Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 157–177 | Cite as

Student-Generated Scientific Inquiry for Elementary Education Undergraduates: Course Development, Outcomes and Implications

  • Irene Salter
  • Leslie Atkins
Article

Abstract

While some researchers have argued for science classrooms that embrace open-inquiry by engaging students in doing science as scientists do (cf. National Research Council [NRC] 1996; Driver et al. in Sci Educ 84:287–312, 2000; Windschitl et al. in Sci Educ 87(1):112–143, 2008), others have argued that open-inquiry is impractical, ineffective, and perhaps even counter-productive towards promoting normative scientific ideas (cf. Kirschner et al. in Educ Psychol 41(2):75–86, 2006; Settlage in J Sci Teach Educ 18:461–467, 2007). One of the challenges in informing the debate on this issue is the scarcity of well-documented courses that engage students in open-inquiry characteristic of scientific research. This paper describes the design, implementation, and outcomes of such a course for undergraduates planning on becoming elementary teachers. The goal of the class was to immerse future teachers in authentic, open-inquiry (without specific learning goals related to scientific concepts) in hopes that students would come away with a deeper understanding of the nature of science (NOS) and improved attitudes towards science. Data collected from a variety of sources indicate that an authentic, open-inquiry experience is feasible to implement in an undergraduate setting, gives students a more sophisticated NOS understanding, improves students’ attitudes towards science and open-inquiry, and changes the way they intend to teach science in their future classrooms.

Keywords

Scientific inquiry Authentic inquiry Open inquiry Preservice elementary teachers Nature of science Attitudes towards science 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our students, in particular our undergraduate research assistants Vanessa Quevedo and Rachel Boyd. This work was funded through the National Science Foundation Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program, Grant No. 0837058. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerson, V., Morrison, J., & McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belcher, J. (2003). Lessons learned from TEAL. The MIT Faculty Newsletter, 123(56), p. 5. Retrieved from http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N56/belcher56.56c.html.
  6. Bell, R., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Ford, M. (2008). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallagher, J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graesser, A., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.Google Scholar
  16. Halloun, I. (2001). Student views about science: A comparative survey. Beirut, Lebanon: Educational Research Center.Google Scholar
  17. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1996). Views about sciences story. Saint Louis, MO: Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  18. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, M. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jarrett, O. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, M., & Carter, G. (2008). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, G., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lederman, N. (2008). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Lustick, D. (2009). The failure of inquiry: Preparing science teachers with an authentic investigation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 583–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Mathematics and Science Teacher Education Program. (1998). MASTEP Survey of Students in funded courses. Retrieved from http://www.oerl.sri.com/instruments/te/studattsurv/instr81.html.
  30. McComas, W., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melear, C., Goodlaxson, J., Warne, T., & Hickok, L. (2000). Teaching preservice science teachers how to do science: Responses to the research experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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(5), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Morrison, J. (2008). Individual inquiry investigations in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 13–21.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas about science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Pugh, K., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K., Stewart, V., & Manzey, C. (2010). Teaching for transformative experiences and conceptual change: A case study and evaluation of a high school biology teacher. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 273–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salter, I., & Atkins, L. (2011). Student-generated scientific inquiry: Rethinking science notebooks. Minneapolis, MN: Experiential session presented at the annual conference of the Association for Science Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  43. Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schwartz, R., & Crawford, B. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science (pp. 331–355). The Netherlands: Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science.Google Scholar
  46. Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shapiro, B. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that does not yet know”. Science Education, 80(5), 535–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 374–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Zee, E., Hammer, D., Bell, M., Roy, P., & Peter, J. (2005). Learning and teaching science as inquiry: A case study of elementary school teachers’ investigations of light. Science Education, 89(6), 1007–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Varelas, M., House, R., & Wenzel, S. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and science teacher identities. Science Education, 89, 492–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Varma, T., Volkmann, M., & Hanuscin, D. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of their understanding of inquiry and inquiry-based science pedagogy: Influence of an elementary science education methods course and a science field experience. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watters, J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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(5), 481–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science EducationCalifornia State UniversityChicoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsCalifornia State UniversityChicoUSA

Personalised recommendations