Crossing the Border from Science Student to Science Teacher: Preservice Teachers’ Views and Experiences Learning to Teach Inquiry

Abstract

Preservice science teachers face numerous challenges in understanding and teaching science as inquiry. Over the course of their teacher education program, they are expected to move from veteran science students with little experience learning their discipline through inquiry instruction to beginning science teachers adept at implementing inquiry in their own classrooms. In this study, we used Aikenhead’s (Sci Educ 81: 217–238, 1997, Science Educ 85:180–188, 2001) notion of border crossing to describe this transition preservice teachers must make from science student to science teacher. We examined what one cohort of eight preservice secondary science teachers said, did, and wrote as they both conducted a two-part inquiry investigation and designed an inquiry lesson plan. We conducted two types of qualitative analyses. One, we drew from Costa (Sci Educ 79: 313–333, 1995) to group our preservice teacher participants into one of four types of potential science teachers. Two, we identified successes and struggles in preservice teachers’ attempts to negotiate the cultural border between veteran student and beginning teacher. In our implications, we argue that preservice teachers could benefit from explicit opportunities to navigate the border between learning and teaching science; such opportunities could deepen their conceptions of inquiry beyond those exclusively fashioned as either student or teacher.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a First Nations Cross-Cultural Science and Technology Curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Students’ ease in crossing cultural borders into school science. Science Education, 85, 180–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brand, B. R., & Glasson, G. E. (2004). Crossing cultural borders into science teaching: Early life experiences, racial and ethnic identities, and believes about diversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 119–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlsen, W. S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar science content. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carter, L. (2010). The armchair at the borders: The “messy” ideas of borders and border epistemologies within multicultural science education scholarship. Science Education, 94, 428–447.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chapman, O. L. (2001). White paper: A description of Calibrated Peer Review. Los Angeles: UCLA. http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu.

  11. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world”: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79, 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2005, February) Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Plenary paper for inquiry conference on developing a consensus research agenda, New Brunswick, NJ.

  16. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gee, J. P. (2001). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy? In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 525–544). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. (2007). Classroom interaction, situated learning. In M. Martin-Jones, A.M. de Mejia & N. H. Homberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 3) Discourse and Education, 1–12. Berlin: Springer.

  19. Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations: A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161–205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 755–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 443–469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  24. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. A. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 137–157). New York: Springer.

  25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Metz, M. H. (2001). Intellectual border crossing in graduate education: A report from the field. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  29. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national standards in science education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds—negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 224–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M. K., & Woszczyna, C. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 247–293.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Trautmann, N. (2009). Designing peer review for pedagogical success. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Krasny, M. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2000). Integrated inquiry. The Science Teacher, 9, 52–55.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Krasny, M. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2001a). Assessing toxic risk: Student edition. National Science Teacher Association.

  41. Trautmann, N. M., Carlsen, W. S., Krasny, M. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2001b). Assessing toxic risk: Teachers guide. National Science Teacher Association.

  42. Trumbull, D., & Kerr, P. (1993). University researchers’ inchoate critiques of science teaching: Implications for the content of pre-service science teacher education. Science Education, 77, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The impact of preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 109–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily J. S. Kang.

About this article

Cite this article

Kang, E.J.S., Bianchini, J.A. & Kelly, G.J. Crossing the Border from Science Student to Science Teacher: Preservice Teachers’ Views and Experiences Learning to Teach Inquiry. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 427–447 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9317-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Inquiry
  • Border crossing
  • Preservice science teacher education