An Interdisciplinary, Inquiry-based Pre-service Teacher Preparation Program

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY, INQUIRY-BASED PRE-SERVICE TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM (= Part of themed paper set- LUNAR LEARNING: PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS THINKING LIKE SCIENTISTS AND MATHEMATICIANS)

Kate. A. Bair= d, Indiana University Purdue University Columbus=

Aija Saario P= ocock, Indiana University Purdue University Columbus=

Debbie Winika= tes, Indiana University Purdue University Columbus=

Henry Wakhung= u, Indiana University Purdue University Columbus=

Abstract

This study evaluates the = effectiveness of implementing inquiry-based learning throughout the four years of the pro= gram, with special emphasis on changes in students’ math conceptions and beliefs. The findings of the = study so far support Ostlaund’s = (1998) contention that integrating inquiry-based instruction throughout the program can result in improvements= in math, science, and literacy. The elementary education preparation program at IUPUC engages students in inquiry-based learning from the freshman year through the professional education blocks, with the Moon as the thematic strand throughout the gener= al education and professional education phases. The following is an overview of ho= w the program integrates science, literacy, and numeracy in order to prepare cand= idates for teaching science process skills.

The Original Study and Current Findings

The study = initially began with a comparison of students attending the Indiana University School of Education Bloomington campus to th= ose attending the IU Columbus campus regarding their comfort and beliefs of doi= ng mathematics, learning mathematics, and teaching mathematics at the elementa= ry level. The findings indicated that students on the main campus in Bloomington were less confident in both doing and te= aching mathematics while students on the Columbus campus were confident not only doing math but also teaching it. Both groups of students, however, = showed weakness in the area of concept development as a part of instruction.

In an effo= rt to improve on the weaknesses identified in the original study, changes were ma= de to the coursework being offered for pre-service educators at IUPUC. Based on emerging areas of researc= h on inquiry-based instruction and concept development in young learners engaged= in areas related to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), the Divi= sion of Education at IUPUC chose to embrace thematic inquiry-based instruction as the structure for changing our teacher preparation program. The Earth’s Moon was chosen = as the integrating topic for several modifications to the existing program. The “redesigned” progr= am is described at the end of this article.

This curre= nt study investigates what impact an inquiry-based, thematically integrated teacher preparation program has on students’ beliefs and conceptions in scien= ce, literacy, and numeracy. Durin= g the fall of 2005 and the spring of 2006, a sample of 54 pre-service teachers participated in a 75-item survey questionnaire evaluating the following sca= les of numeracy:

· Confidence in doing mathematics

· The belief that effort makes one smarter in = mathematics

· The belief that mathematics is useful

· The belief that students’ conceptual understanding of math is the primary goal of teaching

The survey= used a five-point Likert-type format that included items from Indiana Mathematics Belief Scales (IMBS, Kloosterman & Stage, 1992) and National Assessment= of Educational Progress (NAEP, National Center for Educatio= nal Statistics, 2001). The findings were compared to previous studies of studen= ts who did not experience the thematic program described above. When the mean per-item scores on each of the four IMBS/NAEP belief scales for the Pre-blo= ck and Block students were compared, the analyses indicated no statistically significant differences on any of the four subscales. Thus, prior to being partitioned i= nto blocks, the two groups’ confidence in doing mathematics did not differ significantly, nor did their beliefs about effort making one better able to learn mathematics, the usefulness of mathematics in everyday life, or the students’ conceptual understanding of math being the primary goal of teaching. However, when the m= ean per item scores on each of the four IMBS/NAEP belief scales for the Block I= and Block II students were compared, the analyses indicated statistically significant differences in favor of the Block II students on all of the four belief subscales.

Subsequent= ly, based on the results of the survey data, a sample of 20 students was selected to participate in in-depth semi-structured interviews. The 25 questions included in the interviews were grouped into the following areas:

· General background and feelings about mathematics

· Nature of mathematics

· Effort

· Mathematics study habits

· Mathematics learning and teaching

· Scenarios

The findin= gs from the interviews confirmed the trends identified in the survey data, supporti= ng the belief that focusing on inquiry in multiple courses as described above = in the program review is causing a change in students’ beliefs and conceptions about math.

As further assessments, a Moon Test consisting of 15 questions was used as a pre- and = post test measuring Moon content understanding and growth in Blocks I and II. In addition, 6 essays written by B= lock II students in their Moon Journals have been coded for analyzing the development of Moon concepts and understanding the nature of science. At the conclusion of fall semester= 2006, the students were again surveyed, interviewed, and their Moon Journals were collected. The majority of th= is data has not yet been analyzed, but the initial findings suggest a greater = depth of thought and reflection in the responses of this cohort of students, whic= h is the first one to reach Block II after beginning the inquiry-intensive progr= am as freshmen.

The findin= gs of the study so far confirm a confounding effect attributed to where the stude= nts are in the program vis-à-vis the activities that they have been expo= sed to (e.g. data mining, lunar vehicle, and the Moon projects). The interview data corroborates the quantitative results. Thus, t= he current findings support the belief that focusing on inquiry during each semester of the teacher preparation program is causing a change in the students’ beliefs and conceptions.

= ;

Overview of the Program

During the= first 2 years of the comprehensive elementary education program at IUPUC, students complete a plan of general education courses. At the time of acceptance, the students are assigned to cohorts of 25-30 students, in which they remain for the next two years. All stude= nts within a block share courses as well as participate in two thirty-hour fiel= d placements each semester.

We have ad= opted the theme of inquiry as one organizational framework across the curriculum. Additionally, the Earth’s Moon provides the content-specific link for this integration.= Not every course has a Moon or inq= uiry basis; however, at least one course each year re-introduces inquiry and the Moon experience. What follows= is a brief description of the activities that support learners’ success wi= thin our program.

= ;

Freshman Year=

In the fre= shman year our students experience direct instruction on inquiry and participate = in a variety of activities appropriate for elementary level learners that stress inquiry and scientific literacy skills.&nb= sp; Instruction on science learning begins with experiences and situatio= ns involving naive conceptions through experiences with discrepant events while engaging in hands-on/ minds-on learning in all science disciplines. Traditional elementary science activities such as batteries and bulbs; paper chromatography butterflies; slime, oobleck, and gak; and sinking and floating are performed using hands= -on minds-on techniques. Creating annotated bibliographies allows students to extend these activities into standards based integrated instruction, with National Science Education Standards (NSES) as the source.

These stud= ents also participate in a long-term observational science project, the KidsR= 17; Moon project. Unlike in later experiences with the Moon Project, the freshmen participate in the project = in the same way that the elementary students described in the other Moon artic= les do. For most of our students,= this is their first exposure to long-term data collection, open-ended inquiry, a= nd group processing of data. Wheeler (2000) puts it this way, “Inquiry h= as a meta-content character that demands its presence while all the other conten= t is being learned.” While exploring personal conceptions of nature, students find they do not really = know as much as they thought they did about the Moon and observing natural events.

= ;

Sophomore Year

During the= ir sophomore year, students take a variety of general education courses. Trade Books in the Elementary Classroom is required of all students prior to entry into the professional sequence. Literature provides natural connections to science and inquiry through myths and legends, themed fiction and topical non-fiction. Students create a classroom library, selecting a list of fiction and non-fiction books about = the Moon for a unit of study.

= ;

English Language Learner= s and Scientific Inquiry

Students a= lso engage in a variety of early field experiences with English Language Learne= rs prior to admission to the professional program. For example, students in the scien= tific inquiry class design inquiry-based instruction to English Language Learners= in an after-school program, planning structured activities that support langua= ge development through content. Moon observations, literature, games, and even art projects are prov= ided in approximately 30-minute periods two afternoons a week. Observation, measurement, da= ta collection and data reporting are the focus of these activities. As a reflective component of this inquiry-based instruction, in the fall of 2005 the children created a Moon = book to commemorate their experiences.

The use of= inquiry in a non-threatening, cooperative, and authentically communicative environm= ent maximizes opportunities for comprehensible language input and student participation, which in turn promotes language acquisition and learning of scientific principles. Due to= the hands-on, minds-on nature of scientific inquiry, English Language Learners benefit from the instruction being highly visual and concrete. Through the questioning and predic= ting strategies inherent in the inquiry process, language learners’ prior knowledge is activated and sufficient recycling of content material can take place, both being crucial components of language development. English Language Learners of varyi= ng proficiency levels are able to practice academic language in these problem-= solving situations, learning English while developing their conceptual awareness of scientific phenomena, highlighting the meta-cognitive nature of inquiry recognized by Wheeler (2000).

= ;

Block I

When stude= nts enter the professional education phase in Block I, they continue to develop content a= nd pedagogical knowledge as they focus on creating environments that support a= ll learners. With exposure to constructivist learning activities and inquiry, teacher candidates are challenged to re-examine their assumptions as they reflect on how learning = occurs for them personally, as well as how children develop their concepts and beliefs. Discussions of diffe= rence, diversity, equity and fairness enable students to develop an understanding = of the complexity of supporting all learners.=

= ;

Block II<= /p>

In Science= Methods the teacher candidates learn theories of instructional design and practice modifying instruction to meet the needs of the children in their field placement classrooms. The acquisition of science knowledge, concept development, and connections to educational psychology and learning cycles = are the framework in Block II. We= have adopted Bybee’s “= three crucial ingredients: (1) teachers must understand precisely what scientific inquiry is; (2) they must have sufficient understanding of the structure of= the discipline itself; and (3) they must become skilled in inquiry teaching techniques.”(2000) In addition to learning theories, students partici= pate in three advanced scientific inquiries:&nb= sp; the College Moon Project, the Edible Lunar Vehicle Project, and Inte= rnet Data Mining.

The Edible= Lunar Vehicle Project partners candidates with children in Kenya and in a local school.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Multinational design teams work to= gether to develop a vehicle composed of edible materials. Through project video conferencing= , on-line chats, and email communications, materials are selected, designed, or revie= wed; models are constructed; and prototype rovers are tested. This project provi= des candidates with non-traditional cooperative learning environments, experien= ces with instructional technology, as well as insight into math and science instruction in a global setting.

Language Arts/Reading in Block II focuses on integrated components of literacy in the intermediate grades. Application of Block I learning about classroom enviro= nment, child development, and multiple ways of knowing to instructional decision-making are course goals. To accomplish this, Literature Circles (Daniels, H. 2002) and a Writing Workshop (Fletcher, R.J., & Portalupi,= J. 2001) are established within the literacy methods course. When learning how= to implement literature circles, candidates are able to contextualize teaching strategies while reading one of three literature selections supporting the = Moon Project theme and inquiry foci: 1) Ann Howard Creel’s Under a Stand S= till Moon, historical fiction, grades 6-9; 2) Jean Craighead George’s Juli= e of the Wolves, a survival story, grades 5-7;&= nbsp; 3) Carolyn Marsden’s Moon Runner, realistic fiction, grades 4-= 6.

Candidates= read about implementation of the writing workshop approach while participating i= n an actual workshop. Using picture books as models of good writing, accompanied= by mini-lessons focused on specific tools of the writing craft, students revise their own writing and acquire strategies for helping young writers grow. Picture books with a moon theme function as the models of good writing; in science methods class the books also stimulate discussions about presenting Moon concepts.

Other impo= rtant Moon project links in the literacy methods class are made during genre stud= ies, content area (non-fiction) and non-fiction writing both providing opportuni= ties to connect Moon-themed text with literacy teaching and learning while focus= ing on a specific genre. Traditional tales explaining the phases of the Moon ex= ist in most cultures; these tales provide insights into multiple ways of understan= ding and into the nature of the genre in a global context. Poetry also provides opportunities to encounter a broad range of portrayals of the Moon as an en= tity in man’s consciousness.

The culmin= ating experience in the methods classes in Block II is an integrated unit of instruction. With the model of integrated teaching and learning provided by= the Moon project, candidates have an example from which to draw all facets of instructional unit design, from materials and strategies to creating an inquiry-based philosophical framework of teaching and learning.

= ;

Block III=

When teach= er candidates reach Block III, they have collaboratively created and implement= ed thematic planning as well as strategic teaching and learning. They research materials that facilitate inquiry in complex learning environments and eval= uate the challenges in contemporary classrooms that lead to school reform. Plann= ing for scaffolding of Moon Project concepts into the curriculum, especially the reading practicum, is still in preliminary stages.

= ;

Block IV and Professional Induction

Student te= aching, Block IV, provides the opportunity for the teacher candidates to demonstrate their understanding of thematic, inquiry- based instruction. Most candidates are able to use at least a few of the lessons from their methods or science courses. We continue to work = with our partner schools to support the increased usage of inquiry-based thematic learning. The first teachers = to graduate from the revised inquiry-driven program will enter the schools in 2007. IUPUC currently provides new teach= ers in our region with mentoring support through Mentors Network. In addition, we are working with o= ur partner schools to develop a series of professional development workshops supporting inquiry-base instruction and STEM projects.

References

Bybee, R.W. (2000). Teaching Science as Inquiry. Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Te= aching in Science. Ed: Minstrell, J. and E.H. van Zee. = Washington, D.C.= : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), p. 30

Creel, A.H. (2005). Under a stand still mo= on. Weston, CT: Brown Barn Books.

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voic= e and choice in the student-centered classroom, 2^nd ed.. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (1998). Cra= ft lessons: Teaching writing K-8. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Fletcher, R.J., & Portalupi, J. (2001). W= riting workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

George, J.C. (1972). Julie of the wolves. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension = to enhance understanding. Portlan= d, ME: Stenhouse.

Heard, G. (1999). Awakening the heart: Exploring poetry in elementary and middle sch<= /i>ool. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kloosterman, P., & Stage, F. K. (1992). Measuring beliefs about mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathema= tics, 92, 109-11

Kriete, R. (2002). The morning meeting book= . Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

Ostlund, K. (1998). What the research says about science process skills. Electronic Journal of Science Educatio= n, 2(4), 1-9.

Marsden, C. (2005). Moonrunner. Cambrid= ge, MA: Candlewick Press.

National Science Foundation. (1999). Inquiry: Thoughts, Views, and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom. Foundations, Volume 2. Arlington, VA: Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Information Education, National Science Foundation, p. 48

Portalupi, J., & Fletcher, R. (2001). Nonf= iction craft lessons: Teaching information writing K-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Wheeler, G.F. (2000). The three faces of inquiry. Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Ed: Minstrell, J. and E.= H. van Zee. Washington= , D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), p. 18