THE ‘SCIENTIFIC METHOD’ AND SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION: EXPLORATIONS IN AUTHENTICITY

Anthony Bartley, Lakehead University

Xavier Fazio, Brock University

Wayne Melville, Lakehead University

Abstract

A disconnect exists betwe= en the popularly held notion of the ‘scientific method’ and that held = by the science education community. In this article, we investigate the potent= ial for Curriculum and Instruction science courses to challenge pre-service teachers in their conceptualization of the ‘scientific method.’= Pre-service science teachers enrolled in Curriculum and Instruction science education c= ourses at a Canadian university over the 2005/2006 academic year undertook a numbe= r of tasks designed to engage them with the theory, practice and implications of= inquiry-based science instruction in secondary science classrooms. These tasks, and the ability to constructively reflect on them, were regarded as necessary to the development of a deeper understanding of the ‘scientific method.̵= 7; Through the use of multiple data sources, changes in perception are noted a= nd explicated. The majority of the pre-service teachers entered the course wit= h a popularist view of the ‘scientific method.’ This view was rever= sed over the period of the courses, with the majority coming to view the ‘scientific method’ as a dynamic, iterative process. An implica= tion of this work is an understanding of the important role that pre-service tea= cher biography plays in the development of a deeper understanding of the ‘scientific method.’

Introduction

The role of the ‘scientific method’ in science teaching and learning has come u= nder considerable scrutiny in recent years. While much of the science education literature is critical, for example McComas (1998) writes of the myth of the general and universal ‘scientific method’ and Windschitl (2004) frames his discussion in terms of the simplification and misrepresentation = of the ‘scientific method,’ a different perspective can be found in the commercial materials promoted to teachers in popular media, including t= he Internet.

Posters promoting the ‘scientific method’ abound. Some come from scientific equipment suppliers such as Wards, Sargent-Welch or Science Kit, others come from a w= ide range of suppliers such as Internet Marketing Associates School Supply (imaschoolsupply.com), who sell both The Scientific Method Colossal Concept Poster and What Good Scientists Do Colossal Concept Poster. These two post= ers and their attendant descriptions are shown in Figure 1.

The Scientific Method

This h= uge poster (over 5 1/2 feet tall!) contains a bright and clever display of the six steps of the scientific method.

What Good Scientists Do

This colorful concoc= tion focuses young scientists’ attention on important skills and behavio= rs. It’s over 5 1/2 feet tall.

Figure 1. Science Posters from Internet Marketing Associates School Supply<= /p>

Even E-b= ay is a source for material to support teachers in their work with the ‘scientific method.’

Figure 2. Scient= ific Method Poster for sale on E-Bay (31, December 2006)

This spe= cific poster “was observed in a middle school science classroom in 1996” (O’Neil, 1998, p. 13). O’Neill’s analysis of this poster = is shown alongside it.

“… it does n= ot focus narrowly on the act of observation, and actually encourages student= s to generate hypotheses before the outcome of an experiment is known.

However, it = has its own flaws. Through its illustrations, the poster actually mystifies t= he process of hypothesis-generation (which it pictures as a child gazing int= o a crystal ball), and encourages the idea that “research” is something bookish, done in the library alone. By placing Research in order after Purpose, it also obscures the possibility that the Purpose of an investigation might emerge out of reading something (such as a peer’= ;s research). In itself this does considerable violence to the idea of a scientific community and obscures the relationship between genres of reporting and the conduct of research. Finally … this poster contin= ues to give preferential place to experimental protocol in the development of scientific knowledge. In fact, a great deal of scientific practice does n= ot involve much laboratory experimentation (for instance Astronomy, Atmosphe= ric Science, Botany, or Ecology).”

Figure 3. Scient= ific Method Poster with analysis from O’Neill (1998, p. 14)

On the Discovery Channel&#= 8217;s website the promotional material for Van Cleave's Guide to the Best Science Fair Projects (1996) states that:

The scientific method is the ‘tool’ that scient= ists use to find the answers to questions. It is the process of thinking through= the possible solutions to a problem and testing each possibility to find the be= st solution. The scientific method involves the following steps: doing researc= h, identifying the problem, stating a hypothesis, conducting project experimen= tation, and reaching a conclusion (our emphasis).

(http://school.discovery.com/sciencefaircentral/sc= ifairstudio/handbook/scientificmethod.html)

The NASA= SCIence Files website contains a Scientific Method Flowchart with the seven steps of the ‘scientific method.’ (http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/educators/tools/pbl/scientif= ic_method.html). This flowchart prov= ides a perspective that scientists might consider a more appropriate view of the scientific method (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Scient= ific Method Flowchart from NASA

Authenticit= y

Bencze and Hod= son consider authenticity in science education “an elusive and problematic notion” (1998, p. 522). Building upon the work of Gaskell (1992) and Roth (1995), Bencze and Hodson move from a description of inauthen= tic science to set out their understanding of authentic science as:=

a philosophically more valid v= iew of science: not inductivism, not science as an algorithmic set of discrete processes, not strict Popperian views, but a model of science that at the v= ery least acknowledges the fallibility and theory dependence of observation and experiment and incorporates awareness of the ways in which knowledge is negotiated within the scientific community (p. 523).

Our anal= ysis of the beginning teachers’ perspectives has been informed by this analys= is.

Methodology

The sample group for this = study is made up of pre-service secondary science teachers enrolled in a one-year Bachelor of Education program in a Canadian university over the 2005/2006 academic year. The majority of these pre-service teachers had completed Bac= helors’ degrees in science, with some having completed masters and doctorates. Throughout the science Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) courses, the pre-service teachers undertook a number of tasks designed to engage them wi= th the theory, practice and implications of inquiry based science instruction = in secondary science classroom. By inquiry based science instruction, we refer= to the range of strategies described as structured, guided and open inquiries (Colburn, 2004). Reflection around these tasks was another key component of= the courses, based on the belief that without challenging experiences, and the ability to constructively reflect on those experiences, the development of positive pre-service teach= er attitudes to inquiry may be truncated (Bell, Blair, Crawford & Lederman, 2003; Windschitl, 2002; Zembal-Saul, Munford, Crawford, Friedrichsen & Land, 2002; Van Zee & Roberts, 2001; Crawford, 1999).=

To emphasize the emergent = nature of qualitative research design, multiple methods of data collection were us= ed (Patton, 2002). These methods developed over the course of the research, as= it was believed to be inappropriate to finalize research strategies before the data collection has begun (Patton, 2002). Questionnaires were administered = to the entire group at the beginning of the year, and again in the final weeks. Semi-structured interviews added to the data set through by the use of prob= es that were drawn from the questionnaire data and also related to activities developed with the program. The selection of the 12 participants for the interviews was by purposive sampling in order to ensure a balance of gender, scientific discipline, undergraduate degree, and life experience. The struc= ture of the interview questions was informed by earlier research conducted by Ei= ck and Reed (2002). The recordings were listened to twice in order to develop a se= nse of their coherence and emergent themes. The analysis of these themes was an iterative process, requiring us to move between the questionnaire results, recordings and the participants in order to clarify particular points. In o= rder to ensure no real or perceived conflict of interest, the interviews were completed by the second author who works at a different institution. Pseudo= nyms have been used throughout the article.

Inquiry Based Science Instruction

1. Context

Within the faculty of educ= ation that was the focus of this article, the secondary teacher education compone= nt of the one-year Bachelor of Education program at occupies 5 full course equivalents (FCE), i.e. 360 hours of instruction. Pre-service teachers iden= tify two ‘teachable’ subjects from a set approved by the provincial teacher college of teachers and the university. The teachable subjects that relate to this project are Biology, Chemistry, Physics and General Science, with each course occupying 1 FCE of 72 hours.

An impor= tant consideration for our pre-service teachers is their experience with inquiry. The pre-service teachers in our courses can be considered to be successful = in science. This does not guarantee, however, that they are conversant with science as a form of inquiry. DeHaan (2005, p. 253) has observed that a majority of university science students are not presented with teaching that encourages them to ‘become actively involved in their own learning - = i.e. scientific teaching.’ Our own data suggests that approximately 10% of= our pre-service teachers have experience with science as inquiry. Consequently, many of our pre-service science teachers with degrees in science struggle w= ith the purpose and pedagogy of an inquiry-based science curriculum.

2. Content

We were guided in our cour= se design by proposals from the literature on science teacher education and inquiry (Craven and Penick, 2001; Tamir, 1991; Abd-El-Khalick, BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D. & Tuan, H., 2004; Abd-El-Khalick, 2005; Colburn, 2004). Our pre-service teachers generally had strong science backgrounds and were comfortable with much of their substant= ive science knowledge (Turner-Bissett, 2001). Our roles as science teacher educators were informed by the conceptual change ideals of Craven and Penick (2001):

The role, therefore, of the sc= ience teacher educator is to perturb comfortable, over-learned views about schools and schooling in hopes of promoting conceptual changes within individuals, across small communities of learners, and across the broader community of people contributing to a program of education.

The learning environment we sp= eak of needs to be nested within a broader program - one that also values inquiry = and thinking, one that presents a coherent and consistent experience for the learners, and one that seeks to be self-improving through processes of reflection, feedback, and critical inquiry.

The acti= vities used in our courses are designed to enable our pre-service teachers to use their science knowledge in a range of inquiry based contexts. These activit= ies operate in the larger context of understanding, experiencing, and reflectin= g on what the ‘scientific method’ means for each individual, and how that perception can also be informed by research. Although the activities a= nd the timeframes over which they operate vary, the data that we have collected over the past two years indicates their efficacy in changing pre-service teacher perceptions of the ‘scientific method.’

For the chemistry/physics course the first class starts with The Ice-Breaker. The student instructions, written by the first author, are reproduced here.

The Ice Breaker

Your objective:

To work in teams of two to melt the ice as quickly as possible without losing = any water from the bag.

The rules: =

1.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> You may not open the bag.

2.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> You are not allowed to use electric= ity, hot water, gas or any laboratory supplies or equipment as sources of energy= .

3.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> You may not leave the room with the= bag.

4.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> If your bag leaks you must get anot= her bag and cover the first.

Questions:

1.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> What science have you applied here?=

2.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> How did you know what to do?

3.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Which approaches were most successf= ul?

4.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> How might we improve the learning experience?

5.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> What have I/we learned from doing t= his?

6.<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Why did the instructor ask us to do= this activity?

The ice-= breaking is literal and serves a useful purpose in orienting the class members to the social elements of learning and doing science. It has been a frequent surpr= ise to the instructor, the first author, that few pre-service science teachers = can take the science content through to an explanation that includes latent hea= t of fusion.

In the second week of the physics/chemistry course, the pre-service teachers spend parts of three cla= sses on an activity, Gelatin and the Bat= h, which comes from the book, Science Proble= ms: Things to Investigate, (Ainley, Brown, Butler, Carrington & Ellis, 1988).

G= elatin and the Bath

Figure 5. Gelatin and the Bath Activity (Ainley et al., 1988, p. ).=

The firs= t author has used this activity in these courses for several years with considerable success. The question for the activity leads to broad discussion of the nat= ure of investigation and the role of prior knowledge. Two questions demand freq= uent discussion, “How big is the bath?” and “What is set?̶= 1; The first of these questions can be answered in a variety of ways and tends= to lead to results in the range of 100 to 200 Litres. The second question is s= ignificantly more interesting as it requires the participants to make a considered judgm= ent about the standard for “set”.

Reflecting on this activit= y has made use of the work of Tamir (1991), who provides two illuminating tables = in the chapter, Practical work in scho= ol science: An analysis of curre= nt practice. Tamir examines the roles of scientists and technicians, and teachers and students by posing the question, “Who does what in the science laboratory?” (See Table 1).

Table 1: “Who does w= hat in the science laboratory?” (Tamir, 1991, p. 16 ).

Activity &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;            Scientist’s Lab      &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;   School Lab

Ident= ifying problem for investigation   =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;          Scientist<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Textbook or teacher

Formu= lating hypotheses     &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =      Scientist        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Textbook or teacher

Desig= ning procedures and experiments   = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;      Scientist        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Textbook or teacher

Colle= cting data      &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;       Technician        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Student

Drawi= ng conclusions     &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;          Scientist        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Student or teacher

&nb= sp;

Tamir ar= gues that the student’s work will usually correspond to that of the technician. Another way to look at inquiry is through the openness of the problem choice, the experimental design and the choice of conclusions.

Table 2: Levels of inquiry in the science laboratory (Tamir, 2001, p. 16)

Level of inquiry            =      Problems        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;          Procedures<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Conclusions

Level 0       =             &nb= sp;           Give= n        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Given        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            Given

Level 1       =             &nb= sp;           Give= n        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Given        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            Open

Level 2       =             &nb= sp;           Give= n        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Open        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Open

Level 3       =             &nb= sp;           Open=         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Open        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Open

&nb= sp;

These le= vels represent different degrees of openness from Level 1 where problem and procedures are given and students only collect the data to Level 3 where students do everything themselves. Most teachers typically operate in level= s 0 and 1, while levels 2 or 3 would offer students more authentic learning experiences.

ColburnR= 17;s work (2000, 2004) has informed the structure of the Biology/General Science courses where beginning teachers discuss their approach to inquiry in terms= of structured, guided and open inquiry. Structured inquiry is defined as the process by which students are given a problem to solve, a method for solving the problem, and necessary materials, but not the expected outcomes. Studen= ts are to discover a relationship and generalize from the data collected. In g= uided inquiry students must, in addition to the capacities required in structured inquiry, also figure out a method for solving the problem given. In open inquiry students must also formulate the problem they will investigate. Ope= n inquiry most closely mimics the actions of "real" scientists.
       &= nbsp;

In the Biology/General Science course beginning teachers are asked to complete an = open inquiry assignment, the research project. The introduction from the course outlines states:

Individually, or in groups of no more than three, undertake a research project in an area= of biology that interests you. The aim of the project is to provide you with an understanding of the challenges associated with inquiry-based teaching. We shall discuss this project with you in the first week of classes. Note the = due date, as this assignment will require a substantial time commitment.

The inst= ructor (the third author) provides extensive time and prompts to enable the beginning teachers to work through the difficulties of developing their own inquiry activity. This open inquiry project concludes, after 16 weeks, with a poster presentation to members of the Faculty of Science and local science teacher= s.

Analysis and Findings

The questionnaires of Sept= ember 2005 and February 2006 asked the question ‘What does the term “scientific method” mean to you?’ Pre-service teacher responses to this question were collated into the categories shown in Table= 1, based on the wording that the individual had used in their response. The results are summarized as percentage responses in Table 1:

MEANING

SEPTEMBER 2005

N =3D 31

FEBRUARY 2006

N =3D 24

Permits uncertainty

3.2

37.5

Circul= ar/dynamic

9.7

79.2

Produc= es objectivity

9.7

4.2

Process (linear?) to achieve an answer

87.1

16.6

Table 3: Responses of pre-service teache= rs to the question: ‘What does the term “scientific method” mea= n to you?’

Analysis of the September = 2005 (31 students) questionnaire response to the question “What does the t= erm ‘scientific method’ mean to you?” showed that the majority (87.1%) of the students were set in the predominant popularist perspective, which is depicted in the media, and many science textbooks. Other students identified the classical stepwise approach discussed by McComas (1998): Purpose; Hypothesis; Materials; Procedure; Observations/Results; Conclusion= and Application. The ‘scientific method’ was, for these pre-service teachers a static process which, if followed, produced objective, certain results. Exemplifying this belief, the following comments were made in Febr= uary 2006:

The term “scientific method,” to me is the standard process of undertaking a scientific experiment.

Scientific method means the pr= otocol in which a person must follow to perform an experiment.

There wa= s, however, evidence of other pre-service teachers taking a more critical perspective:

The ‘scientific method&#= 8217; to me is something that is often presented as a very formal process, when real= ly it should be flexible to fit different situations.

When the questionnaire was administered towards the end of the course in February 20= 06 (24 students) the nature of the responses had changed significantly –= see Table 3. Only 16.6% believed in the ‘scientific method’ as a ri= gid, sequential process. The majority (79.2%) now believed that the ‘scien= tific method’ was a dynamic process in which stages could be reiterated. Further, there was a high level of acceptance that the ‘scientific method’ could produce subjective results which were open to further questioning.   We would a= rgue that these changes were driven by a more complex view of the nature of scie= nce, developed over the period of the academic year. The pre-service teachers= 217; responses to the question exemplify both the extent and depth of the percep= tual change:

This question’s answer h= as changed from earlier on this year. I used to think it was stagnant with sequential steps. But now, I feel it is a process where you revisit each section and y= ou are encouraged to change sections.

and;

The scientific method is the p= rocesses and procedures involved in the development and investigation of a question. Though the non-linear process of doing science is clear to those who have experience with doing science, to others, for example students, the framewo= rk of the scientific method (i.e. hypothesis, method, results, conclusionsR= 30;) which appear linear may be frustrating and confusing. Science is not linear. Connections are made along the way and revisions are necessary to find answ= ers, which may not be what you were looking for.

The interviews, completed = near the end of the course, reinforced the belief that there had been a substant= ial shift in perceptions. The tenor of the comments was consistent with the perceptual changes revealed in the second questionnaire. James commented th= at he had ‘never really thought of it before, it was just something ther= e to use for the purposes of inquiry … I see now that if I was using that = in instruction, I would kinda take a closer look at these steps, how they rela= te to each other and not step 1, step2, step 3, problems with step 2?, refer b= ack to step 1 etcetera.’ For Chan the change had not come about because of the inquiry based investigations, rather they came about ‘because of = the lecturers.’ Other changes relating t= o the teaching of science were also noted. Mary, ,who had research experience at = the undergraduate level and did not believe that her perceptions of the ‘scientific method’ had changed, came to recognize that ‘= what I thought students at the high school level where capable of has definitely changed (as a result of the course). For some students there was no perceptual change, a view expressed by Ted. The ‘scientific method’ should ‘encourage a framework that is objective … going through with a technically sound experiment that may, or may not validate your original hypothesis … there is no right or wrong.’ Asked if his opinion had changed the answer was unambiguous ‘No, I don’t think that we have engaged that comprehensively.’

Our data indicates that the biographies of individual pre-service teachers are an important considerati= on for science education faculty involved with C&I courses. While courses = may influence the perceptions that pre-service teachers have of the ‘scientific method,’ the extent of that change appears to be ti= ed to the previous experiences of each individual. While we firmly believe in the importance of providing opportunities for inquiry and reflection about the ‘scientific method’ in C&I courses, we are strongly challen= ged in how to encourage pre-service teachers with limited inquiry experience to grow from ‘commonsense thinkers’ to ‘alert novices’ (LaBoskey, 1994).

Conclusions

The findings of our work t= o date suggest two important considerations for C&I science courses. The first= is the recognition that pre-service teachers may come into the course with a limited, popularist view of the ‘scientific method.’ This perception appears to be closely tied to the biography of the individual (Bencze, Bowen & Alsop, 2006; Windschitl, 2004). This recognition is important, for it leads to our second consideration. In order to challenge the populari= st view, it is necessary to utilize various instructional methods in order to connect as comprehensively as possible with pre-service teachers as they se= ek to reach a more sophisticated understanding of the ‘scientific method.’ If pre-service teachers are to reach this understanding, then they need to be given opportunities become an ‘active participants in their own professional growth, knowledge construct= ors, and agents of change’ (Mule, 2006, p. 205).

The disconnect between the science education community and the popularly held conceptualization of the ‘scientific method’ has the capacity to limit to student understanding and engagement with science. If science education is reduced = to a series of rigid steps, secondary school science becomes a series of cookbook recipes, rather than a voyage of discovery. By engagement and reflection wi= th scientific inquiry, the opportunity exists for pre-service teachers to deve= lop a richer, deeper meaning of the ‘scientific method’ which may improve the teaching and learning that occurs in their classrooms.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, = R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D. & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in= Science Education: International Perspectives Science Education, 88 (3), 397-419

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: the impac= t of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views = and instructional planning. Internation= al Journal of Science Education, 27 (1), 15-42.

Ainley, D., Brown, C., Butler, P., Carrington, D. & Ellis G., (1988). Science Problems: Things to Investigat= e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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’ understandi= ngs of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 487–509= .

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 (3), 400– 419.

Bencze, J.L. & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Towar= d more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (5), 521-539.<= /o:p>

Turner-Bissett, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and teaching to lead the profession. London: Fulton.

Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to k= now. Educational Leadership, 62 (1),= pp. 63-66.

Colburn, A. (2000). What every teacher educator needs to know about inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH, Jan. 2000 (Available from http://www.csulb.edu/~acol= burn/AETS.htm)

Craven, J. A. & Penick, J (2001). Preparing New Teachers to Teach Science: The Role of the Science Teacher Educator. Electronic Journal of Science Educatio= n, 6 (1). - September 2001 (http://unr= .edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/cravenpenick.html)

Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10 (3), 175-194.

DeHaan, R.L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Jo= urnal of Science Education and Technology, 14 (2), 253-269.

Discovery Channel (2006). Science fair studio: Janice VanCleave's science fair handbook. Web page: http:/= /school.discovery.com/sciencefaircentral/scifairstudio/handbook/scientificm= ethod.html (Accessed 14 March 2007).

Edmunds, N. (2005). Report on the Relationship of the Scientific Method to Scientifical= ly Valid Research and Education Research (Available online at http://www.scien= tificmethod.com/normanbooklet.pdf)

Eick, C.J. & Reed, C.J. (2002). What makes an inquiry oriented science teache= r? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86= (3), 401-416.

Gaskell, P.J. (1992). Authentic science and school science. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 265–272.<= o:p>

Internet Marketing Associates School Supply (2007). The scientific method colossal concept poster and What good scientists do colossal concept poster. Available from imaschoolsupply.com, accessed 14 March 2007.

McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling t= he myths of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education (pp. 53-70). Boston: Kluwer Acad= emic Publishers.

Mule, L. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (2), 205-218.

LaBoskey, V.K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York: Teach= ers College Press.

NA= SA SCIence Files (2006). Scientific Me= thod Flowchart. Webpage, (http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/educators/tools/pbl/scientific_method.h= tml). Accessed 14 March 2007.

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

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school scie= nce: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Tamir, P. (1991). Practical work in school science: an analysis of current practice. I= n B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science<= /i> (pp. 13-20). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Van Zee, E= .H. & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learni= ng to teach: Prospective teachers’ reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science Educa= tion, 85 (6), 733–757.

Windschitl= , M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigati= ve experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? = Science Education, 87 (1),= 112– 143.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How pre-service teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method.= Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 41 (5), 481-512.

Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intent= ions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations a= nd inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (8), 792-823.

Zembal-Sau= l, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B.A., Friedrichsen, P. & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments dur= ing an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32 (4), 437–463.

MEANING	SEPTEMBER 2005 N =3D 31	FEBRUARY 2006 N =3D 24
Permits uncertainty	3.2	37.5
Circul= ar/dynamic	9.7	79.2
Produc= es objectivity	9.7	4.2
Process (linear?) to achieve an answer	87.1	16.6