Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Cite this article

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, 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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

  • 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adelphi University, 1 South Avenue, Garden City, NY, 11530, USA

    Emily J. S. Kang

  2. Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9490, USA

    Julie A. Bianchini

  3. College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 241 Chambers Building, University Park, PA, 16802-3205, USA

    Gregory J. Kelly

Authors
  1. Emily J. S. Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie A. Bianchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory J. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9317-9

Keywords

search

Navigation