Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 185–208 | Cite as

Mitigating Resistance to Teaching Science Through Inquiry: Studying Self

  • Barbara Spector
  • Ruth S. BurkettEmail author
  • Cyndy Leard
Article

This is the report of a qualitative emergent-design study of 2 different Web-enhanced science methods courses for preservice elementary teachers in which an experiential learning strategy, labeled “using yourself as a learning laboratory,” was implemented. Emergent grounded theory indicated this strategy, when embedded in a course organized as an inquiry with specified action foci, contributed to mitigating participants’ resistance to learning and teaching through inquiry. Enroute to embracing inquiry, learners experienced stages resembling the stages of grief one experiences after a major loss. Data sources included participant observation, electronic artifacts in WebCT, and interviews. Findings are reported in 3 major sections: “Action Foci Common to Both Courses,” “Participants’ Growth and Change,” and “Challenges and Tradeoffs.”

Keywords

Teaching Science Preservice Teacher Prospective Teacher Action Focus Science Museum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1994). Attitudes and social reality. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Attitudes, chaos, and the connectionist mind (pp. 129–152). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, M., & Spector, B. (1999, January). Creating contexts for inquiry in science teacher preparation: How do we do it? Paper presented at the annual international meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  5. Blosser, P. E. (1984). Attitude research is science education (Information Bulletin No. 1). Columbus: Ohio State University, SMEAC Information Reference Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259941)Google Scholar
  6. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, cannons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, J. (2003). The job-loss grief stages. Retrieved July 31, 2003, from http://members.tripod.com/∼jobnet/joblossc.htmGoogle Scholar
  8. Eiser, J. R. (1994). Attitudes, chaos and, the connectionist mind. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R (1996) Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. Retrieved July 31, 2003 from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/Resist.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. Finson, K. D. (2001). Investigating preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy relative to self-image as a science teacher. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 13(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  13. Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
  14. Koch, J. (1993). Restructuring elementary science teacher education: An imperative. Initiative, 55(3), 66–71.Google Scholar
  15. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In K. G. Tobin & B. J. Frazer (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 265–294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Mallow, J. V. (1986). Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, M. G., & Kearsly, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http://www.nctaf.org/resources/research_and_reports/nctaf_research_reports/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concepts maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1994). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Orlich, D. C. (1980). Science anxiety and the classroom teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  25. Ostrum, T. M. (1989). Interdependence of attitude theory and measurement. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 11–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Pratkanis, A. R., Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (Eds.). (1989). Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, A., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Single Parent Central. (2001). Suddenly single? The 5 stages of grief. Retrieved July 31, 2003, from http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=145-4kGoogle Scholar
  30. Spector, B. S., Burkett, R. S., & Leard, C. (2004, April). Experiencing “stages of grief”: Outcome of reform in science teacher education. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Spector, B., Burkett, R., & Steffen, C. O. (2002). Factors contributing to preservice teachers’ discomfort in a Web-based course structured as an inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30, 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spector, B., & Gibson, C. W. (1991). A qualitative study of middle school students’ perceptions of factors facilitating the learning of science: Grounded theory and existing theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spector, B., & Strong, P. (2001). The culture of traditional preservice elementary science methods students compared to the culture of science: A dilemma for teacher educators. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 13(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woods, D. R. (1994). Problem-based learning: How to gain the most from PBL. Waterdown, Ontario, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Wrightsman, L. S. (1992). Assumptions about human nature: Implications for researchers and practitioners (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Yeotis, C., Bolick, M., French, D., Keig, P., Nason, P., Shroyer, G., et al. (1998, January). Preconference workshop: An exemplary elementary science methods course. Paper presented at the annual international meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Spector
    • 1
  • Ruth S. Burkett
    • 2
    Email author
  • Cyndy Leard
    • 3
  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaU.S.A
  2. 2.College of Education and Human ServicesUniversity of Central MissouriWarrensburgU.S.A.
  3. 3.College of EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaU.S.A

Personalised recommendations