ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACH= ERS TO INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION

Xavier Fazio, Brock University

Anthony Bartley, Lakehead University

Wayne Melville, Lakehead University

<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Abstract

&= nbsp; The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of our current research into the perceptions that pre-service teachers have toward inquiry-based science teaching, and the extent to which the explicit teaching of inquiry-based science within curriculum and instruction science courses may influence tho= se perceptions. These courses are centered on the development of student resea= rch topics, active learning into elements of nature of science and scientific inquiry, investigation into the use of appropriate levels of inquiry within= the classroom, the scaffolding of student knowledge that permits the teaching a= nd learning of scientific inquiry, and reflection around each of these areas. = This paper reports upon preliminary pre-service perceptions of: purposes of scie= nce education, aspects of nature of scientific inquiry, pre-service teachers= 217; capacity for teaching and using scientific inquiry as a teaching strategy, = and challenges of teaching inquiry-based science in secondary schools. Recommendations for future studies are also presented.

Introduction

= Inquiry-based science education is ubiquitous within curriculum reports and policy statem= ents generated in North America (e.g. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993; National Research Council, 1996, 2000; Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 1997; Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 1999; National Science Foundation, 1999). Scientific inquiry has been identified within the United States National Science Education Standards (NSES) as one of the major student outcomes. Specifically, stude= nts should possess “the ability to conduct inquiry and develop an understanding about scientific inquiry.” (= NRC, 1996, p. 105)

&= nbsp; Inquiry-based science education has been characterized in a variety of ways over the year= s. Some have emphasized the active nature of student involvement – that = is, “hands-on” learning activities. Others have linked inquiry with a discovery approach or with a development of process skills associated with = a ‘scientific method’ (DeBoer, 1991). In general, inquiry-based teaching is often contrasted with more traditional (didactic) pedagogical approaches and has tended to reflect a constructivist approach to teaching. In addition, inquiry-based teaching should not include the presumption that investigative activity is occurring. Students engaged with inquiry-based curricula in ord= er to learn scientific concepts and principles are not using identical cogniti= ve processes and skills, when compared to students engaged in skill developmen= t or open-ended scientific inquiry (Hodson, 1998). Therefore, it is reasonable to embrace scientific inquiry as both content and a method to learn science. This assertion is supported by the following sum= mary in the NSES document:

Inquiry is a multifaceted activi= ty that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigation= s; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using to= ols to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing the results. Inquiry requ= ires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternate explanations. (National Science Educational Standards, 1996, p.23)

&= nbsp; Schwab (1962), one of the early scholars to write about the nature of inquiry-based instruction in science education, indicated that part of learning via inqui= ry was understanding science as “a mode of investigation which rests on conceptual innovation, proceeds through uncertainty and failure, and eventu= ates in knowledge which is contingent.” (p. 5) He goes on to explain that “science as [i]nquiry is not achieved by talk about science or scient= ific method apart from the content of science…treatment of scientific knowledge is in terms of its origins in the united activities of the human = mind and hand which produced it.” (p. 102). Science teacher educators need= to continue to emphasize with pre-service teachers these important insights, articulated by Schwab decades ago, regarding the nature of scientific inqui= ry and science education.

= This emphasis upon teaching scientific inquiry is problematic as many science educators report that teachers find inquiry-based approaches to be a challenging part of their professional practice (Yore, 2001; Crawford, 2000; Tobin, Kahle and Fraser, 1990; Gallagher, 1989). While scientific inquiry is regarded as an important scientific literacy goal by both science teachers = and the science education community, the reality in schools is that teachers “lack a practical framework of inquiry to inform their instruction= 221; (Bell, Smetana, Binns, 2005, p. 30). = Translating secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs of scientific inquiry into curricular practices is a daunting task. To accomplish this ta= sk requires a unique synthesis of knowledge that includes a significant understanding of pedagogy, curriculum, science discipline (which includes scientific inquiry), and the learner (Flick, 2004). Unfortunately, scientif= ic inquiry is rarely taught explicitly at the undergraduate level in science education programs (DeHaan, 2005), perpetuating the difficulties of teaching inquiry in schools. Abel, Smith, and Volman (2004) socio-cultural study of teachers engaged in inquiry-based science practices sheds light upon the complexities inherent in teachers learning about scientific inquiry and the teaching of teachers. Their research raises the following questions: How can pre-service teachers be supported in learning of science through inquiry and develop a stance towards science teaching as inquiry? These questions are a= lso appropriate for our research purposes.

= Some research indicates that prospective teachers are capable of teaching inquiry-based science if they are prepared and supported in their undergrad= uate program (DeHaan, 2005, Crawford, 1999). This support includes exploration i= nto the nature of science and science education, involvement in science investigations, placement in classrooms that model inquiry-based teaching, = the planning of units that highlight core scientific concepts, reflection upon their own research, teaching/learning experiences, and teaching practices.<= o:p>

= The purpose of this research study is to identify perceptions (broadly defined = as espoused views and explanations) that pre-service teachers have toward inquiry-based science education, and the extent to which the explicit teach= ing of inquiry-based science in their pre-service year may influence those perceptions. Central to this purpose is the explicit teaching of science as inquiry through the development of student research topics, active learning into the nature of science and scientific inquiry, investigation into the u= se of appropriate levels of inquiry within the classroom, and the scaffolding = of student knowledge to permit the teaching and learning of scientific inquiry. These goals for pre-service teachers build on the work of Bencze, Bowen &am= p; Alsop (2006), Windschitl (2004), Bell, Blair, Crawford & Lederman, 2003, Howes (2002), and Van Zee and Roberts (2001) in equipping pre-service teach= ers with strategies to utilize inquiry-based science in their classrooms.

Research Methodology

&= nbsp; This research is designed to provide insights into pre-service year science teachers’ perceptions of inquiry-based science education, and the cha= nges that may occur in those perceptions if inquiry-based science is explicitly incorporated into the pre-service year courses. The data comes from research conducted with students enrolled in sci= ence curriculum and instruction courses. Open-ended questionnaires, semi-structu= red interviews, and pre-service teacher reflections were used over the 2005/2006 academic year to gather information on any perceptual changes of pre-service teachers towards the purposes of science education, science as inquiry and = the nature of science. This use of multiple data sources emphasizes the emergent nature of qualitative research design (Patton, 2002), and addresses the com= plex reality of investigating changes in teachers’ perceptions. These data collection techniques are representative of various questionnaire and interview techniques (Erickson, 1998).

&= nbsp; The questionnaires were administered initially at the beginning of the course, = and repeated at its conclusion. The second method of data collection was using semi-structured interviews that sought to elaborate and corroborate findings from the questionnaires. The questions that guided these interviews were dr= awn from the questionnaire data, samples of student research work in inquiry, a= nd research conducted by Eick and Reed (2002). The interview audio recordings in this article were conducted by a third researcher not associated with the students. The results of these questionnaires were coded in order to articulate the major themes that emerge from the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The transcribed audio recordings were ana= lyzed for codes and emergent themes using a constant and comparative approach. The identification of themes was an iterative process, moving amongst the interviews and questionnaire results in order to identify common and comprehensive themes.

= For this paper, we draw principally on the results of questionnaires which all participating pre-service teachers completed in September 2005 (n=3D31 stud= ents) and February 2006 (n=3D24 students), and the espoused perceptions of 12 pre-service science teachers who participated in semi-structured interviews, completed in March 2006. The selection of participants for the interviews w= as by purposive sampling in order to ensure a balance of gender, scientific discipline, undergraduate degree, and life experience. All the pre-service teachers had completed a Bachelors’ degrees in science, with some hav= ing also completed a Master’s degree.

= Throughout the science curriculum and instruction courses, the pre-service teachers undertook a number of tasks designed to engage them with the theory, practi= ce, 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, 20= 04). Reflection around these tasks was another key component of the courses, bas= ed on the belief that without bringing to the forefront of awareness and challenging experiences, the development of positive pre-service teacher perceptions to inquiry may be curtailed (Bell, Blair, Crawford & Lederm= an, 2003; Windschitl, 2002; Van Zee & Roberts, 2001; Crawford, 1999). In summary, thr= oughout the course pre-service teachers explored nature of science and scientific inquiry topics, participated in science investigations, observed classrooms which model inquiry-based teaching, planned units that highlight core scientific concepts, and reflected upon their own views, experiences in sci= ence as a student, and their practicum teaching experiences

&nb= sp;

Findings

&= nbsp; This section presents key findings organized around themes found in the data bas= ed on analyses of the questionnaires and interviews. Specifically, preliminary findings into the following areas are presented: purposes of science educat= ion, nature of inquiry, pre-service teachers’ capacity for teaching and us= ing scientific inquiry as a teaching strategy, and challenges of teaching inquiry-based science in secondary schools. The goal of this section is not= to present comprehensive details into all these defined areas; other papers (e= .g. Bartley, Fazio, and Melville, 2007) explore some areas in greater detail. The focus of the paper i= s to provide a broad representation of pre-service teachers’ perceptions to inquiry-based science education.

&nb= sp;

Purpo= ses of Science Education

= The questionnaires of September 2005 and February 2006 asked the deceptively si= mple question: “What is/are the purpose(s) of science education?” Pre-service teacher responses to t= his question were collated into the conceptual categories shown in Table 1 base= d on the wording that the pre-service teachers used in their responses. The numerical values refer to the frequency of the categorized responses as a percentage of all the responden= ts. The results are summarized below as percentage of the total responses:=

Table 1.= Responses of pre-service teachers to the question: ‘What is/are the purpose(s) of science education?

PURPOSES OF = SCIENCE EDUCATION	SEPTEMBER 20= 05 (% of responses)	FEBRUARY 2006 (% of responses)
Informed citizens	9.7	37.5
Inspire/wonder	19.3	20.8
Interest/fun	22.5	16.6
Academic achievement/career	38.7	8.3
Transmission of knowledge	45.1	37.5
Critical thinking	51.6	66.6
Scientific literacy	-	16.6

These questionnaire results, while not statistically significant, indicate that four significant changes had occurred in the perceptions of t= he pre-service teachers towards the purposes of science education. Specificall= y, there are substantial changes in the “Informed citizen” and ‘Critical thinking’ purpose categories, and a substantial chang= e in the “Academic achievement/career” purpose category. Finally, th= ere is the appearance of the term ‘scientific literacy’ in the lexi= con of the pre-service teachers.

&= nbsp; The teaching of facts and concepts was a common perception of science education= at the beginning of the course. At the completion of the course, most students= had adopted a more holistic perception of the purposes of science education. Initially, at the beginning of the course a majority of the pre-service teachers reported that a goal of science education was preparing students f= or further study or employment. = At the completion, a majority of the pre-service teachers believed that a major purpose of science education was the promotion of critical thinking skills.=

I think that science education r= eally supports our culture and our society and in order for us to continue to wor= k on technologies and develop things we have to educate children in science and = how to critically look at things and solve problems so they’re going to be able to solve problems in the future… I guess critical thinking and problem solving would be the primary goal. (Sandra, interview response, Mar= ch 2006)

In addit= ion, a decrease in the “Academic achievement/career” purpose appears to b= e a realization by these pre-service teachers that the teaching of science usin= g a range of pedagogies that engages all science students is seen an important purpose of science education.

I think science in general can p= repare students for life. Science is part of life, everyday life, and so we need to prepare students… I think students need those skills whether they’re doing science in life or whether they’re just living li= fe. (Elaine, interview response)

The appearance of the term ‘scientific literacy’ in the final questionnaire and interview responses along with an understanding of = the multiple life paths secondary students in science courses may pursue, appea= rs to be a consequence of the classroom discussions, activities, and practicum experiences that the pre-service teachers engaged in experiences during the= ir professional year.

Natur= e of Scientific inquiry

&= nbsp; The questionnaires and interview= asked pre-service teachers to comment on the how they w= ould describe ‘scientific inquiry’. Overwhelmingly, pre-service teachers’ perceptions changed from seeing the process of science as a series of discrete stages, to seeing science as an iterative process and no= t a predefined method, as evidenced below:

Right now I would describe it as= a non-linear scramble of everything, because you design and experiment, you g= et a topic for one, you design your method…You go try your method, it doesn’t work, you have to go back to the beginning, right through the whole thing, and it’s a jumble. (George, interview response, March 20= 06)

= Descriptors such as uncertainty, non-linear, and dynamic were = used by the pre-service teachers to describe scientific inquiry at the end of the research study. Argumentation, subjectivity, and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge were also raised as general descriptors of science processes and products. In general, there was a trend for pre-service teach= ers to recognize that their own perceptions of science had been shaped by their past experiences, especially within their secondary school science and undergraduate science education experiences.

I think for me it, again, is kin= d of cyclical, we’ve learned that a lot in our science curriculum course because we had to do a [scientific inquiry] investigation; it’s not j= ust about coming up with a question and getting to the answer’, it’s ‘how are we going to get there’. You go back to the question, always re-changing and re-modelling everything you are doing…My main problem was with the question….I found it almost more frustrating here [Faculty of Education] than I have in the past, because it wasn’t in = my field… I was in physiology and biomechanics and it was easy for me to find questions. (Eric, intervi= ew response)

The expe= rience of conducting an open inquiry during the curriculum and instruction course challenged the views of a majority of the pre-service teachers. The inquiry process, combined with public discussions and private reflections, promoted= a view of scientific inquiry which was tentative, non-linear and iterative; i= .e. no one method to do science. =

&nb= sp;

Capab= ility in teaching and using scientific inquiry

&= nbsp; Like the “Purposes of science education” results above, the pre-service teachers’ responses = to this question were collated into the conceptual categories shown in Table 1, based on their perception of their efficacy toward teaching and doing SI, a= nd ranking this perception according to a Likert-like scale categorization (minimal, below average, average, above average). The numerical values refer to the frequency of the categorized responses as a percentage of all the respondents. The results are summarized below as percentage of the total responses for September (left) and February (right) of pre-service teachers to the question: “How well prepared do you believe you are to teach in an inquiry-based classroom in terms of: confidence for practice teaching; your capabilities in conducting scientific investigations?

Figure 1. Questionnaire responses.

<= /span>

The data= above suggests that pre-service teachers increased their efficacy towards engagin= g in scientific inquiry and their capacity for inquiry-based teaching based on t= heir engagement in activities focusing on learning about and doing scientific inquiry.&= nbsp; This was substantiated in the interviews as when asked to respond to= the following query: “Do you believe that the curriculum and instruction courses have equipped you to deal with these challenges?”

I still have no idea how I would= deal with time management throughout the year…. But the curriculum course = gave me the ability to see where the students would falter; I can foresee where = they [the students] are going to have problems with their inquiry. (George, interview response, March 2006)

And,

I think so, yes, because we̵= 7;ve been over the inquiry process. It was on-going from September until now, so= I think that we’ve been educated as teachers as to how we would impleme= nt it into our classes. (Christina, interview response)

Pre-serv= ice teachers see themselves as more empathetic with the challenges that students may face when undertaking inquiry tasks, and imagine how they could begin to implement inquiry-based teaching and learning into their future classrooms.= In general, their teaching efficacy toward inquiry-based teaching improved by = the end of the study.

&nb= sp;

Chall= enges of teaching inquiry-based science in secondary schools <= /p>

&= nbsp; Two emergent themes based on responses to a query regarding identification of t= he challenges of inquiry-based science implementation was that the support of teacher colleagues was seen as crucial especially in early years of a teachers’ career, and that there was a general perception that scient= ific inquiry is not being explicitly used in secondary schools, as explained bel= ow:

I think it should be used more; it’s not used enough, the textbook is still being used far more than hands-on experiences. I think they [associate teachers] find that it’s too hard to integrate inquiry into the curriculum [standards] because there’s so much to cover, but I think it’s necessary. (Christin= a, interview response)

Furtherm= ore, beginning teachers have a preference for scaling up scientific inquiry from guided inquiry in their own classes to larger open-ended inquiry at the departmental level:

I’d be prepared to do guid= ed inquiry, I think, … to do an open inquiry I think you would need to g= et department head permission to do this; , I think guided inquiry you can put under the radar, I don’t think they would really look at it and say ‘whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you doing?’ But an open inquiryR= 30;I am not sure (George, interview response).

The prac= ticum experiences during their pre-service year grounded their prior personal scientific inquiry experiences. In particular, they identified environmental constraints such as material resources, time, curriculum coverage and the politics of the secondary in supporting or hindering their efforts to imple= ment an inquiry-based science program.

&nb= sp;

Interpretations and Discussion

&= nbsp; This paper attempts to provide an overview into the perceptions that pre-service teachers have toward inquiry-based science teaching, and the extent to which the explicit teaching of inquiry-based science in curriculum and instruction science courses may influence those perceptions. Through a combination of d= ata from questionnaires and semi-structured interview, changes in pre-service teachers’ perceptions occurred with respect to the purposes of science education, nature of scientific inquiry, pre-service teachers’ capaci= ty for teaching about and using scientific inquiry, and challenges of teaching inquiry-based science in secondary schools.

&= nbsp; From their initial perceptions, the pre-service teachers increasingly identified= the role of science education in promoting opportunities for informed citizensh= ip and critical thinking. Concomitantly, there was a weakening in their percep= tion that the purpose of science education was to prepare students for careers in science. A similar view is expressed by Wong & Pugh (2001), who state that “a goal of science education should be for students to go beyond the understanding of concepts= to an experiencing of the world by helping students lead lives rich in worthwh= ile experiences.” (p. 319)

&= nbsp; Through the use of multiple data sources, changes in perceptions of a ‘single method’ in science were noted. The majority of the pre-service teache= rs entered the course with a naïve view of ‘scientific method.̵= 7; Tasks within the courses, which focused on constructive reflection, were regarded as necessary to the development of a deeper understanding of the ‘scientific method’, with the majority of pre-service teachers coming to view the ‘scientific method’ as a dynamic and iterati= ve process. Similar findings were found with Abd-el-Khalick’s (2005) stu= dy of the impact of a philosophy of science course on pre-service science teachers’ views and instructional planning.

&= nbsp; Overall, the data appears to support Windschitl’s (2003) contention that pre-service teachers with extensive prior experience in authentic scientific inquiry have an enhanced capacity to use inquiry-based teaching strategies.= In contrast, pre-service teachers with limited scientific inquiry experiences identify teaching and learning experiences challenges, along with constrain= ts such as time, mandated curriculum, and materials. All pre-service teachers explicitly noted the importance of school colleagues in supporting teaching= . In general, the practicum experiences of the pre-service teachers with associa= te teachers, students, and during the pre-service teacher professional year program mitigate their perceptions. For instance, many of the associate teachers conceptualize inquiry only as open inquiry (Colburn, 2004). This m= ay be a factor that can discourage implementation of inquiry strategies becaus= e of the unique challenges implementing exclusively open inquiry poses in second= ary science classrooms. Indeed, Holliday (2004) argues that balancing implicit = and explicit teaching approaches to inquiry-based science teaching needs added emphases in science education in order to avoid dichotomizing instruction a= nd providing a rationale for teacher disengagement for using inquiry-based teaching practices.

&= nbsp; When innovative teaching practices are allowed and encouraged by the associate teacher and the practicum school, it is much easier to help teachers move f= rom intentions to desired actions (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005). Hence, the opportunity to discuss the potential and challenges of inquiry-based science education with experienced science teachers was seen as critical in building teaching efficacy. As well, pre-service teachers saw themselves as members = of the larger science education community and, hence for the future, felt confident in their ability to access resources of the larger community to support inquiry-based science teaching.&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; The curriculum and instruction courses were centred on the development of stude= nt research topics, active learning into elements of nature of science and scientific inquiry, investigation into the use of appropriate levels of inq= uiry within the classroom, the scaffolding of student knowledge that permits the teaching and learning of inquiry and reflection around each of these areas. Without the opportunity to challenge those perceptions in a non-threatening manner through learning, conducting, and reflecting on scientific inquiry during the course, prior perceptions of scientific inquiry would be maintai= ned. This aligns with research (DeHaan, 2005, Flick, 2004, Abel et al., 2004, Schwartz and Crawford, 2004; Lederman, Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, and Bell, 2001; Crawford, 1999) indicating that prospective teachers are capable of teaching inquiry-based science if they are prepared and supported in their teacher education program.

&nb= sp;

Conclusions

&= nbsp; This research indicates that an explicit and reflective approach to learning abo= ut and doing scientific inquiry within pre-service courses can be a successful= intervention in augmenting teachers’ perceptions about the nature of scientific inquiry and inquiry-based science education. Challenges include the ongoing support required for new teachers to implement an inquiry-based science pro= gram at the commencement of their careers. By identifying critical pre-service perceptions, it may be possible to develop curriculum and inquiry courses as interventions, which may assist pre-service teachers to move with little or moderate experience with scientific inquiry towards the perceptions of more experienced colleagues. It may also assist pre-service teachers with limited inquiry experience to understand the challenges that they will face when implementing inquiry strategies in their classrooms. An implication of this= work is an understanding of the important role that pre-service teacher’s biography plays in the development of a deeper understanding of the scienti= fic inquiry, which would require a more detailed research intervention (e.g. ca= se studies) of teachers during their pre-service and induction years.

&= nbsp; While our research corroborates and extends other researchers findings, more rese= arch is required. Since knowledge of scientific inquiry does not exclusively encourage intentional practices (Fazio, 2005; Schwartz and Lederman, 2002) within complex settings such as schools, future research studies should foc= us on: pre-service teachers’ perceptual and practice relations; identification of critical environmental details which help promote desired inquiry-based science educational practices in school settings; how teacher education programs can better align to support prospective teachers in the = area of inquiry-based science practices.

&= nbsp; We are currently planning to continue this line of research and initiate longitudinal studies that will fill a niche within current research into pre-service teachers’ adoption of an inquiry-based science perspective during their induction years. We believe that this research agenda will be = of interest to science teacher educators who are interested in promoting inquiry-based science with prospective science teachers through the enhance= ment of the perceptions and skills of teachers during their pre-service year at a Faculty of Education.

&nb= sp;

References

Abd-El-K= halick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: the impact o= f = a philosophy of science course on pre-service science teachers’ views a= nd instructional planning. International Journal of Science Educa= tion, 27 (1), 15-42.

&nb= sp;

Abel, S.= K., Smith, D.S. & Volmann, M.J. (2004). Inquiry in Science Teacher Educatio= n. In. L.B. Flick and N.G. Lederman (Eds), Scientific inquiry = and Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 173-200). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bartley,= A., Fazio, X. & Melville, W. (2007). The scientific method and science teacher= educa= tion: explorations in authenticity. Paper presented at the 2007 Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference: Character, Critique and Controversy in Science Teacher Education Clea= rwater, Florida, USA, January 3-7, 2007=

&nb= sp;

Bell, R.L., Smetana, L. & Binns, I. (2005) Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, &n= bsp; 72 (7), 30-33.

&nb= sp;

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 scie= nce &= nbsp; and scientific inquiry. Journal of Rese= arch in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 487–509.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

Cochran-= Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, D.C: American Education Research Association (AERA).

&nb= sp;

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

Council = of Ministers of Education Canada (1997). Common Frameworks of Science Learning &nbs= p; Outcomes, K-12. Toronto: CMEC Secretariat.

Crawford= , B.A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a pre-service teacher to create an inquiry-based = ; classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Educatio= n, 10 (3), 175-194.

&nb= sp;

Crawford= , B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, = 37 (9), 916-937.

&nb= sp;

DeBoer, = G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in scien= ce education: implications for practice. New &n= bsp; York: Teachers College Press.

&nb= sp;

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

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

&nb= sp;

Erickson, F. (1998= ). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B.J.Fraser & K.T= obin (Eds.), The International handbook of scien= ce education (pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

&nb= sp;

Fazio, X= . (2005). Exploring teacher views of scientific inquiry and the nature of science: a = collaborative action research project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of &= nbsp; Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

&nb= sp;

Flick, L= .B. (2004). Developing understanding of scientific inquiry in secondary student= s. In. L.B. &nbs= p; Flick and N.G. Lederman (Eds), Scientific inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 157-172). Dordrecht, Netherla= nds: Kluwer Acad= emic Publishers.

&nb= sp;

Gallaghe= r, J. (1989). Research on secondary school science practices, knowledge, and beliefs: &n= bsp; A basis for restructuring. In M. Matyas, K. Tobin, & B. Fraser, (Eds.), Looking into windows: qualitative research in science education. Washington, D. C.: American &n= bsp; Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

&nb= sp;

Holliday= , W.G. (2004). A Balanced Approach to Science Inquiry. In. L.B. Flick and N.G. Leder= man (Eds), Scientific inquiry and Natur= e of Science: Implications for Teaching, &= nbsp; Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 201-218). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer = Academic Publishers.

&nb= sp;

Hodson, = D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: a personalized approach. London, UK: &= nbsp; Open University Press.

&nb= sp;

Howes, E= .V. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do pre- service teach= ers bring? Journal of research in Scien= ce Teaching, 39 (9), 845-869.

&nb= sp;

Lederman= , N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Bell, R.L. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ &nb= sp; understanding and teaching of the nature of science: an intervention study. The Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education,= 1(2), 135-160.

&nb= sp;

Miles, M= .B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative = data analysis: A sourcebook of new &= nbsp; ideas (2^nd Edition= ). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

&nb= sp;

Ontario = Ministry of Education and Training (1999). T= he Ontario Curricul= um Grades 9 and 10: &n= bsp; Science. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.

&nb= sp;

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: &nb= sp; National Academy Press. <= /p>

National= Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and t= he National Science Educational &n= bsp; Standards. Washington, D.C.: National = Academy Press.

&nb= sp;

Patto= n, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2^nd Ed.). Newbury Park, = ; CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab and P. Brandwein (Eds.). = The teaching of science (pp. 1-103= ). Cambridge, MA. Harvard <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University Press.

Schwartz= , R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beastR= 21;: The influence of &n= bsp; knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching of nature of science. Jour= nal of &nbs= p; Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236

Tobin, K., Kahle, J., & Fraser, B. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: problems &= nbsp; associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

Wong, D.= & Pugh, K. (2001). Learning science: A Deweyan perspective. Journal of Research in = Science Teaching, 38 (3), 317-336.

&nb= sp;

Windschi= tl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How pre-service teachers re= produce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in = Science Teaching, 41 (5), 481-512.

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative &= nbsp; experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science = Education, 87, 112– 143.

Yore, D.= L. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the scien= ce &= nbsp; education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electronic Journal of &= nbsp; Science Education, 5, 4. Retrieved 5 October, 2005 from http://unr.edu/hom= epage/crowther/ejse/yore.html