Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open Guided Inquiry Laboratory in Physics Teacher Education

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This study has investigated the use of an open guided inquiry laboratory course in which a group of pre-service teachers planned and implemented practical work for school purposes. A total of 32 pre-service teachers (physics, mathematics, and chemistry majors) participated in the study. Each participant wrote a reflective essay after completing the course, and three pre-service teachers were interviewed four times during the course. The results show that the use of an open guided inquiry environment provides support for pre-service teachers to discover the limits of their understanding of subject matter knowledge, allowing them to construct knowledge in a different kind of environment from any they had possessed previously, and helping them to understand the possibilities of practical work in teaching. In the course of developing their competence in these aspects, pre-service teachers also gain an understanding of various aspects of teachers’ knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What teachers say about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, D. (2008). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielsson, A. T., & Linder, C. (2009). Learning in physics by doing laboratory work: towards a new conceptual framework. Gender and Education, 21(2), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., & Van Der Valk, A. E. (2007). Science teachers’ PCK and teaching practice: learning to scaffold students’ open-inquiry learning. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from Science Education Research (pp. 107–118). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Chemical Education Research, 76(4), 543–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, L. B., McArthur, J., & Van Hook, S. (2004). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of an inquiry-based physics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing, the art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361–376). California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • France, B., & Haigh, M. (2009). The pedagogy of practical work. In S. Ritchie (Ed.), The World of Science Education: Handbook of Research in Australasia (pp. 217–234). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Retrieved from http://www.acds.edu.au/docs/teachsci.pdf.

  • Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Lab work. SET: Research information for teachers, number one. Canberra: Australian council for education research.

  • Hirvonen, P. E., & Viiri, J. (2002). Physics student teachers’ ideas about the objectives of practical work. Science & Education, 11, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 11–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Simon, S., Black, P., Fairbrother, R., & Watson, J. R. (1992). Open work in science: Development of investigations in schools. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.

  • Kansanen, P. (2009). The curious affair of pedagogical content knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 3(2), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurki-Suonio, K. (2011). Principles supporting the perceptional teaching of physics: A “practical teaching philosophy”. Science & Education, 20, 211–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavonen, J., Byman, R., Juuti, K., Meisalo, V., & Uitto, A. (2005). Pupil Interest in physics: A survey in Finland. Nordina, 1(2), 72–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Constantinou, C. P. (2000). Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry. Physics Education, 35(6), 411–416.

    Article  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(5), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, A. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2010). Preservice and inservice teachers' challenges in the planning of practical work in physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(4), 393–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakedi, A., & Laron, D. (2004). Between idealism and pragmatism: a case study of student teachers’ pedagogical development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 693–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillema, H. H. (1998). Stability and change in student teachers’ beliefs about teaching. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 4(2), 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Mathematics, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Ville Nivalainen, Mervi A. Asikainen & Pekka E. Hirvonen

Authors
  1. Ville Nivalainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mervi A. Asikainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pekka E. Hirvonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ville Nivalainen.

About this article

Cite this article

Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M.A. & Hirvonen, P.E. Open Guided Inquiry Laboratory in Physics Teacher Education. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 449–474 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9316-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9316-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation