Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 171–191 | Cite as

How to Support Primary Teachers’ Implementation of Inquiry: Teachers’ Reflections on Teaching Cooperative Inquiry-Based Science

  • Robyn M. GilliesEmail author
  • Kim Nichols
Article

Abstract

Many primary teachers face challenges in teaching inquiry science, often because they believe that they do not have the content knowledge or pedagogical skills to do so. This is a concern given the emphasis attached to teaching science through inquiry where students do not simply learn about science but also do science. This study reports on the reflections of nine grade 6 teachers who taught two cooperative, inquiry science units once a term for two consecutive school terms. The study focused on investigating their perceptions of teaching inquiry science as well as the processes they employed, including the benefits and challenges of this student-centred approach to teaching, with longer task structures that characterises inquiry learning. Although the teachers reflected positively on their experiences teaching the inquiry science units, they also expressed concerns about the challenges that arise when teaching through inquiry. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

Keywords

Inquiry science Teachers’ reflections Cooperative learning Guided inquiry learning 

Notes

Statement of Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the relevant ethical clearance committee at our university, and a written informed consent was obtained by the participants who were interviewed in this study.

References

  1. Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Towards an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers’ development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 84, 577–610.Google Scholar
  5. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan, L. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 835–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. (2006). Enhancing science teaching and student learning: a BSCS perspective. Boosting science learning: what it will take. ACER Research Conference. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duschl, R., & Duncan, R. (2009). Beyond the fringe: building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: success of failure? (pp. 311–332). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2009). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: framing the debates. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 1–37). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  12. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2013). Examining the beliefs and practices of four effective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 981–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2014). Uncertainty and scientific progress in classroom dialogue. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. AERA: Pittsburgh (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Fulp, S.L. (2002a). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Elementary School Science Teaching. National Science Foundation (REC-9814246). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Fulp, S.L. (2002b). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Middle School Science Teaching. National Science Foundation (REC-9814246). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Gallardo-Virgen, J., & DeVillar, R. (2011). Sharing, talking, and learning in the elementary school science classroom: benefits of innovative design and collaborative learning in computer-integrated settings. Computers in the Schools, 28, 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillies, R. & Boyle, M. (2006). Ten Australian Elementary teachers’ discourse and reported pedagogical practices during cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 429--450.Google Scholar
  19. Gillies, R. & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 933--940.Google Scholar
  20. Gillies, R.. & Haynes, M. (2011). Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science, 39, 349--366. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9130-9
  21. Gillies, R., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two strategic and meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children’s explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93--106.Google Scholar
  22. Gillies, R. & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7--27.Google Scholar
  23. Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in Australian schools. Canberra: Australian Government, Australian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, S., Harris, K., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: a construction validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies in Reading, 5, 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guba, E. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation (CSC monograph series in evaluation no 8). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  26. Hackling, M. (2008). An overview of primary connections: stage 3 research outcomes 2006–2008. Canberra: Australian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, C., & Rooks, D. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Herrenkohl, L. (2006). Intellectual role taking: supporting discussion in heterogeneous elementary science classes. Theory into Practice, 45, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herrenkohl, L., Palincsar, A., DeWater, L., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: a sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23--37). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science. Science Education, 94, 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1021–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loucks-Horsley, S. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  42. Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: the relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). Securing Australia’s future: STEM country comparisons. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learner Academies (ACOLA).Google Scholar
  44. Marshall, J., Horton, R., Igo, B., & Switzer, D. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McNaughton, C. (2007). We’re off to look for aliens. UK: Walker Books.Google Scholar
  46. McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51, 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary science classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experiences, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 Science education: practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  55. National Science Teachers Association (2002). NSTA position statement: elementary school science. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx?
  56. National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx/.
  57. Newman, W., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Ottaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Norton-Meier, L., Hockenberry, L., Nelson, S., & Wise, K. (2008). Transforming pedagogy: embedding language practices within elementary science classrooms. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language (pp. 25--36). Sense: Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  59. Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: the role of ideas, evidence and argument. Boosting science learning: what it will take. ACER Research Conference. http://www.acer.edu.au/research_conferences/2006.html.
  61. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3, 173–184.Google Scholar
  62. Osborne, J. (2009/10). An argument for arguments in science classes. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 62–66.Google Scholar
  63. Palinscar, A. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—a response to C. Addison Stone’s “the metaphor of scaffolding: its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Posnanski, T. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for in-service elementary teachers: project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 589–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Roseth, C., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rushton, G., Lotter, C., & Singer, J. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ emerging expertise in inquiry teaching: the effect of a professional development model on beliefs and practice. Journal of Science Teachers’ Education, 22, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ruthven, K. (2011). Using international study series and meta-analytic research syntheses to scope pedagogical development aimed at improving student attitude and achievement in school mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 419–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sinclair, B., Nazair, G., & Ledbetter, C. (2011). Observed implementation of a science professional development program for K-8 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 579–594.Google Scholar
  70. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  71. Thurston, A., Topping, K., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E., & Murray, P. (2010). Cooperative learning in science: follow-up from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Topping, K., & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for school children: cognitive gains at 2-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Topping, K., Thurston, A., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Murray, P., & Karagiannidou, E. (2011). Cooperative learning in science: intervention in the secondary school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tseng, C., Tuan, H., & Chin, C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging the students in science for Australia’s future. Australian education review. Camberwell: ACER.Google Scholar
  76. Van Deur, P. (2010). Assessing elementary support for inquiry. Learning Environment Research, 13, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Veermans, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkaraienen, K. (2005). Patterns of guidance in inquiry learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 179–194.Google Scholar
  79. Yoon, H., Joung, Y., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zuckerman, G., Chudinova, E., & Khavkin, E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: building a science curriculum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations