ENGAGING
PROSPECTIVE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS IN AUTHENTIC SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY:
INVESTIGATION INTO A SCIENCE COURSE
=
Ling L.
Liang,
=
Greer M.
Richardson,
This study engaged pre-service teachers in an authentic, self-= reflective, and scaffolded student-directed inquiry project on local streams. Upon the completion of the inquiry project, it was found that the participati= ng teacher candidates demonstrated adequate scientific understandings, inquiry skills, and significant improvement in personal science teaching efficacy beliefs.
In the most recent science education reform movements,
scientific inquiry and the nature of science have been identified=
as critical elements for developing scientific literacy =
of
all learners (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996, 2000).
Learning and teaching science as inquiry requires not only imparting scient=
ific
information but also developing fundamental understandings and abilities to
conduct scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 1996, 2000). In this
paper, we will examine the impact of a revised science course that engages
preservice elementary teachers in an authentic, self-reflective, scaffolded
student-directed inquiry experience.
Background for the Study
Learning=
and
Teaching Science as Inquiry
Scien=
tific
inquiry generally refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the
natural world. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2=
000)
identified five essential features of classroom inquiry: 1) learners are
engaged by scientifically oriented questions; 2) learners give priority to
evidence in responding to questions; 3) learners formulate explanations from
evidence to address scientifically oriented questions; 4) learners evaluate
their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those
reflecting scientific understanding; and 5) learners communicate and justify
their proposed explanations.
To fu=
rther
distinguish among various forms of classroom inquiry, science education
researchers have also developed “inquiry continua” to classify
classroom inquiry into different levels from teacher-centered to
student-centered. The lowest levels of “inquiry” are traditional
confirmatory laboratory experiences, or cookbook labs in which students were
given a step-by-step procedure to verify known principles. The next level is
described as “structured inquiry” in which the teacher presents=
a
question, lab equipment, and procedures for students to complete the inquir=
y.
In the third level, “guided inquiry,” the teacher provides a
question and lab equipment, while the students design the procedure, analyze
data, and make conclusions. In “student directed inquiry”, the =
fourth
level, the teacher presents a topic and lets students develop their own
questions and design their own investigations. The highest level of inquiry=
is
referred to as “open inquiry” or student research inquiry. At this level, students select top=
ics
and investigate their own questions (e.g., Bonnstetter, 1998; Herron, 1971;
Schwab, 1962).
To da=
te,
various studies have reported the positive effects that inquiry-oriented
science learning and teaching have on pre-service teachers' understanding of
the nature of science, attitudes and beliefs about science learning and
teaching, and their classroom teaching performance (e.g., Adamson, et al. 2=
003;
Richardson & Liang, in press; Haefner & Zembal-Saul 2004; Ha=
im,
2003; McGinnis, Kramer,
Shama, Graeber, Parker, & Watanabe 2002; Slater, Safko, & Carpenter,
1999). However, the difficulties and limitations of inquiry teaching have a=
lso
been reported (e.g., Dreyfus, Jungwirth, & Eliovitch, 1990; Riggs &
Kimbrough, 2002). Studies suggest that successful inquiry teaching requires=
significant
intellectual commitment on the part of the learners as well as deep cogniti=
ve
engagement in the subject. Because of this, simply having learners conduct inquiry activities and/or
scientific experiments is not sufficient in developing fundamental
understanding of science and scientific inquiry.
The m=
ore
recent research on learning and teaching has pointed to the importance of <=
/span>scaffolded inquiry and promoting learne=
rs'
meta-cognitive awareness (i.e., deliberate conscious control of cognitive activity) in de=
veloping
lifelong learner=
s (Krajcik,
Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; National Research Council, 1999; 2005). It has been reported that stu=
dents
who enrolled in inquiry-based science classes with meta-cognitive facilitat=
ion
or a "reflective assessment" component outperformed their
counterparts in similar classes without meta-cognitive facilitation.
Furthermore, adding this meta-cognitive or reflective assessment process to
science curriculum was particularly beneficial for conventional lower-achie=
ving
learners (e.g., Liang & Gabel, 2005; White & Frederiksen, 2000).
Prospective Elementa=
ry
Teachers' Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Science
The
connection between beliefs, learning, and teaching performance can be captu=
red
by the psychological construct of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). According =
to
an exhaustive review of the literature on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), the evidence across studies has consistently
shown that an individual’s “perceived self-efficacy”
contributes significantly to the level of her/his motivation and performance
accomplishments (Bandura, 1977, 1997). In his theory of social learning
(Bandura, 1977), Bandura
outlined two components of self-efficacy: personal efficacy and outcome
expectancy. Personal efficacy refers to the conviction that an individual c=
an
successfully execute the behavior required to produce the desired outcomes.=
An
outcome expectancy is defined as an individual’s estimate that a given
behavior will lead to certain outcomes.&nb=
sp;
One’s
personal efficacy beliefs can be fostered through personal mastery experien=
ces,
vicarious experiences of models, social persuasion from others, and personal
judgments of somatic and emotional states surrounding a performance.
Previous
research has revealed a relationship am=
ong
the teachers’ personal teaching efficacy, teaching outcome expectancy,
and teaching performance. It =
was
suggested that teachers with high self-efficacy showed a greater commitment=
to
student achievement, had higher expectations for their students, and elicit=
ed
greater student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gi=
bson
& Dembo, 1984).
Enochs and Riggs (1990) applied the concept of
teaching efficacy to the . In the instrument, the pers=
onal
science teaching efficacy was defined as one’s belief about one’=
;s
own ability to teach science, while the science teaching outcome expectancy
refers to one's expectation that student learning can be influenced by
effective science teaching. D=
ue to
the fact that many preservice elementary teachers had unsuccessful science
learning experiences in school and therefore developed negative attitudes a=
nd
low levels of confidence in learning and teaching science, there is a speci=
al
need to foster the elementary teachers candidates’ science teaching
efficacy in our teacher education programs.
Tosun, 2000; Yong & Kello= gg, 1993). Enochs an= d his colleagues found that the preservice teachers’ sense of person= al science teaching efficacy was positively correlated with 1) their choice of “activity-based” science instructional approaches and 2) their perceived effectiveness in teaching science. They also found that the numbe= r of college science courses taken and the number of years of high school science taken were negatively correlated with the participants’ personal scie= nce teaching efficacy, which indicates the inadequacy of traditional science instruction (Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995). However, more recent research does= show that well-designed science and science education courses with a hands-on/minds-on approach can produce significant positive changes in effi= cacy beliefs (Author, in press; Palmer, 2006; Bleicher, & Lindgren, 2005; Mulholland, Dorman, & Odgers, 2004; Shroyer, 1997).
Windschitl followed a group of preservice science teachers from their methods courses through their student teaching experiences. It was found that those that had more authentic views of inquiry and reflected more deeply ab= out their projects in the methods course were not the ones that subsequently practiced inquiry in teaching. Rather, it was those that had extensive previous authentic science r= esearch experience used either guided or open inquiry in their teaching. Finally, t= his author advocated that independent science investigations be part of preserv= ice education and that these experiences should be scaffolded to prompt reflect= ion on the nature of inquiry and inquiry-based learning and teaching (Windschit= l, 2003).
In
=
The
study reported here is part of the results from our efforts to systematical=
ly
infuse environmental education content into our teacher education programs<=
/span>. The purpo=
se of
this paper is to examine the effects of a science course that was recently
revised to engage
pre-service teachers in an authentic, self-reflective, scaffolded student-d=
irected
inquiry experience. The specific research questions addressed are as follow=
s:
1) Upon the completion of the authentic scientific inquiry project, do the prospective teachers develop adequate scientific understandings of EE conce= pts and abilities to conduct scientific inquiry?
2) To what= extent does the implementation of the authentic inquiry project influence the prospective teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs?
The study =
involved
two instructors and 25 prospective elementary teachers who enrolled in two
sections of an interdisciplinary science course at a small private universi=
ty
in the mid-atlantic area. The majority of participants (> 90%) were fema=
le,
Caucasian, sophomore students.
Curri=
culum: Investigations in Mathematics and Scie=
nce
(IMS 161)
Existing curriculum. IMS 161 is the second part of the yearlong science courses sequence required for all elementary and special education (ESE) majors. Throughout the course, students engaged in small collaborative inquiry groups and investig= ated such topics as physical and chemical properties of matter, floating and sinking, and behaviors of living things. Instructors facilitated the inquiry-based instruction through guided experimentation, confronting students’ alternative conceptions, questioning, discussion, and class presentations. At the conclusion of each unit, each student was required to write a unit summary, illustrating their understandings and reflect upon wh= at they had learned. The students were encouraged to apply their knowledge to a new problem or to explain everyday phenomena in relation to the concept in = the unit.
In additio=
n to the
unit summaries, other traditional and non-traditional assessment tools were
also used throughout the semester. They included essays on science-related
events in students’ everyday life, reflection journals, concept tests,
inquiry projects, class presentations, and exit interviews.
The str= eam study inquiry project. During the investigation, two sections of the IMS 161 course ran simultaneously. Section one implemented the existing IMS curriculum with a classroom-based, reflective, guided inquiry approach throughout the semester. The students in section two were required to compl= ete a seven-week long authentic inquiry project on local streams during the sec= ond half of the semester. Informed by the science education research literature= , we adopted a modified version of the student-directed inquiry model as the rev= ised curriculum. Given the topic o= f local streams, the preservice teachers are encouraged to develop their own questions and design their own investigation= s. In addition, teacher scaffolding and meta-cognitive facilitation were provided throughout the inqui= ry project. The descripti= on and timeline of the student directed inquiry project are presented in Figure 1.=
Figure 1
Stream Study
Project: Description and Timeline
Objectives:
Students will be able=
to
Assessment:
Research Agenda ( 20%) Presentation (group, 20%)
Paper (group, 30%) &=
nbsp;
Unit Summary (individual, 30%)
Timeline:
|
Week
of the Semester |
Activities
|
|
8 |
Identify and Refine Research Question(s), via
face-to-face and on-line discussion |
|
9 |
Literature Review, Refine Research Questions,
Design Investigation, via face-to-face and on-line discussion |
|
11 |
Field work, face-to-face and on-line discussio=
n |
|
12 |
Draft Paper Due
|
|
13 |
P=
resentation
(using poster, physical models, Power Point slideshow, etc.) |
|
14 |
Final Paper Due |
At the beg=
inning
of the stream study unit, each preservice teacher was assigned to a research
team of four members with mixed levels of prior scientific understanding ba=
sed
on the course grade prior to the intervention.
Information and selected resources related to the stream study project were
provided to all participants using a web-based course management tool called
WebCT. Throughout the inquiry project, all team members were required to
interact with one another in both face-to-face meetings and using the WebCT
group discussion tools. The instructor provided on-line feedback to
students’ work-in-progress and supplied scaffolding questions during
different phases of the inquiry project (see Figure 2). At the end of the
project, students submitted individual unit summaries by responding to the
questions such as: 1) To what extent, has the project helped enhance your
understanding of scientific knowledge (rate your level of scientific
understanding on a scale of 1-5)? 2) What did you know about the topic befo=
re
you began this project? 3) Describe and explain what scientific knowledge or
concepts you have learned throughout the project; 4) What strategy, procedu=
re,
or techniques did you use to assist you in understanding the material? and =
5)
In what situation(s) could you use the new knowledge in the future? Finally, each group wrote a formal
research paper and presented their research findings to the entire class.
Figure 2
Sample
Discussion Questions on WebCT
_____=
_________________________________________________________________________
Asking Questions:
· =
What do you know about “streams”? How do streams relate=
to
our daily life?
· =
What do scientists or experts say about “streams”? How does the quality of
“streams” affect our daily life?
· =
What questions or problems do you want to investigate?
Gathering Information:
· =
How would you identify relevant resources (bibliography) available =
for
answering your questions?
What’s your list of resources?
· =
What did you learn from reading the information gathered?
Designing and Planning I= nvestigations:
· =
How would you design an investigation to answer your question(s)?
· =
What data would you collect?
What equipment and materials are needed? How do the to-be-performed
measures relate to your questions?
· =
How would you collect your data?&n=
bsp;
How would you make sure that your investigation can be replicated by
others? How would you know th=
at
your measures are reliable (repeatable)?
· =
How would you make sure to be thorough, systematic, and precise in
collecting and describing your data?
·
Is your plan realistic in terms of availability of allocated time a=
nd
resources available?
Carrying Out Investigati= ons:
· =
How would you make certain that you and your team members will foll=
ow
the plan of your investigatio=
n to
ensure consistency and accuracy in measurements?
Analyzing and Interpreti= ng Data:
· =
How would you analyze your data?
· =
What patterns do you see based on your data analysis?
· =
How would you interpret your data based on your own investigation a=
nd
what you read during the “Gathering Information” phase? Any
alternative interpretations?
· =
What general conclusions can you make about your investigation?
· =
How would you report your research findings?
· =
What’s the value for doing this investigation?
· =
What new questions are generated from your research project?
______________________________________________________________________=
_______________
Table 1<= /p>
Evalu=
ations
of Group Research Papers and Presentations
Group Research Paper:
|
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Class Ave. |
|
|
|
Title: Is the title appropr=
iate
in tone and structure to science journals? |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2.5 |
|
|
Abstract: Does it clearly stat=
e the
purpose of the research and summarize the main findings in 200-300 words?=
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1.25 |
|
|
Introduction: Does the introducti=
on
clearly identify the purpose of the research, include a literature review=
to
provide background information, identify interested audience, and adopt an
appropriate tone? |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Methods
and materials section: Is
the research design consistent with the purpose or research question(s)?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Does the section contain effecti=
ve,
quantifiable, concisely organized information that allows the
experiment/observation to be replicated? |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2.8 |
|
|
Results
section: Are data properly an=
alyzed
and presented in tables and/or graphs with self-contained headings? |
3 |
2 |
2.5 |
2 |
2.4 |
|
|
Conclusions
and implications section: Are
conclusions drawn consistent with the data and scientific reasoning (avoi=
ding
over generalizing)? Are explanations of the expected results and suggesti=
ons
for further research for unexpected results provided? |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2.8 |
|
|
Scientific Forma=
t &
Reference Section: Are
all materials correctly presented and logically organized within each
section? Is the reference sec=
tion
presented in a consistent / appropriate format suggested by instructor? |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2.3 |
|
Group Presentation: Organization, Eye Co= ntact, Delivery, & Visuals |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Note: Absent =3D0, Unacceptable=
=3D1,
Acceptable=3D2, Target=3D3.
A Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance with between-subjects factors on the STEBI B instrument was performed to compare the pre- and post-test results within the stream study class as well as between the stream study and non-stream study class sections. We found that the students in both classes demonstrated significant improvement in their personal science teaching efficacy over the semester [F(1,23)=3D8.14, p<0.01, Partial Eta Squared 0.26]. In Table 2, it is noted that the prospective teachers in the stream class demonstrated slightly larger gain scores in both PSTE and STOE sub-scales, although the interaction between t= he Time factor and the Treatment factor (time*class) was not statistically sig= nificant at 0.05 level [F(1,23)=3D1.41, p=3D0.247, Partial Eta Squared 0.06]. No statistically significant differences were found within or between classes = on the science teaching outcome expectancy sub-scale.
Table 2<= /p>
Mean Scores on Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (= PSTE) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) by Group ___________________________________________________________________________= ___
Group &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; PSTE Pretest PSTE Posttest STOE
Pretest STOE
Posttest
(Class) =
n M=
=
SD &nb=
sp; =
M SD<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> =
M =
SD =
M SD _____________________________________________________________________=
_________
Stream 16 =
46.13 6.47 =
51.25 5.76=
34.06
4.07 36.81 <=
/span> 3.58
N=
on-Stream 9 48.56 6.69 <=
/span> &=
nbsp; 50.67
7.89
34.67
3.35 33.89 &n=
bsp; 5.30
___________= ___________________________________________________________________
Note. Maximum possible PSTE score =3D 65. Minimum pos=
sible
PSTE score =3D 13. PSTE score for neutral or uncertain =3D 39; Maximum poss=
ible
STOE score =3D 50. Minimum possible STOE score =3D 10. STOE score for neutr=
al or
uncertain =3D 30.
