Advertisement

Learning to Teach Science as Inquiry: Developing an Evidence-Based Framework for Effective Teacher Professional Development

  • Barbara A. Crawford
  • Daniel K. Capps
  • Jan van Driel
  • Norman Lederman
  • Judith Lederman
  • Julie A. Luft
  • Sissy Wong
  • Aik Ling Tan
  • Shirley S. L. Lim
  • John Loughran
  • Kathy Smith
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 1)

Abstract

In this chapter, we provide promising examples of professional development (PD) programmes for teachers targeted at using inquiry-based approaches. This chapter summarises a symposium at the 2011 ESERA involving researchers from Europe, North America, Australia and Asia. Two main questions guided the discussion: (1) What are your views for supporting teachers in carrying out inquiry in the science classroom? (2) What is the evidence for effective strategies of supporting teachers in learning to teach science as inquiry? Taken together, these studies demonstrate that science teachers’ professional learning is effectively supported by providing opportunities to experiment with new teaching approaches in their classroom, sometimes in combination with authentic experiences to learn science (i.e. scientific inquiry) and to reflect on these experiences, both individually and collectively.

Keywords

Science Teaching Science Teacher Prospective Teacher Professional Learning Teacher Professional Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, D. J. (2011). Effective learning in the life sciences: How students can achieve their full potential. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. (2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. Paper presented at the Linnaeus tercentenary symposium promoting scientific literacy, Science Education Research in Transaction, (pp. 28–29). Uppsala: Uppsala University, May 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Appeldoorn, K. (2004). Developing and validating the collaboratives for excellence in teacher preparation (CETP) core evaluation classroom observation protocol (COP). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capps, G., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607–651. doi: 10.3102/00346543076004607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy making: Eleven emerging issues. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  12. France, A. (2011). Speaking about scientific literacy. In J. Loughran, K. Smith, & A. Berry (Eds.), Scientific literacy under the microscope: A whole school approach to science teaching and learning (pp. 101–112). Rotterdam: SENSE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38, 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonzales, P., Guzman, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahike, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., et al. (2004). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf. Accessed Aug 2012.
  15. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasson, E., & Yarden, A. (2012). Separating the research question from the laboratory techniques: Advancing high-school biology teachers’ ability to ask research questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1296–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Howard, M. (2011). You don’t have to have all the answers. In J. Loughran, K. Smith, & A. Berry (Eds.), Scientific literacy under the microscope: A whole school approach to science teaching and learning (pp. 47–58). Rotterdam: SENSE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., Appeldoorn, K., & Sun, T. (2002). CETP core evaluation, classroom observation handbook. Minneapolis: CAREI.Google Scholar
  20. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–319). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S. E., Love, N. B., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  22. Loughran, J., Smith, K., & Berry, A. (2011). Scientific literacy under the microscope: A whole school approach to science teaching and learning. Rotterdam: SENSE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luft, J. A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programs: The first year of teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2355–2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luft, J. A., Firestone, J., Wong, S., Adams, K., Ortega, I., & Bang, E. J. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chroslowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international science report. Retrieved 25 Mar 2010, from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003i/scienceD.html
  26. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Morrison, J. A. (2008). Individual inquiry investigations in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. NSES (National Science Education Standards). (1996). Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Parke, H., & Coble, C. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100, 354–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Talaue, F., & Tan, A. -L. (2011). Partnership for change towards science inquiry in elementary science classrooms: Collective responsibility of teachers and students. Unpublished half year report for Office of Educational Research, National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Walsh, S. (2011). Busting the myths about science teaching. In J. Loughran, K. Smith, & A. Berry (Eds.), Scientific literacy under the microscope: A whole school approach to science teaching and learning (pp. 93–100). Rotterdam: SENSE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers’ teaching: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara A. Crawford
    • 1
  • Daniel K. Capps
    • 2
  • Jan van Driel
    • 3
  • Norman Lederman
    • 4
  • Judith Lederman
    • 4
  • Julie A. Luft
    • 1
  • Sissy Wong
    • 5
  • Aik Ling Tan
    • 6
  • Shirley S. L. Lim
    • 6
  • John Loughran
    • 7
  • Kathy Smith
    • 7
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.Graduate School of TeachingICLON – Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Illinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  5. 5.University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  6. 6.National Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore
  7. 7.Monash UniversityGlen EiraAustralia

Personalised recommendations