Preservice science teachers’ capacity for teaching inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, A. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2010). Preservice and inservice teachers' challenges in the planning of practical work in physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(4), 393–409.Google Scholar
  34. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shakedi, A., & Laron, D. (2004). Between idealism and pragmatism: a case study of student teachers’ pedagogical development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  39. Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Tillema, H. H. (1998). Stability and change in student teachers’ beliefs about teaching. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 4(2), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Driel, J., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Varma, T., Volkmann, M., & Hanuscin, D. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of their understanding of inquiry and inquiry-based science pedagogy: Influence of an elementary science education methods course and a science field experience. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 1–22.Google Scholar
  45. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ville Nivalainen
    • 1
  • Mervi A. Asikainen
    • 1
  • Pekka E. Hirvonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics and MathematicsUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations