Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Failure of Inquiry: Preparing Science Teachers with an Authentic Investigation

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This mixed methodology action research study examined the impact of a curricular innovation designed to provide an authentic science inquiry learning experience for 15 secondary science teacher candidates enrolled in a master’s level initial certification program. The class investigated the question “How can peak autumn color in New England be determined?” The project goals were to help teacher candidates acquire the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary to foster learning through inquiry in their respective content areas as defined by teacher preparation professional standards. Though the teacher candidates were successful at identifying a likely answer to the question, the project failed to achieve its learning goals. Reasons for the project’s failure and implications for the science education community are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This curricular innovation and subsequent research was supported through a grant from the Faculty Center for Teaching at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

  2. For a list of relevant National Science Teacher Association Standards for Science Teacher Preparation (NSTA 2003) addressed in this course and the complete list of course learning objectives for teacher candidates see Appendix 1.

  3. To accommodate the increased focus on inquiry, an interview with a science teacher was eliminated from the syllabus and added to another required course in the program.

  4. The University of Massachusetts Lowell’s Graduate School of Education Initial Certification Program is approved by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).

  5. It should be noted that two of the biology teacher candidates expressed a strong background in environmental and forestry science.

  6. This last group had to complete an online research course for the ethical aspects of research.

  7. See Appendix 2 for a description of this pre-assessment instrument.

  8. Due to one candidate absent from the last class, only 14 post-assessments were conducted.

  9. Student pseudonyms are used in this paper to protect anonymity.

  10. It should be noted that instructional practices associated with inquiry are not necessarily the same as those associated with teaching the nature of science (NOS). In the M.Ed. program, one entire course is dedicated to understanding the NOS as it pertains to science education. Roughly a third of this group of teacher candidates had taken the nature of science course. The inquiry project allowed for exploration of how inquiry relates to the nature of science, but explicit instruction regarding this issue was limited so as not to duplicate the NOS course.

  11. There were five major assignments for this course including lesson plan writing, safety and ethics in science education, science education issue research, online discourse, and the inquiry project.

  12. The online discussions were particularly rich with teacher candidates posting nearly 400 quality reflections, comments, and ideas addressing a wide range of science education topics.

  13. In the fall of 2006, Massachusetts released a revised version of its Science Frameworks (MDE 2006). The new document has an increased emphasis on the knowledge and skills associated with inquiry. If the state assessments change to address this focus on inquiry, teacher practices might also change.

  14. See Minner and Levy’s Inquiry Synthesis Project for the National Science Foundation for a in depth analysis and discussion about the value of inquiry instruction in science class (Minner and Levy 2007).

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprint for reform: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berber, B., & Brovey, A. (2001). Integrating technology and inquiry pedagogy: Needs-based professional development. In: Annual proceedings of selected research and development [and] practice papers presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED470154.

  • Comeaux, P. (2000). Using collaborative inquiry and interactive technologies in an environmental science project for middle school teachers: A description and analysis. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 1788–1793). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ediger, M. (2001). Assessing: Inquiry learning in science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454274).

  • Flick, L. (1998). Standards for the education of teachers in science: Inquiry. Michigan State University, Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Inquiry.htm.

  • Gilmer, P. J. (1999). Teachers learning inquiry through scientific research. In T. L. Kielborn & P. J. Gilmer (Eds.), Meaningful science: Teachers doing inquiry and teaching science (pp. 11–26). Tallahassee, FL: SERVE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1995). A look at grounded theory: 1984–1994. In B. G. Glaser (Ed.), Grounded theory, 1984–1994 (pp. 3–17). Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haefner, L. B., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2001). Engaging in science as inquiry: Prospective elementary teachers’ learning in the context of an innovative life science course. In: Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  • Hassard, J., & Dias, M. (2000). Experiences in a constructivist community of practice: An inquiry into teems–a science teacher education program. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://scied.gsu.edu/Hassard/Papers/narst00.html.

  • Haury, D. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359048).

  • Homack, S. R. (2001). Understanding what ANOVA post hoc tests are, really. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Jarrett, D. (1997). Inquiry strategies for science and mathematics learning: It’s just good teaching. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413188).

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 55.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Malden, MA. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.doc.

  • Minner, D., & Levy, A. (2007). Impact of inquiry science instruction. Center for Science Education at Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://cse.edc.org/products/inquirysynth/.

  • Moscovici, H. (1999). Shifting from activity mania to inquiry science—what do we (science educators) need to do? In: Proceedings of the annual international conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 582–590). Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED421363.

  • National Commission on Mathematics and Science. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the national commission on mathematics and science teaching for the 21st century. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 25, 2008 from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/NCATE-NSTAStandards2003.pdf.

  • 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: Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Academy Press.

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf.

  • North Central Regional Laboratory. (2005). Action research. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3act.htm.

  • O’Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An overview of the methodological approach of action research]. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and practice of action research]. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. (English version) Retrieved February 29, 2008, from: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html.

  • Radford, D. L., & Ramsey, L. L. (1996). Experiencing scientific inquiry and pedagogy: A model for inservice training for science education reform. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

  • 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 

  • Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, B., & Ogonowski, M. (1998). From knowledge to knowing: An inquiry into teacher learning in science. Newton, MA: Center for the Development of Teaching at the Education Development Center, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, B., Fast, J., Shepardson, D., Harbor, J., & Boone, W. (2004). Students’ perceptions of environmental-based inquiry experiences. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, D. J., & Stepanek, J. (Eds.). (2001). Taking it outside: Science inquiry. Northwest Teacher, 3(1).

  • Windschitl, M. (2000). Preservice science teachers and the independent inquiry experience. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Yip, J. (2002). Two short notes on statistics. Porcupine! Online Journal, 25. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.hku.hk/ecology/porcupine/por25/25-misc-stat.htm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

    David Lustick

Authors
  1. David Lustick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lustick.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 2.

Table 2 Program goals for M.Ed., curriculum and instruction
Full size table

Learning Goals

  1. 1.

    Address misconceptions about science and the scientific enterprise by participating in an authentic inquiry investigation.

  2. 2.

    Develop knowledge, skills and dispositions for becoming a resourceful and effective science educator.

  3. 3.

    Improve understanding, attitudes, and beliefs about scientific inquiry as a viable means of fostering learning in students

  4. 4.

    Foster effective standards based lesson planning based upon a learning cycle of Exploration, Explanation, Experimentation, Elaboration, and Evaluation.

  5. 5.

    Appreciate the important role of learners’ understandings while helping them change towards deeper and more accurate conceptions of the natural world.

  6. 6.

    Reinforce procedures, attitudes, and habits of mind that promote science safety and ethical research.

  7. 7.

    Learn to use the students’ interests, experiences, and knowledge so as to make science content accessible.

  8. 8.

    Explore a range of effective teaching actions, strategies, and methodologies including advanced technology.

Appendix 2

Inquiry Assessment Instrument

For items 1–14 circle the number which reflects the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. A ‘1’ indicates that you strongly disagree while a ‘5’ indicates that you strongly agree.

  1. 1.

    Scientific inquiry should be part of the learning experience in secondary education.

  2. 2.

    Scientific inquiry is achieved by traditional ‘cookbook’ style laboratory investigations.

  3. 3.

    Scientific inquiry is time consuming.

  4. 4.

    Scientific inquiry takes place when students work in a structured laboratory or field environment.

  5. 5.

    Scientific inquiry is an inefficient way of teaching.

  6. 6.

    The benefits of teaching with inquiry out weigh the disadvantages.

  7. 7.

    One cannot teach with inquiry when high stakes exams in science are administered by the state.

  8. 8.

    Scientific inquiry requires substantial investment in apparatus, equipment, materials, reagents, or other laboratory supplies.

  9. 9.

    As a result of scientific inquiry, students may come to an incorrect conclusion.

  10. 10.

    Scientific inquiry is not an effective means of teaching because students like to be told what to do.

  11. 11.

    Students do not like it when they are unsure what the ‘correct’ answer should be.

  12. 12.

    I have extensive experience learning through inquiry at the high school level.

  13. 13.

    I have extensive experience learning through inquiry at the post-secondary level.

  14. 14.

    Scientific inquiry is difficult to use because it is easy for students to get out of control.

Answer questions 15–18 in the space provided.

  1. 15.

    How do you define scientific inquiry?

  2. 16.

    Describe the extent to which scientific inquiry was used in your science classes between 9th-grade and graduation from high school:

    1. a.

      Not at all

    2. b.

      Less than 4 times

    3. c.

      Between 5 and 10 times

    4. d.

      More than 10 times

    5. e.

      All the time.

  3. 17.

    Describe the extent to which scientific inquiry was used during your postsecondary science education:

    1. a.

      Not at all

    2. b.

      Less than 4 times

    3. c.

      Between 5 and 10 times

    4. d.

      More than 10 times

    5. e.

      All the time.

  4. 18.

    Describe a learning experience you have had that comes closest to fulfilling your conception of scientific inquiry. Please identify the subject area, course title, grade level, topic of study, what you did, what you learned, and why the experience represents your idea of scientific inquiry.

About this article

Cite this article

Lustick, D. The Failure of Inquiry: Preparing Science Teachers with an Authentic Investigation. J Sci Teacher Educ 20, 583–604 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9149-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9149-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation