Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Problematic Nature of the Practicum: A Key Determinant of Pre-service Teachers’ Emerging Inquiry-Based Science Practices

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This article disseminates findings from a multi-year study regarding secondary preservice science teachers’ perceptions toward inquiry-based science teaching, and the extent these perceptions are augmented by their practicum. While findings indicated that preservice teachers did improve their understanding and capability of using scientific inquiry due to their methods course, the role of practicum in supporting their newly developed perceptions was problematic. Issues ranging from associate teacher subjugation, availability of resources, time constraints, and the need to address curriculum standards were the most commonly cited reasons for preservice teachers’ difficulty in creating an inquiry-based environment during their practicum. Implications are presented highlighting the importance of practicum experiences as a key determinant of pre-service science teachers’ emerging inquiry-based science views and practices.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–829). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2008). The reconstruct of “free will” from the agentic perspective of social cognitive theory. In J. Baer, J. C. Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Are we free? Psychology and free will (pp. 86–127). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, J. L., Bowen, G. M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90, 400–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. N. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M. (2002). New questions about student teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29, 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (2001). Characteristics of cooperating teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 26, 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–337). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62, 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (1997). Common frameworks of science learning outcomes, K-12. Toronto, Canada: CMEC Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2004). Report on science III assessment: School achievement indicators program (SAIP). Toronto, Canada: CMEC Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86, 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, X. (2002). Science teachers’ beliefs about scientific inquiry: A research perspective. In D. Hodson (Ed.), OISE papers in STSE education (Vol. 3, pp. 207–220). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, R., & Metzler, M. W. (2009). The effects of laboratory-based and field-based practicum experience on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, C. P., & Thompson, A. D. (2001). TEAMS: A science learning and teaching apprenticeship model. In D. R. Lavoie & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Models of science teacher preparation: Theory into practice (pp. 31–47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: A personalized approach. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–29). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, N.-H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 478–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Situated case-based knowledge: An emerging framework for prospective teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1837–1845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Cornu, R. (2009). Building resilience in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 717–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1996). Opening the classroom door: Teacher, researcher, learner. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A., & Jones, D. (2008). Experience and reflection: Preservice science teachers’ capacity for teaching inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new ideas (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher Preparation Institutions. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science educational standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkison, P. T. (2008). Field placement treatments: A comparative study. The Teacher Educator, 43, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2001). Co-teaching is learning in praxis. In D. R. Lavoie & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Models of science teacher preparation: Theory into practice (pp. 11–30). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2005). From normal to revolutionary science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 3–14). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1151–1178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2006). “I won’t last three weeks”: Preservice science teachers reflect on their student-teaching experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M., Dowson, M., & Sinclair, C. (2005). What do associate teachers do anyway? A comparison of theoretical conceptualizations in the literature and observed practices in the field. Teachers College Record, 107, 706–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon, K. J., & Sandoval, P. A. (1997). The seamless field experience model for secondary science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., & Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of practicum in preservice teacher education: The voice of the students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2000). Case studies and generalisability: Grounded theory and research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 469–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watzke, J. L. (2003). Longitudinal study of stages of beginning teacher development in a field- based teacher education program. The Teacher Educator, 38, 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigations: The impact of preservice instruction of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 783–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model- based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (1990). Science student teaching centers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1, 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemba-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 318–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

    Xavier Fazio

  2. Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada

    Wayne Melville & Anthony Bartley

Authors
  1. Xavier Fazio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wayne Melville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Bartley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Fazio.

About this article

Cite this article

Fazio, X., Melville, W. & Bartley, A. The Problematic Nature of the Practicum: A Key Determinant of Pre-service Teachers’ Emerging Inquiry-Based Science Practices. J Sci Teacher Educ 21, 665–681 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9209-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9209-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation