Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Critique and Adapt Inquiry-based Instructional Materials

Journal of Science Teacher Education volume 21, pages 81–102 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Current standards emphasize student engagement with inquiry practices. However, implementing inquiry instruction is a formidable challenge for teachers as they often lack models for using and adapting inquiry-based instructional materials. Teacher education programs can provide scaffolded contexts for developing teachers’ ability to critique, adapt, and design inquiry-based materials. We describe a qualitative study of 17 preservice teachers enrolled in two consecutive science methods courses. The study characterizes the development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and revise instructional materials. Our findings suggest that teachers improved in their ability to critique lesson plans and to suggest revisions that would make them more inquiry oriented. In particular, the teachers’ critiques and revisions increased in sophistication after engaging in instructional design activities during the second methods course.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. Note that not all the subcategories were of different quality. Sometimes the subcategories merely represented different aspects that can be critiqued, for example, the Assessment category there were four sub-ideas (formative, individual accountability, written, and measures learning) that did not necessarily represent a less or more sophisticated critique.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. L., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, E. (2004). Synergy research and knowledge integration: Customizing activities around stream ecology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support changes in practice? Research report, Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools. Northwestern University, Chicago.

  • Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1379–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90, 348–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., & Van Dreil, J. H. (2001). Developing preservice teachers’ content knowledge and PCK of models and modeling. Paper presented at annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description towards an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). Curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teacher learning? Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G. (2001). Models and PCK: Their relevance for practicing and preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Teachers’ views on models and modeling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1273–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modeling: Promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104, 273–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatics controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Bae, M. J., Covitt, B., Enfield, M., et al. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use science curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92, 345–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., & Gwekwerere, Y. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91, 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J. J., & Finegold, M. (1995). Models in physics: Perceptions held by final-year prospective physical science teachers studying at South African Universities. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 621–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 538–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Caught in the cycle of reproducing folk theories of “Inquiry”: How preservice teachers continue the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigations: Can preservice instruction foster teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43, 783–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 310–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research described herein was supported by a research fellowship from the Knowles Science Teaching Foundation. We also wish to thank Augusto Macalalag and the preservice teachers who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Ravit Golan Duncan, Vicky Pilitsis & Melissa Piegaro

  2. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA

    Ravit Golan Duncan

Authors
  1. Ravit Golan Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vicky Pilitsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa Piegaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravit Golan Duncan.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview protocol

Task II-Critique:

Show the interviewee the lesson plan. Have them read it through silently.

Once they are done ask:

  1. 1.

    What are the three things you feel are good about the lesson?

  2. 2.

    What are the three things you feel are problematic (chose the most problematic ones if there are more than three). Why are they problematic?

  3. 3.

    Is this lesson an inquiry lesson? Explain your answer.

    1. a.

      Again, ask “anything else” before moving onto make sure all aspects of why this is or is not an inquiry lesson have been mentioned.

  4. 4.

    Suggest one or two changes that would make it more inquiry.

    1. a.

      Make sure they explain why those changes will make it more inquiry.

About this article

Cite this article

Duncan, R.G., Pilitsis, V. & Piegaro, M. Development of Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Critique and Adapt Inquiry-based Instructional Materials. J Sci Teacher Educ 21, 81–102 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9153-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9153-8

Keywords

search

Navigation