Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 161–178 | Cite as

Mapping Trade-Offs in Teachers' Integration of Technology-Supported Inquiry in High School Science Classes

  • William A. SandovalEmail author
  • Kenneth Daniszewski


This paper explores how two teachers concurrently enacting the same technology-based inquiry unit on evolution structured activity and discourse in their classrooms to connect students' computer-based investigations to formal domain theories. Our analyses show that the teachers' interactions with their students during inquiry were quite similar, and each teacher used whole-class discussions as a major vehicle for connecting students' understanding to formal domain theories. Each teacher, however, structured the discourse in these discussions quite differently. We interpret these differences as each teacher navigating a set of trade-offs to balance, on the one hand, opportunities for students to actively develop their own ideas, and on the other, their concerns that students develop normative understandings. We identify several dimensions of trade-offs that emerge from our data, and suggest how teachers' choices on these dimensions shape students' opportunities for learning.

discourse analysis teaching practice science inquiry evolution Lamarckism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumgartner, E., and Reiser, B. J. (1998). Strategies for supporting student inquiry in design tasks. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13-17.Google Scholar
  2. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Teaching, Macmillan, New York, pp. 432-463. bib id="bib3">Chinn, C. A., and Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education 86: 175-218.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 453-494.Google Scholar
  4. Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structures in lessons. In Wilkinson, L. C. (Ed.), Communicating in the Classroom, Academic Press, New York, pp. 153-181.Google Scholar
  5. Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In LeCompte, M. D., Millroy, W. L., and Preissle, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, Academic Press, New York, pp. 201-225.Google Scholar
  6. Grant, P. R. (1986). Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Story-maker, story-teller: Narrative structures in curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies 23: 207-218.Google Scholar
  8. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Gutierrez, K. D. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education 5: 335-365.Google Scholar
  10. Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction 13: 401-430.Google Scholar
  11. Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction 15: 485-529.Google Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Oliver, A., and Weaver, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher 25: 12-21.Google Scholar
  13. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., and Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences 7: 313-350.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Lampert, M. (1995). Managing the tensions in connecting students' inquiry with learning mathematics in school. In Perkins, D. N., Schwartz, J. L., West, M. M., and Wiske, M. S. (Eds.), Software Goes to School: Teaching for Understanding With New Technologies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 213-232.Google Scholar
  16. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. O'Connor, M. C., and Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, Learning, and Schooling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 63-103.Google Scholar
  18. Polman, J. L., and Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education 85: 223-238.Google Scholar
  19. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., and Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Carver, S. M., and Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-Five Years of Progress, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 263-305.Google Scholar
  20. Roth, W.-M. (1993). Metaphors and conversational analysis as tools in reflection on teaching practice: Two perspectives on teacher–student interactions in open-inquiry science. Science Education 77: 351-373.Google Scholar
  21. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12: 5-51.Google Scholar
  22. Sandoval, W. A., and Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40: 369-392.Google Scholar
  23. Sandoval, W. A., and Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88: 345-372.Google Scholar
  24. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., and John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4: 131-166.Google Scholar
  25. Stodolsky, S. (1988). The Subject Matters: Classroom Activity in Math and Social Studies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Tabak, I., and Reiser, B. J. (1997). Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher–student interactions in inquiry learning. In Hall, R., Miyake, N., and Enyedy, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '97, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 289-298.Google Scholar
  27. Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., and Reiser, B. J. (1998). Facilitating reflection as a vehicle toward local and global understanding. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13-17.Google Scholar
  28. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., and Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 45-93.Google Scholar
  29. Van Zee, E. H., and Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education 19: 209-228.Google Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Weiner, J. (1994). The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., and Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education 65: 33-50.Google Scholar
  33. White, B. Y., and Frederiksen, J. R. (1995). An Overview of the ThinkerTools Inquiry Project, Causal Models Report No. 95-04, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Education & Information StudiesUniversity of California – Los AngelesLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations