Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 1547–1567 | Cite as

The Connection Between Forms of Guidance for Inquiry-Based Learning and the Communicative Approaches Applied—a Case Study in the Context of Pre-service Teachers

  • Antti LehtinenEmail author
  • Sami Lehesvuori
  • Jouni Viiri
Article

Abstract

Recent research has argued that inquiry-based science learning should be guided by providing the learners with support. The research on guidance for inquiry-based learning has concentrated on how providing guidance affects learning through inquiry. How guidance for inquiry-based learning could promote learning about inquiry (e.g. epistemic practices) is in need of exploration. A dialogic approach to classroom communication and pedagogical link-making offers possibilities for learners to acquire these practices. The focus of this paper is to analyse the role of different forms of guidance for inquiry-based learning on building the communicative approach applied in classrooms. The data for the study comes from an inquiry-based physics lesson implemented by a group of five pre-service primary science teachers to a class of sixth graders. The lesson was video recorded and the discussions were transcribed. The data was analysed by applying two existing frameworks—one for the forms of guidance provided and another for the communicative approaches applied. The findings illustrate that providing non-specific forms of guidance, such as prompts, caused the communicative approach to be dialogic. On the other hand, providing the learners with specific forms of guidance, such as explanations, shifted the communication to be more authoritative. These results imply that different forms of guidance provided by pre-service teachers can affect the communicative approach applied in inquiry-based science lessons, which affects the possibilities learners are given to connect their existing ideas to the scientific view. Future research should focus on validating these results by also analysing inservice teachers’ lessons.

Keywords

Inquiry-based learning Communicative approach Classroom communication Pre-service teachers 

Notes

Funding Information

This study was partly funded by the Technology Industries of Finland Centennial Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Research Involving Human Participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Abell, S. (Ed.). (2000). Science teacher education: an international perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  3. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups (1st ed.). Oxford: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695–713). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell, & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington: Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  8. Childs, A., & McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1629–1653.Google Scholar
  9. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery learning principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: learning processes involved. In E. de Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411–427). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  12. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
  13. Demir, A., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Views of inquiry: mismatches between views of science education faculty and students of an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 716–741.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.Google Scholar
  16. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.Google Scholar
  17. García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2016). Primary pre-service teachers’ skills in planning a guided scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education,, 1–22.Google Scholar
  18. Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P., & Holmgren, S. (2010). Secondary science teachers’ selective traditions and examples of inquiry-oriented approaches. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 44–60.Google Scholar
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
  20. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93.Google Scholar
  21. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.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. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garrison, J. (1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.Google Scholar
  25. Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2017). Challenging Transmission Modes of Teaching in Science Classrooms: Enhancing Learner-Centredness through Dialogicity. Research in Science Education, 1–21.  10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7.
  26. Lehesvuori, S., Ratinen, I., Kulhomäki, O., Lappi, J., & Viiri, J. (2011a). Enriching primary student teachers’ conceptions about science teaching: Towards dialogic inquiry-based teaching. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 7(2), 140–159.Google Scholar
  27. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011b). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705–727.Google Scholar
  28. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher‐led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939.Google Scholar
  29. Lehtinen, A., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2016a). Pre-Service Primary Teachers' Beliefs of Teaching Science With Simulations. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science Education Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future (pp. 1949-1959). ESERA Conference Proceedings, 4. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. Retrieved from http://www.esera.org/media/eBook%202015/eBook_Part_13_links.pdf. February, 9, 2017
  30. Lehtinen, A., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2016b). Preservice teachers’ TPACK beliefs and attitudes toward simulations. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 151–171.Google Scholar
  31. Lehtinen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Guidance Provided by Teacher and Simulation for Inquiry-Based Learning: A Case Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 193–206.Google Scholar
  32. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  35. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.Google Scholar
  36. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.Google Scholar
  37. Miles, M. B., & Hubermann, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.Google Scholar
  39. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A., & Lerkkanen, M. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 25–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  43. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. doi: 10.1126/science.1183944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., de Jong, T., Van Riesen, S., Kamp, E., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.Google Scholar
  46. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.Google Scholar
  47. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.Google Scholar
  48. Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
  49. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground—a literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197.Google Scholar
  50. Rutten, N., van der Veen, J., & van Joolingen, W. (2015). Inquiry-based whole-class teaching with computer simulations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1225–1245.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between “opening up” and “closing down” classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324), 77–83.Google Scholar
  54. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: a fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.Google Scholar
  55. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: a fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36.Google Scholar
  56. Seung, E., Park, S., & Jung, J. (2014). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ understanding of the essential features of inquiry-based science teaching using evidence-based reflection. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 507–529.Google Scholar
  57. Simons, H. (2015). Interpret in context: generalizing from the single case in evaluation. Evaluation, 21(2), 173–188.Google Scholar
  58. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.Google Scholar
  60. University of Colorado Boulder. (2017). PhET simulations. Retrieved from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/
  61. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.Google Scholar
  62. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: a contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 193–205.Google Scholar
  63. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.Google Scholar
  64. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.Google Scholar
  65. Yoon, H., Joung, Y. J., & 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(3), 589–608.Google Scholar
  66. Zacharia, Z., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., et al. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: a literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257–302.Google Scholar
  67. Zubrowski, B. (2007). An observational and planning tool for professional development in science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 861–884.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher EducationUniversity of JyvaskylaJyvaskylaFinland

Personalised recommendations