&=
nbsp; The following factors may have
contributed to the prospective teachers’ enhanced personal science
teaching efficacy beliefs during the course of study: the perceived high le=
vel
of personal success, perceived cooperative and supportive learning communit=
y,
and a sense of meaningfulness, relevance, and enjoyment. Throughout =
the
stream study project, preservice teachers exhibited high levels of interest=
and
commitment to learning as observed by the course instructor. Most students
(>90%) believed that the stream inquiry unit had significantly improved
their scientific understanding. In their unit summaries, the average
self-reported ratings of student scientific understandings was 4.5 on a sca=
le
of 1-5. The learners also stated that face-to-face and on-line interactions
served both stimulating and motivating roles in creating a supportive learn=
ing
environment. In addition, 95% prospective teachers reported that the stream
study unit helped them make connections between science learning and the re=
al
world applications, and/or their future classroom teaching. The following
represent typical student responses:
In the future, I can use this type of project with my students. When lessons pertaining to the environment and pollution issues, specifically water pollution, are taught, I can discuss with my students components that indic= ate whether a stream is polluted or not. I can organize field trips to a stream= or creek so that students can conduct different tests on the water. This may assist in their understanding of the material. It may also be an enjoyable activity. The students can develop their own conclusions to determine if the stream is healthy or polluted and devise ways of keeping streams clean. (Student # 13)
…It is always important not to mow the lawn directly up to the streamline. The grass should grow naturally along the bank. It is also significant for ther= e to be trees and shrubs along the bank of the stream. My dad had previously wan= ted to rip out the trees along the stream to make the backyard more appealing. I have since warned him that doing so will make the stream murky and unhealth= y, because all of the sediment from the ground will run off into the stream. T= his experiment made me realize that it is necessary to look at the vegetation around a body of water…. (Student # 4)
Conclusions and
Implications
&nbs= p; Implementation of the reform-based, inquiry-centered school science programs require new models of teacher professional development. Literature has suggested that beginning teachers should be engaged in scientific inquiry in college scien= ce courses (Grandy, & Duschl, 2005). Duschl (2003) synthesized the research in science education and cognitive/social psychology and suggested that science instruction should promote integrating science learning across= the conceptual, epistemic, and social domains. According to Duschl and his colleagues, learning and teaching scientific inquiry should focus on the conceptual structures and cognitive processes used when reason= ing about scientific topics, the epistemic frameworks used when developing and evaluating scientific knowledge, and, the social processes and contexts that shape how knowledge is discovered, communicated, represented, and argued. <= /p>
Our stream study unit involved all three of the
domains described above. Firs=
t, the
design of the inquiry unit facilitated learners’ learning and reasoni=
ng
about science concepts; Second, when we had students plan and conduct
investigations, use evidence to propose explanations, or arguments, we asked
them to employ epistemic frameworks. Finally, we promoted scientific discou=
rse
through both face-to-face in-class discussions and electronic dialogues.
The findings in our study suggest that our revised science curriculum with a scaffolded, reflective, and student-directed authentic inquiry component was effective in promoting scientific understandings of EE concepts, and in developing inquiry skills among the preservice elementary teachers. The implementation of the revised curriculum was also effective in improving preservice elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy beliefs. Moreover, by engaging teacher candidates in authentic scientific inquiries relevant to their everyday life and environment, we are able to p= repare teachers with improved awareness of environment related issues, and provide= the prospective teachers with some tools for developing responsible and informed citizenship.
&=
nbsp; One
limitation of the current study is that we did not have an ideal control gr=
oup.
Whereas both the “stream study” and “non- stream study=
221;
classes completed one common unit on “properties of matter” wit=
h a
similar guided inquiry approach, the other segments of the course contents =
or
topics varied among instructors.
Further studies with larger and more diverse samples as well as impr=
oved
controls are needed. It is also recommended that follow-up studies on actual
teaching performances of those preservice teachers with authentic inquiry
experiences be conducted.
References
Adamson, A. L., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox, F., Judson, E., Turley, et al. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 939-957. <= /span>
=
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scien=
ce
literacy: Project 2061.
Ashton,
P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of
efficacy and student achievement.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory = of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control.
Bonnstetter, R. J. (1998). Inquiry: Learning from the past with an eye on the future. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3, No. 1. Retrieved November 21, 2003, from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/bonnstetter.html.
Duschl,
Richard A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J Myron Atkin & Janet E.
Coffey (eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom, (pp. 41-59). <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">
Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the "cognitive conflict" strategy for conceptual change--some implications, difficult= ies, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555-569.
Enochs,
L. G. & Riggs,
Enochs,
L. G., Scharmann, L. C. & Giggs,
Freeman,
C. C.; Smith, D. L.
(1997, April). Active and engaged? Lessons from an interdisciplinary=
and
collaborative college mathematics and science course for preservice teacher=
s. Paper presented at the Annual Meet=
ing of
the American Educational Research Association.
Gibson, S. and Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Jo= urnal of Education Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Grandy,
R. E., & Duschl, R. A. (2005, July). Reconsidering the character and ro=
le
of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Paper presented at =
the
International History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Group
meeting.
Haim,
E. (2003). Inquiry-events as tools for changi=
ng
science teacher efficacy belief of kindergarten and elementary school
teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 495-501.
Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26,1653-1674.<= o:p>
Herron, M. D. (1971). =
The
nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.
Krajcik,
J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional,
curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms.