Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Teachers’ Conceptions of Classroom Inquiry With a Teaching Scenario Survey Instrument

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

A survey instrument using everyday teaching scenarios was developed to measure teacher conceptions of inquiry. Validity of the instrument was established by comparing responses for a group of secondary teachers to narrative writing and group discussion. Participating teachers used only three of the five essential features of inquiry detailed in the standards documents (NRC 2000) when expressing their ideas of classroom inquiry. The features of ‘evaluating explanations in connection with scientific knowledge’ and ‘communicating explanations’ were rarely mentioned. These missing components indicate a gap between the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry and the ideals of the reform movement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beerer, K., & Bodzin, A. M. (2004, January). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Nashville, TN.

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2005). Is it inquiry or is it not?: Inquiry card sort. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://promse.msu.edu/_documents/Science%20as%20Inquiry-%20handouts.pdf.

  • Bybee, R. W. (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, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnes, G. N. (1997, April). 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.

  • CPB Annenberg. (1997). Case studies in science education. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from http://www.learner.org/resources/series21.html.

  • Crawford, B. A. (1997, April). 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2005, February). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Paper presented at the Inquiry Conference on Developing a Consensus Research Agenda, Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

  • Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2006). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 791–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Science fiction: The continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 6, 191–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals and practices. Science Education, 89, 140–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development program on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Critical incidents in the science classroom and the nature of science. School Science Review, 76, 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rop, C. J. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: A teacher’s beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, P. M. (2004). Shaping school science: Competing discourses in an inquiry-based elementary program. International Journal for Learning Technologies, 26, 915–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science & Mathematics, 102, 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., & O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform. CPRE policy brief. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. J. (1996). Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change and the improvement of science teaching. Science Education, 80, 711–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, S. L. (1997, April). The lab’s done…now what? Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.

  • Windschitl, M. (2002, April). 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 Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1996). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The “filtering effect” of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA

    Nam-Hwa Kang

  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, 89154, USA

    MaryKay Orgill

  3. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, 89154, USA

    Kent J. Crippen

Authors
  1. Nam-Hwa Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. MaryKay Orgill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kent J. Crippen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent J. Crippen.

Appendix

Appendix

Scenario Survey Items

  1. 1.

    Having students gather data for a local nonprofit organization.

  2. 2.

    Giving students a white powder and asking them to determine what the powder is.

  3. 3.

    Asking students to develop and answer their own questions about a local wetlands area.

  4. 4.

    Having students follow a procedure to complete a lab.

  5. 5.

    Asking students to use what they know about a local forest to decide whether an old-folks home should be built on that land.

  6. 6.

    Having students classify substances based upon their observable properties.

  7. 7.

    Having students use graphics on the Internet to explain how gas molecules move.

  8. 8.

    Having students make presentations of data collected during a lab.

  9. 9.

    Asking students to improve on a basic design (make an airplane fly further, make a motor spin faster, etc.).

  10. 10.

    A class discussion about the arrangement of the periodic table.

About this article

Cite this article

Kang, NH., Orgill, M. & Crippen, K.J. Understanding Teachers’ Conceptions of Classroom Inquiry With a Teaching Scenario Survey Instrument. J Sci Teacher Educ 19, 337–354 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9097-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9097-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation