Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shifting to a Student-Centered Science Classroom: An Exploration of Teacher and Student Changes in Perceptions and Practices

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

In this case study, an exemplary seventh grade science teacher’s beliefs, planning decisions, implementation, and student reactions to her student-centered methods were examined over a 4-week unit on genetics. This situation was unique because the teacher was new to the profession and her students had no prior experience with student-centered methods. The teacher designed a learning environment where students were expected to take responsibility for research, but initially students felt unsure about the tasks they were assigned and sought out more structure. As the teacher began to scaffold the material, a balance was achieved that resulted in student engagement during the unit. Findings from the case study can provide teacher educators with factors promoting skillful implementation of student-centered classrooms.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1046–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R., & Lawson, A. E. (2001). Relationships between effective inquiry use and the development of scientific reasoning skills in college biology labs. National Science Foundation Research Report. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93, 322–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1–14). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constenson, K., & Lawson, A. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48, 150–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L. (1991). Theory change in science: Strategies from Mendelian genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deboer, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 17–35). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 83–106). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Worsham, M. E. (2006). Classroom management for secondary teachers (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B. (2004). Developing understanding of scientific inquiry in secondary students. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 157–172). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (2001). Critically considering science inquiry. Science Scope, 24(7), 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larochelle, M., & Desautels, J. (1991). The epistemological turn in science education: The return of the actor. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 155–175). Keil, AL: Institute for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science. In L. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301–318). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2004). The knowledge building enterprises in science and elementary school science classrooms. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 105–130). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (1999). Model based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 84, 490–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, W. M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in non-major biology: An interpretive study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 986–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. S., & Mignano, A. (2003). Elementary classroom management: Lessons from research and practice (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 938–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, 4400 University Dr. MSN 4B3, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Erin E. Peters

Authors
  1. Erin E. Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin E. Peters.

Appendix

Appendix

Semi-Structured Interview Protocols

Teacher Participant Pre-Observation Interview Protocol

  1. 1.

    How would you describe the nature of science? Habits of mind in science?

  2. 2.

    When did you first learn about the nature of science?

  3. 3.

    Do you think it is important for students to learn these ideas?

  4. 4.

    If so, give some examples of how you teach the nature of science in the classroom.

  5. 5.

    Do your resource materials help you teach the nature of science?

  6. 6.

    Do you think your students are able to understand the nature of science? Give some examples of why you might think this.

  7. 7.

    How would you describe inquiry science?

  8. 8.

    When did you first learn about inquiry science?

  9. 9.

    Give some examples from your class illustrating an inquiry science lesson.

  10. 10.

    Do your resource materials help you teach inquiry science?

  11. 11.

    Do you think your students are able to understand inquiry science? Give some examples of why you might think this.

Teacher Participant Mid- and Post-Observation Interview Script

  1. 1.

    Reflecting on the lessons I observed, in what ways did you plan to teach inquiry?

  2. 2.

    Reflecting on the lessons I observed, in what ways did you plan to teach the nature of science?

  3. 3.

    Can you give specific examples of when you taught inquiry in the observed lessons?

  4. 4.

    Can you give specific examples of when you taught the nature of science in the observed lessons?

  5. 5.

    How did you use your resource materials to help you plan for inquiry and the nature of science?

  6. 6.

    How well do you think your students understand the nature of science from these lessons? The science content?

Student Participant Focus Group Script

  1. 1.

    What was the topic of your last science class?

  2. 2.

    How did you think like a scientist in that lesson?

  3. 3.

    How did you act like a scientist in that lesson?

  4. 4.

    How do you think science class is different from English, history, or math class?

About this article

Cite this article

Peters, E.E. Shifting to a Student-Centered Science Classroom: An Exploration of Teacher and Student Changes in Perceptions and Practices. J Sci Teacher Educ 21, 329–349 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9178-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9178-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation