Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Inquiry? Primary Teachers’ Objectives in Choosing Inquiry- and Context-Based Instructional Strategies to Stimulate Students’ Science Learning

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies have shown that there is a need for pedagogical content knowledge among science teachers. This study investigates two primary teachers and their objectives in choosing inquiry- and context-based instructional strategies as well as the relation between the choice of instructional strategies and the teachers’ knowledge about of students’ understanding and intended learning outcomes. Content representations created by the teachers and students’ experiences of the enacted teaching served as foundations for the teachers’ reflections during interviews. Data from the interviews were analyzed in terms of the intended, enacted, and experienced purposes of the teaching and, finally, as the relation between intended, enacted, and experienced purposes. Students’ experiences of the teaching were captured through a questionnaire, which was analyzed inductively, using content analysis. The results show that the teachers’ intended teaching objectives were that students would learn about water. During the enacted teaching, it seemed as if the inquiry process was in focus and this was also how many of the students experienced the objectives of the activities. There was a gap between the intended and experienced objectives. Hardly any relation was found between the teachers’ choice of instructional strategies and their knowledge about students’ understanding, with the exception that the teacher who also added drama wanted to support her students’ understanding of the states of water.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teachers’ knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwa: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., & McDonald, J. T. (2006). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the elementary school. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appelton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education (pp. 31–54). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers’ development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: what are they and what are their effects? In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Jusiti, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: towards research-based practice (pp. 165–184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: a synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context‐based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, A., Löfgren, R., & Eriksson, I. (2012). Kemiinnehåll i undervisningen för nybörjare. En studie av hur ämnesinnehållet får konkurrera med målet att få eleverna intresserade av naturvetenskap. [Chemistry content in education for beginners. A study of how the subject content competes with the aim of developing students’ interest in science.]. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 3(2), 146–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education (pp. 515–541). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2007). Science Education Now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Report by a High Level Group on Science Education. Brussels: EC

  • Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2013). Examining beliefs and practices of four effective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 981–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Alonzo, A. C. (2010). The role of content in inquiry-based elementary science lessons: an analysis of teacher beliefs and enactment. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 425–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: reforming science teaching science in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science, 53(3), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Understanding teacher development. London: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves & M.G. Fullan. (Eds.,). Understanding teacher development. London: Teachers College Press.

  • Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B.-S., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of science teachers in two countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 577–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualization, de-contextualization, re-contextualization—a science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education—implications from science education research about orientations, strategies and assessment (pp. 69–82). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, A.-M. (2012). Undersökande arbetssätt i NO-undervisningen i grundskolans tidigare årskurser. [Inquiry-based approaches in science education at elementary school.] Doctoral thesis, Stockholm: Stockholm University.

  • Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., Hong, Z., Yang, K., & Lee, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative reflections on teachers’ inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3095–3116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, B. (2003). Lust att lära naturvetenskap och teknik? En longitudinell studie om vägen till gymnasiet. [Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school]. (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 196). Doctoral thesis, Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

  • Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J. J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012.) Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Retrieved 9th of May, 2015 from https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1219-understanding-and-developing-science-teachers-pedagogical-content-knowledge.pdf

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, L., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Ling, L. M. (2007). Learning from ‘the learning study’. Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning, 14(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Abrahams, I. (2009). Practical work: making it more effective. Downloaded from http://amber.bonhoeffer.nl/~peter/Download/Practica%20Onderzoekend%20Leren/Making%20it%20more%20effective.pdf. Accessed 5 October 2016.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P. (2008). Recognizing the needs—student teachers’ learning to teach from teaching. NorDiNa, 4(1), 284–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P. (2009). From lesson plan to new comprehension: exploring student teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in learning about teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 239–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P. (2012). What do we know and where do we go? Formative assessment in developing student teachers’ professional learning of teaching science. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(2), 188–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 699–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. H. (2001). Factors contributing to exchange amongst preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 86, 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prestridge, S. J. (2014). Reflective blogging as part of ICT professional development to support pedagogical change. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, F. (2010). Practitioner research and in-service university courses: theoretical concepts and evaluation. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Practitioner research: teachers’ investigation in classroom teaching (pp. 51–66). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. J. (2014). Primary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 361–394). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simoncini, K. M., Lasen, M., & Rocco, S. (2014). Professional dialogue, reflective practice and teacher research: enhancing early childhood pre-service teachers in collegial dialogue bout curriculum innovation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolowska, D., de Meyere, J., Folmer, E., Rovsek, B., & Peeters, W. (2014). Balancing the needs between training for future scientists and broader societal needs—SECURE project research on mathematics, science and technology curricula and their implementation. Science Education International, 25(1), 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, S., & Goodrum, D. (1990). How confident are primary school teachers in teaching science? Research in Science Education, 20, 300–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Susanne Walan

  2. Science Education Department of Teacher Education Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden

    Pernilla Nilsson

  3. Department of Health Sciences|, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

    Birgitta Mc Ewen

Authors
  1. Susanne Walan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pernilla Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Birgitta Mc Ewen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Walan.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview one—content representations (CoRe). Linked to each question is a big idea.

  1. 1.

    What do you expect students to learn about this specific knowledge?

  2. 2.

    Why is this important for students to learn?

  3. 3.

    What more do you know about this idea (knowledge you don’t consider needed for students)?

  4. 4.

    What difficulties could occur in connection with the education of this content, i. e., what problems could arise in the educational situation?

  5. 5.

    What is your knowledge about students’ conceptions/misconceptions in the subject and how do these influence your teaching?

  6. 6.

    What other factors could influence your teaching in this field?

  7. 7.

    Which teaching strategies will you use and for what reasons have you chosen them?

  8. 8.

    In what ways do you think you could facilitate students’ comprehension?

  9. 9.

    What ways will you use to examine if students have learnt what you expect them to have learnt?

Interview two

  1. 1.

    Was it a difficult task to find ‘big ideas’? How did you decide on them?

  2. 2.

    Why is it important for students to learn this?

  3. 3.

    What are your thoughts about your own subject knowledge? Is there anything you feel you have not grasped when students worked with it?

  4. 4.

    What difficulties did you experience that the students had when you worked with the subject? Did it correspond to what you had expected, did you avoid the problems, were there others instead?

  5. 5.

    Before the work started you told us that planning inquiries was fairly new to the students. How did it work?

  6. 6.

    Did you use drama as planned? How did it work? Did the students understand the subject better because of the drama? In that case, how can you know?

  7. 7.

    As teachers, you choose the context. Was it a suitable context, were the students engaged as you had thought?

  8. 8.

    In what way did the inquiry part of the study work? Was it appropriate for enhancing student learning in this area? If so, why or why not?

  9. 9.

    Feedback afterwards—how did it work? Did the students understand the purpose of the investigation?

  10. 10.

    Why did you use the IC-BaSE model in this area? Why did you add drama?

  11. 11.

    Did the students learn what you had expected? Was it difficult to assess their work?

  12. 12.

    In what way do you think about the CoRe today? Is there anything you would like to change if you should use the CoRe again? If so, what would you like to change?

  13. 13.

    How do you like to use the CoRe? Was there anything new to you? If so, what?

  14. 14.

    Did you have support from each other in this work? Had you wished for more teachers to discuss with? If so, why?

Interview three

  1. 1.

    When you constructed the CoRe, the first ‘big idea’ was that students should understand the phases of water.

    1. a.

      When you analyse how students have grasped the work, do you think they have understood the phases of water?

    2. b.

      In which way is this clear?

    3. c.

      If they have understood, how do you know?

  2. 2.

    In the CoRe, the second ‘big idea’ was that students should understand the properties of ice.

    1. a.

      When you analyse how students have grasped the work, do you think they have understood the properties of ice?

    2. b.

      Which properties should the students understand?

  3. 3.

    In the CoRe, the third ‘big idea’ was that the students should understand the structure of ice.

    1. a.

      When you analyse how students have grasped the work, do you think they have understood the structure of ice?

    2. b.

      Which aspects of the structure of ice should the students understand? How is this seen?

    3. c.

      Was it the structure of ice or the different phases of water you meant?

  4. 4.

    If you were to redo the task, would you choose the same ‘big ideas’ coupled with the context ‘the non-slippery school yard,’ as seen from students’ responses on how they perceived the purpose of the activities?

    1. a.

      If so, why or why not?

    2. b.

      If you should choose other ‘big ideas’, which would they be?

  5. 5.

    If you were to redo the context ‘the non-slippery school yard,’ do you think you would use the same learning activities, i.e., the IC-BaSE model in combination with drama, or would you choose other or more activities for students to learn the three ‘big ideas’ you had planned?

    1. a.

      If so, why or why not?

    2. b.

      If you were to choose other activities, which would they be?

  6. 6.

    In what way do you think about the phases of water? What determines the different phases?

  7. 7.

    In what way do you think about the properties of ice? Which are the properties of ice and why has ice those properties?

  8. 8.

    In what way do you think about the structure of ice?

Questions to students in open questionnaire

  1. 1.

    What have you investigated?

  2. 2.

    What were your results?

  3. 3.

    Why did you perform this investigation?

  4. 4.

    What do you think you were supposed to learn?

  5. 5.

    What do you think you have learned?

  6. 6.

    Do you think this can be useful to know? If so, why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walan, S., Nilsson, P. & Ewen, B.M. Why Inquiry? Primary Teachers’ Objectives in Choosing Inquiry- and Context-Based Instructional Strategies to Stimulate Students’ Science Learning. Res Sci Educ 47, 1055–1074 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9540-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9540-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation