Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 383–403 | Cite as

Effects of immersion in inquiry-based learning on student teachers’ educational beliefs

  • Michiel Voet
  • Bram De Wever
Article

Abstract

Professional development on inquiry-based learning (IBL) generally draws heavily on the principle of providing instruction in line with what teachers are expected to do in their classroom. So far, however, relatively little is known about how this impacts teachers’ educational beliefs, even though these beliefs ultimately determine their classroom behavior. The present study therefore investigates how immersion in inquiry-based learning affects student teachers’ beliefs about knowledge goals, in addition to their self-efficacy for inquiry. In total, 302 student history teachers participated in a 4-h long inquiry activity designed within the WISE learning environment, and completed a pre- and posttest right before and after the intervention. Multilevel analyses suggest that the intervention had a significant positive effect on the value that student teachers attributed to procedural knowledge goals, or learning how historical knowledge is constructed, and on student teachers’ self-efficacy for conducting inquiries. Despite these general positive results, however, the results also show that the impact of the intervention differed significantly across students. In particular, it appears that immersion in IBL had little effect on a subgroup of 25 student-teachers, who held largely content-oriented beliefs. Based on these findings, the present study discusses a number of implications for professional development on IBL.

Keywords

Inquiry-based learning Educational technology History education Teacher education Educational beliefs 

References

  1. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borg, M. (2001). Key concepts: Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouhon, M. (2009). Les représentations sociales des enseignants d’histoire relatives à leur discipline et à son engagement. Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  7. Brand, B. R., & Moore, S. J. (2011). Enhancing teachers’ application of inquiry-based strategies using a constructivist sociocultutral professional development model. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33(7), 889–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 22(3), 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copeland, W. D. (1985). Teaching students to “do” history: The teacher and the computer in partnership. The History Teacher, 18(2), 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtney, M. G. R. (2013). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R-Menu v2.0 to make more judicious estimations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(8), 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Wever, B., Vandepitte, P., & Jadoulle, J.-L. (2011). Historical education and didactics of history in Belgium. In E. Erdmann & W. Hasberg (Eds.), Facing, mapping, bridging diversity: Foundation of a European discourse on history education (pp. 49–50). Schwalbach: Wochenschau Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobson, R. B. (1970). The peasants’ revolt of 1381. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Educational Research Review, 84(4), 572–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyer, C. (1994). Everyday life in medieval England. London: Hambledon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehn, B., & Koeppen, K. E. (1998). Intensive document-based instruction in a social studies methods course and student teachers’ attitudes and practice in subsequent field experiences. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(4), 461–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers’ professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Havekes, H., Arno-Coppen, P., Luttenberg, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2012). Knowing and doing history: A conceptual framework and pedagogy for teaching historical contextualisation. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 11(1), 72–93.Google Scholar
  24. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Husbands, C. (2011). What do history teachers (need to) know? A framework for understanding and developing practice. In I. Davies (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 84–95). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2013). In search of the essence of a good teacher. In C. J. Craig, P. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (pp. 241–274). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). Historical reasoning as theory-evidence coordination. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 377–401). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 1962, 1–38.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, P. (2004). Understanding history. In P. C. Seixas (Ed.), Theorezing historical consciousness (pp. 129–164). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, P. J. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In S. Donavan & J. Bransfor (Eds.), How students learn: History in the classroom (pp. 31–77). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. Levy, B. L. M., Thomas, E. E., Drago, K., & Rex, L. A. (2013). Examining studies of inquiry-based Learning in three fields of education: Sparking generative conversation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2013). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E.A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Lotter, C., Yow, J. A., & Peters, T. T. (2014). Building a community of practice around inquiry instruction through a professional development program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Reddy, K. (2009). Epistemic talk in history. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and inconsistencies between science teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1230–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Inquiry, controversy, and ambiguous texts: Learning to teach for historical thinking. In W. J. Warren & A. D. Cantu (Eds.), History education 101: The past, present, and future of teacher preparation (pp. 167–186). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  42. McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers. American Journal of Physics, 58(8), 734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morrison, J. A. (2014). Scientists’ participation in professional development: The impact on fourth to eighth grade. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 793–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pajares, M. F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14(1), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Rouet, J.-F., Marron, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Favart, M. (1998). Understanding historical controversies: Students’ evaluation and use of documentary evidence. In J. F. Voss & M. Carretero (Eds.), Learning and reasoning in history: International review of history education (Vol. 2, pp. 95–116). Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  52. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  53. Spronken-Smith, R. A., Walker, K., Dickinson, K. J. M., Closs, G. P., Lord, J. M., & Harland, T. (2011). Redisigning a curriculum for inquiry: An ecology case study. Instructional Science, 39(5), 721–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2010). “Teach as you preach”: The effects of student-centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’ approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swan, K., & Hicks, D. (2007). Through the democratic lense: The role of purpose in leveraging technology to support historical inquiry in the social studies classroom. The International Journal of Social Studies Education, 21(2), 142–168.Google Scholar
  56. Swennen, A., Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2008). Preach what you teach! Teacher educators and congruent teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(5–6), 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teasley, S. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Developmental Psychology, 3(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woofolk Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.Google Scholar
  59. van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & van der Linden, J. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In H. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 265–296). Mawhah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. van Joolingen, W. R., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2009). Developments in inquiry learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 21–37). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Nieuwenhuyse, K., Wils, K., Clarebout, G., Draye, G., & Verschaffel, L. (2015). Making the constructed nature of history visible. Flemish secondary history education through the lens of written exams. In A. Chapman & A. Wilschut (Eds.), Joined-up history: New directions in History Education Research (pp. 231–253). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. VanSledright, B., & Limón, M. (2006). Learning and teaching social studies: A review of cognitive research in history and geography. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), The handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 545–570). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017a). Preparing pre-service history teachers for organizing inquiry-based learning: The effects of an introductory training program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017b). Towards a differentiated and domain-specific view of educational technology: An exploratory study of history teachers' technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1402–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (in press). Teachers' adoption of inquiry-based learning activities: The importance of beliefs about education, the self, and the context. Journal of Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  67. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. I. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. I. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate glucose control in patients with diabetus. Diabetes Care, 21, 1644–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1993). Wrinkles in time and place: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 729–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1990). Mathematical problem posing: Implications for facilitating student inquiry in classrooms. Instructional Science, 19(3), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations