Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Articles in The American Biology Teacher for Essential Features of Inquiry Representation

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

Abstract

Most studies on inquiry have focused on student outcomes, teachers’ conceptions of inquiry, implementation of inquiry in science classrooms, and inquiry coverage in science textbooks. Little is known about the nature of inquiry representation in science practitioner journals that serve as sources of inquiry science activities for many science teachers, science teacher educators, college instructors, and informal science practitioners. Therefore, this study examined the nature of inquiry representation in the articles that were published in The American Biology Teacher from 1998 to 2015. The study also sought to find out if there was a difference in inquiry representation between the articles that were written by teachers and college instructors. The nature of inquiry representation in the articles was determined by establishing the extent to which six essential features of inquiry—question, evidence, analysis, explain, connect, and communicate—were addressed in the articles. Results showed that most essential features of inquiry were adequately represented in the articles analyzed. However, most science activities did not have investigative questions to guide the inquiry process. We also found a significant difference in inquiry representation between the articles written by biology teachers and college instructors. Teachers addressed more essential features of inquiry in the articles than college instructors. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the degree of student-directedness inquiry in the articles written by the teachers and college instructors. Overall, there was more partial inquiry than full inquiry representation in the articles analyzed. Implications of the findings and recommendations are discussed.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldahmash, A. H., Mansour, N. S., Alshamrani, S. M., & Almohi, S. (2016). An analysis of activities in Saudi Arabian middle school science textbooks and workbooks for the inclusion of essential features of inquiry. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 879–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998-2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asshoff, R., & Roth, O. (2011). Fostering students’ inquiry skills: developmental time & offspring rates of flour beetles. The American Biology Teacher, 73(4), 232–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydın, S. Ö. (2015). Considering the role and nature of the scientist: the case of Darwin and evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 77(2), 94–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. P., & Jones, C. B. (2006). FISH-ing for genes: modeling fluorescence in situ hybridization. The American Biology Teacher, 68(4), 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. R. (2012). A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briju, B. J., & Wyatt, S. E. (2015). Grocery store genetics: a PCR-based genetics lab that links genotype to phenotype. The American Biology Teacher, 77(3), 211–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanile, M. F., Lederman, N. G., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Mendelian genetics as a platform for teaching about nature of science and scientific inquiry: the value of textbooks. Science & Education, 24(1-2), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., Shemwell, J. T., & Young, A. M. (2016). Over reported and misunderstood? A study of teachers’ reported enactment and knowledge of inquiry-based science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 934–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. C., & Mathis, P. M. (2000). Modeling mitosis & meiosis: a problem-solving activity. The American Biology Teacher, 204–206.

  • Cohen J, (1960) A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1), 37–46

  • Cowles, E. & Wellner, K (2015). Cancer. The American Biology Teacher, 77 (1), 79-80

  • Davenport, K. D., Milks, K. J., & Van Tassell, R. (2015). Investigating tree thinking & ancestry with cladograms. The American Biology Teacher, 77(3), 198–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, J. (2012). Investigating the influence of karrikins on seed germination. The American Biology Teacher, 74(5), 324–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, J., & Whitlock, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledge in the life sciences classroom: put on your De Bono hats! The American Biology Teacher, 71(4), 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutch, C. E. (2001). Microbial contamination of chicken wings an open-ended laboratory project. The American Biology Teacher, 63(4), 262–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, J., Mahdi, A., & O’Reily, J. (2013). Investigating the potential of Irish primary school textbooks in supporting inquiry-based science education (IBSE). International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1513–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, M. C. (2001). Biology today: where iiology? The American Biology Teacher, 63(6), 442–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, C., Sabel, J., & Zangori, L. (2015). Integrating Life Science Content & Instructional Methods in Elementary Teacher Education. The American Biology Teacher, 77(9), 651-657.

  • Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2009). Bacteria buster: testing antibiotic properties of silver nanoparticles. The American Biology Teacher, 71(4), 231–234.

  • Goodrun, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: a research report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

  • Ireland, J. E., Watters, J. J., Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary teacher’s conceptions of inquiry teaching: messages for teacher development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabelle, A. D., & de Groot, C. (2008). Alternate conceptions of preservice elementary teachers: the Itakura method. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. L., Lang-Walker, R., Fail, J. L., & Champion, T. D. (2012). A student activity that simulates evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 117–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, N. H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krest, M. (1999). Teaching scientific writing: a model for integrating research, writing & critical thinking. The American Biology Teacher, 61(3), 223–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krist, A. C., & Showsh, S. A. (2007). Experimental evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The American Biology Teacher, 69(2), 94–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin. J. M. & Wallace. C. S (2015). Assessing dimensions of inquiry practice by middle school science teachers engaged in a professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 139–162.

  • Lanza, J., & Cress, C. (2001). Relating enzyme function to concepts of dominance & recessiveness. The American Biology Teacher, 63(6), 432–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, B., & Merrill, C. (2009). What ABT editors do or who they have been. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 454–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, S. A., Miller, A. J., & Cromie, M. M. (2014). Preparing future biology faculty. The American Biology Teacher, 76(1), 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorbiecke, R. (2012). Plant reproduction & the pollen tube journey: how the females lure the males. The American Biology Teacher, 74(8), 575–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Rushton, G. T., & Singer, J. (2013). Teacher enactment patterns: how can we help move all teachers to reform-based inquiry practice through professional development? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(8), 1263–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquard, R. D., & Steinback, R. (2009). A model plant for a biology curriculum: spider flower (Cleome hasslerana L.). The American Biology Teacher, 71(4), 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2018). Defining and defending the unique role of practitioner publications. The American Biology Teacher, 80(8), 555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, C. A., & MacFadden, B. J. (2014). At the elbows of scientists: shaping science teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry-based instruction. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 927–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meis Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. (2000). Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. A. (2013). Exploring exemplary elementary teachers’ conceptions and implementation of inquiry science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumba, F., Chabalengula, V.M. & Hunter, W. (2007a). Inquiry levels and skills in Zambian high school chemistry syllabus, textbooks and practical examinations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 50–57.

  • Mumba, F., Chabalengula, V.M., & Wise, K (2007b). Analysis of new Zambian high school physics syllabus and practical examinations for levels of inquiry and inquiry skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 213–220.

  • National Center for Educational Research and Development. (1997). Public educational curricula and goals. Beirut, Lebanon: National Center for Educational Research and Development.

    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 science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, M., Park, D. Y., & Lee, R. E. (2009). A comparative analysis of earth science curriculum using inquiry methodology between Korean and the US textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 395–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, J. D., & Tanis Ozcelik, A. (2015). Preservice teachers developing coherent inquiry investigations in elementary astronomy. Science Education, 99(5), 932–957.

  • Puttick, G., Drayton, B., & Cohen, E. (2015). A study of the literature on lab-based instruction in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 77(1), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Inquiry teaching in high school chemistry classrooms: the role of knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1510–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rop, C. J. (2001). Foraging behavior in guppies: do size & color of prey make a difference? The American Biology Teacher, 63(3), 194–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, G., Lotter, C., & Singer, J. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ emerging expertise in inquiry teaching: the effect of a professional development model on beliefs and practice. Journal of Science Teachers’ Education, 22, 23-52.

  • Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848.

  • Sandro, L. H., & Lee Jr., R. E. (2006). Winter biology & freeze tolerance in the goldenrod gall fly. The American Biology Teacher, 68(1), 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders-Stewart, K., Gyles, P., & Shore, B. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction: a literature-derived inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M. (2013). Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science curriculum materials: exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J., & Brandwein, P. F. (1962). The teaching of science: the teaching of science as enquiry (Vol. 253). Harvard University Press.

  • Sesen, B. A., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Inquiry-based laboratory activities in electrochemistry: high school students’ achievements and attitudes. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srisawasdi, N., & Panjaburee, P. (2015). Exploring effectiveness of simulation-based inquiry learning in science with integration of formative assessment. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(3), 323–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatina, R. (1998). A Submersible Light Sensor for Aquatic Ecology. American Biology Teacher, 60(7), 520-23.

  • Tomasek, T. M., Matthews, C. E., & Hall, J. (2005). What's slithering around on your school grounds? Transforming student awareness of reptile & amphibian diversity. The American Biology Teacher, 67(7), 419–425.

  • Tomorrow 98. (1992). Report of the Superior Committee on Science, Mathematics and Technology in Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture. (English edition: 1994)

  • van Uum, M. S., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum, Instruction & Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA

    Frackson Mumba & Vivien M. Chabalengula

  2. Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University, Cyert Hall A72, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Laura Ochs Pottmeyer

Authors
  1. Frackson Mumba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Ochs Pottmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vivien M. Chabalengula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frackson Mumba.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mumba, F., Pottmeyer, L.O. & Chabalengula, V.M. Analysis of Articles in The American Biology Teacher for Essential Features of Inquiry Representation. Res Sci Educ 51, 1247–1267 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09906-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09906-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation