Skip to main content

Preservice Science Teachers’ Uses of Inscriptions in Science Teaching

Abstract

This study investigated preservice science teachers’ uses of inscriptions in their peer teaching activities and was guided by the following research questions: (1) What kinds of inscriptions and inscriptional practices do preservice science teachers use in their peer teaching activity? and (2) How and for what purposes do preservice science teachers use inscriptions and inscriptional practices in their peer teaching activity? This study followed a multi-participant case study approach. Video recordings of seven preservice teachers’ lessons were analyzed for inscriptional use. Results indicate that preservice teachers used inscriptions in both pedagogical and normative ways, and the level of abstractness of inscriptions used varied across different science sub-disciplines. Our findings demonstrated that preservice teachers have multiple purposes when using inscriptions and that their purposes differ from scientists’ purposes. Preservice teachers used inscriptions: to convey final form scientific knowledge; to engage students in scientific practice; to make thinking visible; to connect multiple ideas using multiple inscriptions; and to provide data or example from nature. In addition to these purposes, preservice teachers also used inscriptions as formative assessment, to engage students in the lesson and to review at the end of a lesson. We conclude that science topics and the different purposes of the sequences of activities could be responsible for the variety of uses of inscriptions across lessons. In addition, the different uses of inscriptions may impact students’ understandings of scientists’ inscriptional practices. Implications for science teacher educators incorporating inscriptional practices in science teaching methods courses are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

AAAS:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bastide, F. (1990). The Iconography of Scientific Text: Principles of Analysis. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 187–229). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088. doi:10.1002/tea.20086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, Allan., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32. doi:10.2307/1176008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlsen, M. (2009). Reasoning with paper and pencil: The role of inscriptions in student learning of geometric series. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(1), 54–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  8. Duschl, R. A. (1988). Abandoning the scientific legacy of science education. Science Education, 72(1), 51–62. doi:10.1002/sce.3730720105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Forman, E. A., & Ansell, E. (2002). Orchestrating the multiple voices and inscriptions of a mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2), 251–274. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS11,2-3n_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fujimura, J. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and "translation”. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 168–211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  11. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. doi:10.1021/ed076p548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 448–473.

  14. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883:AID-TEA1>3.3.CO;2-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning, 9(2), 105–143. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.informaworld.com/index/785041381.pdf.

  17. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lunsford, E., Melear, C. T., Roth, W. M., Perkins, M., Hickok, L. G., & Carolina, N. (2007). Proliferation of inscriptions and transformations among preservice science teachers engaged in authentic science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 538–564. doi:10.1002/tea.20160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  26. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  27. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35. doi:10.2307/1170689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M., & Bowen, M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Roth, W., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Han, J. Y. (2005). Critical graphicacy: Understanding visual representation practice in school science. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande & kulturella redskap: Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet [Learning & cultural tools. On processes of learning and the collective memory]. Falun: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.

  31. Schwab, J. J. (1960). What do scientists do? Behavior Science, 5(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 37–54). London: Pitman; San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

  33. Star, S. L. (1995). The politics of formal representations: Wizards, gurus, and organizational complexity. In S. L. Star (Ed.), Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology (pp.88–118). Albany: State University of New York Press.

  34. Woolgar, S. (1990). Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 123–152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  35. Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Exploring middle school students’ use of inscriptions in project-based science classrooms. Science Education, 90(5), 852–873. doi:10.1002/sce.20154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Fourth Dei.). Los Angles: Sage Publications, Inc.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arzu Tanis Ozcelik.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Studiocode Window

figurea

Appendix 2

See Table 3.

Table 3 Code table

Appendix 3

See Table 4.

Table 4 Key to read lesson maps

About this article

Cite this article

Tanis Ozcelik, A., McDonald, S.P. Preservice Science Teachers’ Uses of Inscriptions in Science Teaching. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 1103–1132 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9352-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Inscriptions
  • Science teaching
  • Preservice science teacher education
  • Microteaching
  • Case study