Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Repeated Teaching and Reflection on Preservice Teachers’ Views of Inquiry and Nature of Science

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This study describes the influence of a secondary science methods program on secondary science preservice teachers’ views and enactment of nature of science and inquiry-based instructional practices. Built into the structure of this program were three cycles of practice teaching and reflection in which the preservice teachers focused on key pedagogical ideas in classroom settings with middle and high school students. The nine secondary preservice teachers improved both their understanding and enactment of inquiry and nature of science throughout the program period. This study provides evidence of the importance of incorporating multiple low-stakes practicum experiences that are closely tied to methods course goals that are highly scaffolded through both methods instructor and cooperating teacher support and tied to analytic self-reflection.

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

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., Smith, D. C., & Volkmann, M. J. (2004). Inquiry in science teacher education. In L. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (Vol. 25, pp. 173–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, P., & Krockover, J. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 633–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching, and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeth, M., & Adadan, E. (2006). The influence of university-based coursework on field experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, J. A., Cavazos, L. M., & Rivas, M. (2003). At the intersection of contemporary descriptions of science and issues of equity and diversity: Student teachers’ conceptions, rationales, and instructional practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 259–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. (2006). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: Reflective practice under scrutiny. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craven, J., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cronin-Jones, L. L., & Shaw, E. L. (1992). The influence of methods instruction on the beliefs of preservice elementary and secondary science teachers: Preliminary comparative analyses. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eick, C. J., & Dias, M. (2005). Building the authority of experiences in communities of practice: The development of preservice teachers’ practical knowledge through coteaching in inquiry classrooms. Science Education, 89, 470–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86, 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eick, C. J., Ware, F., & Williams, P. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course: A situated learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, P. (1989). A reflective approach to the methods practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. M., Munford, D., & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90, 522–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: a developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. L., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1653–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86, 783–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, N. (2007). Elementary teachers teaching for conceptual understanding: Learning from action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 469–495.

    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 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (2005). How to assess NOS and SI. Retrieved June, 2005, from http://www.projectican.com/.

  • Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understanding of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C. (2004). Preservice science teachers’ concerns through classroom observations and student teaching: Special focus on inquiry teaching. Science Educator, 13(1), 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Harwood, H., & Bonner, J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1318–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (1997). Fifteen myths of science. Skeptic, 5, 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (1998). The nature of science in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A. O., Parker, C. A., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 713–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, J., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. (1997). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 171–193). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Education Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. The School Science Review, 82(301), 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puk, T. G., & Haines, J. M. (1999). Are schools prepared to allow beginning teachers to reconceptualize instruction? Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (1994). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: MacMillian.

    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 

  • Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: Creating resources for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 882–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. (2006). “I won’t last three weeks”: Preservice science teachers reflect on their student-teaching experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon, K. J., & Sandoval, P. A. (1997). The seamless field experience model for secondary science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M., & Han, S. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. (2005). Integrating technology and pedagogy: The ideas, the shift and the targets. In S. Rhine & M. Bailey (Eds.), Integrated technologies, innovative learning: Insights from the PT3 program (pp. 199–215). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., & Maher, M. (2007). Preservice teachers and technology integration: Rethinking traditional roles. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 955–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 33(3), 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatto, M. (1998). The influence of teacher education on teachers’ beliefs about purposes of education, roles, and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2004). Teaching secondary school science (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumball, D., & Kerr, P. (1993). University researchers’ inchoate critiques of science teaching: Implications for the content of preservice science teacher education. Science Education, 77, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science educators confront the nature of science debate. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24, 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yung, B., Wong, S., Cheng, M., Hui, C., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking preservice teachers’ changing conceptions of good science teaching: The role of progressive reflection with the same video. Research in Science Education, 37, 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 318–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Instruction and Teacher Education, College of Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Christine Lotter & Jenice Godley

  2. University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Academic IV, A wing, Room 418, Baltimore, MD, 21250, USA

    Jonathan Singer

Authors
  1. Christine Lotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenice Godley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Lotter.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Protocol

  1. 1.

    How do you think students learn best?

  2. 2.

    What do you think are the most important things to emphasize in your teaching? Why?

  3. 3.

    What in your opinion is the nature of science? What makes science different from other disciplines or inquiry? How has your knowledge of NOS changed over the methods classes?

  4. 4.

    Do you think that teaching NOS is important? Why?

  5. 5.

    Did you teach NOS during the pond unit? If yes, how? Why or why not? Did you do enough? Can you elaborate?

  6. 6.

    How will you deal with the NOS when you have your own class?

  7. 7.

    How do you define (or understand) inquiry? Has your views changed over the course of the program?

  8. 8.

    Can you describe an inquiry lesson you taught during the pond unit and why this is inquiry?

  9. 9.

    What constraints, if any, do you have to teaching using inquiry?

  10. 10.

    What was the impact of the unit and class written reflections on your views about teaching and learning?

  11. 11.

    Describe your feelings about the use of the pond to focus the ecology unit at Blythewood.

  12. 12.

    Describe two experiences in the program that most influenced your teaching? Negative or less helpful experiences?

Views of Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire (VOSI)

The following questions are asking for your views related to science and scientific investigations. There are no right or wrong answers.

  1. 1.

    What types of activities do scientists (e.g., biologists, chemists, physicists, earth scientists) do to learn about the natural world? Discuss how scientists (e.g., biologists, chemists, earth scientists) do their work.

  2. 2.

    How do scientists decide what and how to investigate? Describe all the factors you think influence the work of scientists. Be as specific as possible.

  3. 3.

    A person interested in birds looked at hundreds of different types of birds who eat different types of food. He noticed that birds who eat similar types of food, tended to have similar shaped beaks. For example, birds who eat hard shelled nuts have short, strong beaks, and birds who eat insects from tide pools have long, slim beaks. He concluded that there is a relationship between beak shape and the type of food birds eat.

  4. a.

    Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Please explain why or why not.

  5. b.

    Do you consider this person’s investigation to be an experiment? Please explain why or why not.

  6. c.

    Do you think that scientific investigations can follow more than one method? Describe two investigations that follow different methods? Explain how the methods differ and how they can still be considered scientific.

  7. 4a.

    If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

  8. 4b.

    If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow different procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

  9. 4c.

    Does your response to (a) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.

  10. 4d.

    Does your response to (b) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.

  11. 5a.

    What does the word “data” mean in science?

  12. 5b.

    What is involved in data analysis?

  13. 5c.

    Is “data” the same or different from “evidence?” Explain.

About this article

Cite this article

Lotter, C., Singer, J. & Godley, J. The Influence of Repeated Teaching and Reflection on Preservice Teachers’ Views of Inquiry and Nature of Science. J Sci Teacher Educ 20, 553–582 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9144-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9144-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation