TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS
ABOUT LEARNING AND TEACHING SCIE=
NCE
AS INQUIRY
Janice
Rosenberg,
Emily
van Zee, Oregon State University
Abstract
We are interested in ways we can support prospective elementary
and middle school teachers’ development of a deeper understanding of
inquiry and a commitment to instructional approaches that emphasize
inquiry. During a course enti=
tled
“Inquiry and the Nature of Science,” we examined two issues: What are the prospective
teachers’ initial ideas about inquiry? What experiences appear to contrib=
ute to
their growing understanding of inquiry?&nb=
sp;
Data sources included pre- and post-assessments, postings on an onli=
ne
discussion forum, and self-reflections.&nb=
sp;
According to a pre-assessment, many of the prospective teachers
identified experiences that had fostered their own science learning in the =
past
as involving choosing their own topics to investigate and answering questio=
ns
through explorations. We hope=
d to
expand these initial understandings by engaging the prospective teachers in=
a)
reflecting on readings about inquiry, b) exploring physical phenomena
themselves, c) observing and discussing video of children’s conversat=
ions
about science and explorations of phenomena, d) engaging children in inquir=
y,
and f) building their own framework for science teaching and learning based=
on
these experiences. Modeling inquiry and fostering reflective practices seem=
to
have enabled many of the prospective teachers to enrich and elaborate their
visions of effective science teaching and learning.
Introduction
The prominence of inquiry in the National Science Education Standards
(National Research Council, 1996, 2000) prompted us to design activities and
assignments to help prospective elementary school teachers develop deep
understandings of and commitment to instructional approaches that emphasize
inquiry. Science Teaching Standard A, for example, states that “Teach=
ers
of science plan an inquiry-based program for their students” (NRC, 19=
96,
p. 30). An elaboration of this
standard states that “Inquiry into authentic questions generated from
student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (p.
31).
The Science Content Standards inclu=
de
both the abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry and understandings ab=
out
such inquiry. Students in gra=
des
K-4, for example, should develop the ability to “ask a question about
objects, organisms, and events in the environment, plan and conduct a simple
investigation, employ simple equipment and tools to gather data and extend =
the
senses, use data to construct a reasonable explanation, and communicate
investigations and explanations”(NRC, 1996, p. 122). They also should develop understan=
dings
about scientific inquiry such as “scientists develop explanations usi=
ng
observations (evidence) and what they already know about the world (scienti=
fic
knowledge)” (NRC, 1996, p. 123).
The national standards document off=
ers
the following description of inquiry:
Inquiry
is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questi=
ons;
examining books and other sources of information to see what is already kno=
wn;
planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of
experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data;
proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the
results. Inquiry requires
identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and
consideration of alternative explanations. (NRC, 1996, p. 23)
Examples of inquiry-oriented classr=
ooms
are provided in a second document,
Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). A table of essential features of
classroom inquiry suggests variations in the amount of learner self-directi=
on
for each feature (NRC, 2000, p. 29).
Are the learners, for example, engaged in scientifically oriented
questions posed by the learners? Or
are the questions posed by the teacher, materials or other sources? Do the learners determine what
constitutes evidence and collect it or are they given data and told how to
analyze it? Do the learners
formulate explanations after summarizing evidence or are they provided evid=
ence
and ways to use it in formulating explanations? Do learners connect explanations t=
o scientific
knowledge independently or are they given connections? Do learners form arguments to
communicate and justify explanations or are they given steps and procedures=
for
doing so?
Many issues surround the implementa=
tion
of inquiry approaches in science classrooms (Anderson, 2002; Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002; Crawford, 1999; Keys & Bryan, 2001). These include the rationale for and
practice of explicitly teaching about inquiry in methods courses (van Zee,
2005; Gess-Newsome, 2002), the value of student thinking that does not conf=
orm
to scientists’ thinking (Hammer, 1995), the relation of inquiry to
standards (Layman,1996), and ways to document changes in beliefs about inqu=
iry
(Luft, 2001).
This study contributes to this
professional conversation about what and how teacher educators should teach=
in
courses on methods of teaching science (
&=
nbsp; •
What are the prospective teachers’ initial ideas about inquiry?
&=
nbsp; •
What experiences appear to contribute to their growing understanding of
inquiry?
Methodology
Setting
and Participants
The setting was a course on methods=
of
teaching science in elementary and middle school. Entitled “Inquiry and the Na=
ture
of Science,” the course is required for undergraduates undertaking a
double degree program leading to licensure. The course met for three hours =
once
a week for ten weeks. The tex=
ts
were Primary Science…Taking the Plunge by Harlan (1988) and Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-B=
ased
Science Standards by Llewellyn (2002).
Participants included twenty-one
prospective teachers who were enrolled during Fall 2006. The first author was the instructo=
r; the
second author was a participant observer in the course.
Data
Sources
&=
nbsp; Data
sources included pre- and post-assessments, postings on an online discussion
forum, and self-reflections. =
These
are discussed below.
Pre-Assessments:
On the first day of
class, the prospective teachers wrote definitions of “scientific
explanations” and “inquiry approaches to teaching and
learning.” They also
indicated on Likert scales from 1 to 5 their feelings about teaching and
learning science and working in groups.&nb=
sp;
In addition, they drew pictures of experiences they had had in which
they had learned some science and had enjoyed the process. Then they identified aspects of th=
ose
experiences that had fostered their learning.
Weekly Online Discussion Forums: Every week, the prospective teach=
ers
had readings from the textbook, journal articles, and websites. They also
watched video clips of children learning science. The weekly discussion for=
ums
provided the opportunity to synthesize what they were learning and to share
their ideas with their colleagues.
Post-Assessment.
The post-assessmen=
t was
a take-home final that consisted of two parts:
1.
Inquiry Approaches to Teaching and Learning
What
is your current understanding of the NSES Teaching Standard A: “Teach=
ers
of science plan an inquiry-based program for their students?”
Your
response should address the following:
• A description of science inquiry
including the essential components
• What an inquiry-based program woul=
d look
like in your classroom
• The role of the teacher in an
inquiry-based program
• The role of the students in an
inquiry-based program
• What you would take into considera=
tion
in planning an inquiry-based program for your students
2.
Framework for Effective Science Teaching and Learning:
At the end of the term, you will review your journal entries and weekly homework assignments for evidence as= to what criteria you feel are necessary in order to create effective science learning experiences for your students. From the themes you identify in your writing, you’ll develop a set of recommendations for science teaching. You’ll then discuss how your recommendations fit in with the NSES Sci= ence Teaching Standards that we looked at in our first class.
Self-Reflection: At the end of the course, the
prospective teachers re-submitted a copy of the questionnaire they had fill=
ed
out on the first day of class with their current responses marked in a diff=
erent
color. They also wrote a short essay describing how their beliefs about
teaching and learning science had changed as a result of this course. This
assignment was required but not graded.&nb=
sp;
Narrative
Interpretation
We developed a narrative interpreta=
tion (van
Zee, Hammer,
Overview of the Course
&=
nbsp; Table
1 provides an overview of the course.
The first session involved documenting the prospective teachers̵=
7;
initial knowledge about inquiry and engaging them in an inquiry activity,
lighting a bulb with a battery and single wire. During the first six weeks of the =
term,
the prospective teachers explored electricity through a four step process. =
They
first engaged in the inquiry-based lessons as learners, charting their grow=
ing
understanding of electrical circuits in their science “learning
logs”. After several le=
ssons,
they then analyzed videos from elementary classrooms in which children did =
the
same lessons they had just completed (Lesson Lab ViSTA, 2006). The third phase involved the
prospective teachers in creating a “science storyline” for the =
unit
they were about to teach at a local elementary school. This was accomplished
through a group planning process during which the prospective teachers plan=
ned
lessons in small groups and then negotiated changes to the lessons as they
presented their ideas to the rest of the class. The prospective teachers th=
en
taught these lessons to 4th graders, with a different group
presenting a lesson on four consecutive days. Immediately following the
experience, the prospective teachers reflected on their lessons in an online
discussion forum and also in class after they had the opportunity to view
videotapes of their lessons with the 4th graders.
&=
nbsp; The
prospective teachers also received training in the use of Project Learning =
Tree
and Project Wild curricula. They then developed a thematic unit of study us=
ing
activities from those curriculum guides.
&=
nbsp; Throughout
the course, the prospective teachers posted weekly reflections on an online
discussion board (Blackboard) on which they responded to prompts about read=
ings
and class activities. They al=
so
kept journals (“learning logs”) in which they described what th=
ey
did each session and what they thought about these experiences. &=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; At
the end of the course, the prospective teachers reflected on the nature of
inquiry and also on how their views about teaching and learning science had
changed as a result of this course.
For the final, they constructed their own frameworks and recommendat=
ions
for science teaching and learning (van Zee & Roberts, 2001). First they reviewed their own writ=
ings
from the online discussions and from their journals. These observations and
ideas became the evidence which they used to formulate claims about teaching
and learning. Using these frameworks as their guides, the prospective teach=
ers
then wrote up a list of recommendations for teaching science through inquir=
y in
their own classrooms.
Table
1
Overview of Fall Quarter 2006<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
SED 459 – Science and the Nature of Inquiry
|
Week |
Topic |
Activities |
|
1 |
What is Inquiry? |
=
· &nbs=
p;
Introduction to inquiry=
=
· &nbs=
p;
Lighting a bulb |
|
2 |
|
=
· &nbs=
p;
Science talk about circ=
uits =
· &nbs=
p;
Exploring circuits
continued =
· &nbs=
p;
Video: Trouble with Bub=
bles
(Pat Roy) |
|
3 |
|
=
· &nbs=
p;
Group circuit challenge=
=
· &nbs=
p;
Science Storylines:
Analyzing videos from classrooms engaged in electricity unit (LessonLab) |
|
4 |
|
=
· &nbs=
p;
Group Planning Session:
Electricity unit for =
· &nbs=
p;
Teach Lessons at |
|
5 |
Listening to Children’s
Ideas |
=
· &nbs=
p;
Reflect on experiences
teaching at =
· &nbs=
p;
Scientific Habits of Mi=
nd
– self-assessment |
|
6 |
Assessing Learning |
= · &nbs= p; Assessing student work<= o:p> =
· &nbs=
p;
State and national
standards =
· &nbs=
p;
Probing students’
ideas =
· &nbs=
p;
Minds of Their Own vide=
o |
|
7 |
Helping Children to Observe and
Communicate |
=
· &nbs=
p;
Project Learning Tree a=
nd
Project Wild curriculum |
|
8 |
Inte=
grating
Inquiry-Based Activities |
=
· &nbs=
p;
Building a “scien=
ce
storyline” using PLT/Project Wild curriculum |
|
9 |
Deve=
loping
Scientific Explanations |
=
· &nbs=
p;
Student interviews =
· &nbs=
p;
Inquiry in the classroo=
m =
· &nbs=
p;
The Inquiry Continuum |
|
10 |
Developing a Framework for Science Teaching and learning |
=
· &nbs=
p;
Inquiry review: Mystery
Tubes =
· &nbs=
p;
Framework for Teaching
Science |
Narrative Interpretations
&=
nbsp; Below
we trace the prospective teachers’ evolving understandings about inqu=
iry
learning and teaching as documented by the pre-and post-assessments, postin=
gs
on the online discussion forums, and self-assessments.
Pre-Assessments
During the first class meeting, the
prospective teachers drew posters that illustrated experiences they had had
that fostered science learning. They primarily drew pictures from c=
amping
trips, trips to science museums, and many depictions from nature including
trees, flowers, animals, and mountains While presenting their posters to =
one
another, they described a wide variety of experiences learning science and
identified ways that these had been effective. Then they discussed common themes =
that
they had heard in all of these positive experiences. One of the most frequent themes wa=
s that
science should be “hands-on”. Another common theme was that they
enjoyed choosing their own topics to investigate. On the written pre-assess=
ment
given earlier the same day, many prospective teachers had mentioned that in
science, questions were answered through “experiments” or ̶=
0;exploration”
Online
Discussion Forum
&=
nbsp; Postings
to the online discussions included comparing their prior science learning
experiences with readings about science learning, comparing what they had b=
een
learning in class to written scientific explanations, considering the role =
of
student and teacher questions, and focusing on students’ ideas.
Comparisons with readings about sci=
ence
learning. The first online discussion prompt=
asked
the prospective teachers to compare the experiences that they and their
colleagues represented in the science posters they had made in response to =
the
prompt: “What were the most enjoyable experiences you had learning
science?” with conditions that one of their textbooks (Harlan,1988) h=
ad
identified as being necessary to foster student learning The following two responses were
representative of the group:
DISCUSSION
PROMPT #1: Bringing Children and Science Together
In Chapter 2 of Primary Science &#=
8211;
Taking the Plunge, Wynne Harlan describes the conditions she feels are
necessary to foster student learning. She also discusses ways teachers can
create this type of environment in the science classroom.
Think about the experiences that you and your colleagues represented in the
science posters you made last night in response to the prompt: “What =
were
the most enjoyable experiences you had learning science?”
How do those experiences you had as children compare with Harlan’s
suggestions to us as teachers of science?
The majority of our most memorable science learning experiences had to do with hands on exploration of science... On our own terms. This is consistent with what ch= apter 2 of the text describes. The most "pure" science learning is that done out of curiosity, a desire to investigate, and an ability to explore. = As a young child I had many experiences prompted by my parents (camping, hiking, exploring nature, and a love of animals). However, in each situation I was = able to explore what interested me the most. On a hike, it may have been rocks, camping it may have been frogs, etc. Feeling driven to know more, I often w= ould focus in on these things that I found the most interest in and investigate them. This is where a traditional classroom may fall short... With limited = room for children to "chose" what they are interested in and investiga= te freely. There really is too much emphasis on the "right" answer, = even in science, where the essence of lessons should always be in the investigat= ive process... The thing that will lead children to discovering new and amazing things in their futures. I may have thought that the craters on the moon th= at I could see at night were the reflection of the earth for a very long time, b= ut each time I looked at the moon I thought very critically about it. What sha= pe are the spots I see on the moon? How is the earth getting reflected on the moon's surface? What side of the earth does that look like a picture of? We= ll, none of these things would actually lead to the "right" answer, b= ut they did prompt me to dig deeper! Teachers can similarly stimulate students= to dig deeper by getting their impressions of an idea without telling them any= of the "right" answers to start with. By generating their own ideas = and investigating their hypothesis, they may simply add the "right" answers to their own, or continue to believe that Ant lions eat dust and th= at the spots on the moon are a reflection of the earth. But in the end they wi= ll be more excited about the science they are experiencing than if someone had told them that what they were exploring was wrong!
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; (prospective teacher, online discussion #1)
I saw many similarities from our classroom discussion while reading the book. One thing that Harlen stressed and that was prelevant in our discussion was the neces= sity of hands on experiences. Everyone remembered things that were hands on. Ano= ther similarity was the ability for the child to pick different activities and h= ow they learned. Letting the child pick what they want to learn seems like ano= ther large idea in Harlen's book as well as in our discussion.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; (prospective teacher, online discussion #1)
In both elaborated and brief responses, the concepts of choice and exploration were prominent. We interpret = this to mean that prospective teachers may enter courses on methods of teaching science with some fairly sophisticated notions about science learning and teaching on which to build. <= o:p>
Comparing with scientific explanati=
ons.&=
nbsp;
During the first three class sessions, prospective teachers investig=
ated
electric circuits through a variety of open-ended and guided inquiry lesson=
s.
They then read a section from a teachers’ guide that provided backgro=
und
information on electrical circuits (Lesson Lab, 2006) and compared the
information with the discoveries that they had made during our inquiry less=
ons
and which they had recorded in their journals.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3:=
Comparing Your Understanding of Electricity with Scie=
ntific
Explanations
Read the "Curren= t and Simple Circuits Text" on the content page in the CURRENT ELECTRICITY A= ND SIMPLE CIRCUITS folder. Then look through your learning log and compare the understanding you gained through our inquiry activities with the scientific explanation as presented in the text. In the forum, discuss the following:<= o:p>
•
What concepts did you figure out on your own?
•
What questions did you have that the reading cleared up for you?
• What still doesn't make sense?
Our experimenting and examining of
current electricity and simple circuits has helped me understand electricit=
y in
a way that college level physics failed to achieve. In fact, as I am
remembering my physics lab that involved light bulbs in patterns of in seri=
es and
in parallel circuits, it finally makes sense to me! I had no idea what was
going on because I was assumed to understand the big picture of electricity
before hand... and I didn't! What I figured out on my own was the basics: in
order to light the bulb, wires needed to, in some way, make contact with the
positive and negative ends of the battery in a closed circuit, and touch the
bulb, apparently in two spots. This was what common sense told me, as well =
as a
little bit of hands on experimentation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; (prospective
teacher, online discussion #3)
I feel like I still have more to learn about electricity in detail, but tha=
t I
now get the big picture, and have tools to make sense out of all of the lit=
tle
pieces. I don't have any specific questions right now about things that don=
't
make sense, and I am definitely more confident in my understanding of how
electricity works.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; (prospective teacher, online discussion #3)
While we were figuring out how a
light bulb lit up in class, I was able to figure out exactly where you need=
ed
to attach the wires to the battery and the bulb in order to make it light. I
found out that you needed to have the wires touching the positive and negat=
ive
ends of the battery, as well as on the bottom and side of the light bulb.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; (prospective
teacher, online discussion #3)
After exploring in class, I still was unsure how the battery was causing the
current to work and to flow to the light bulb. I knew it had something to do
with the positive and negative ends, and the atoms that were inside. I just
wasn't sure if the protons or the electrons started the reactions, or if it=
was
equal, or what. The reading helped me see how that reaction was started, and
how when the chemical balances were all used up inside the battery, then th=
e battery
went dead.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; (prospective
teacher, online discussion #3)
=
These responses illustrate the p=
ower
and constraints of hands-on investigations. The prospective teachers were a=
ble
to discover how to make an electric circuit through experimentation, with v=
ery
little outside instruction. Those who had studied these concepts formally in
college physics classes were no more adept at making a complete circuit than
their peers who had not had formal instruction. However, the reading they d=
id
after completing the task furthered their understanding of electricity beca=
use,
having investigated on their own, they now had a conceptual framework which
enabled them to make sense of the readings. =
&nb=
sp;
Considering the role of student =
and
teacher questions. In
the next phase of the course, prospective teachers created a weeklong unit =
on
electric circuits that they would then teach to a group of 4th
&=
nbsp; The
following week, the prospective teachers worked together in teams to teach =
the
lessons to the 4th graders. The classroom teacher was present as=
an
observer. After each lesson, the prospective teachers reflected upon their
experiences. The focus of the reflection was on the role of questions (both
student- and teacher-generated) in the learning process.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #4: The Role of
Questions in Teaching and Learning
The focus of this week's Discussion Forum is the role questions pla=
y in
teaching and learning. Chapter 3 in Primary
Science - Taking the Plunge discusses how teachers can use
"productive" questions that lead to student learning. Chapter 4 a=
dds
to this discussion and also considers how teachers can encourage students to
raise their own questions.
Reflect on your experience teaching at
• What did these two readings make y=
ou
think about during your lesson?
• What did you notice about the role=
of
questions in teaching and learning?
Just from my perso= nal interaction with the students in the class, it felt different and exciting = to ask them questions instead of telling them all the answers. There were times when it was necessary to tell the students what or how to do something (for example, in order to test if an item is a conductor or insulator, you can't just put the wires through the object and touch them together), but in gene= ral, there was much more question asking. Why do you think it does that? How do = you think that works? What if you try it this way? It was actually even more stimulating for me as an instructor to feel like I was prompting students to think about the experiment and results in the lesson more deeply and critically.
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; (prospecti=
ve
teacher, online discussion #4)<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
When
I was at
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; (prospective
teacher, online discussion #4)
Through facilitating a lesson wi=
th
children, these prospective teachers were able to experience themselves som=
e of
the dilemmas of teaching through inquiry such as “practicing
quietness” (van Zee, 2000).
By this we mean that one not only waits before and after students ta=
lk
(wait-time (Rowe, 1986) but also listens to the details of other peopleR=
17;s
thinking without interrupting them (attentive silence) and withholds
one’s own opinions and understandings while assisting others in
expressing theirs (reticence). Such
experiences seemed to have helped the prospective teachers come to understa=
nd
and even begin to value the ways that their instructor was responding to th=
em
in class.
Focusing
on students’ ideas. The following week, the
prospective teachers reflected upon what it meant to them to take
children’s ideas seriously.
In
my classroom experience at (the elementary school), the girls who thought t=
hat
yarn was lighting their bulb presented a huge opportunity for us to really =
take
children’s ideas seriously. It was a stretch for us to go along with =
the
idea that string was lighting the bulb, but by taking their idea seriously,
letting them explore it and recreate it for the class, the girls had a chan=
ce
to dig deeper into the idea and figure out what was going on. Had we not ta=
ken
them seriously, they may have either gotten discouraged or gone on thinking
that yarn could conduct electricity. It was also very important to take the
idea of a train conductor given by the student during the word bank discuss=
ion
seriously. She had a really unique and thoughtful idea that the class was
dismissing as silly, but by having a teacher support her idea and encourage=
her
to expand on her thoughts, she was hopefully given a positive experience an=
d a
chance to develop her understanding of what a conductor really is in regard=
s to
electricity.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; (prospective
teacher, online discussion #5)
Post-Assessmen=
t
The final phase of the course
involved the development of a framework for teaching and learning science (=
van
Zee & Roberts, 2001). The prospective teachers read over all of their
reflections (both online discussions and journal entries) looking for theme=
s in
response to the question, “What fosters effective science teaching and
learning in the classroom?”
The last day of class, they cut apart their writings and grouped the
different ideas they wrote about into the themes they had identified. Their=
own
writing served as evidence upon which they based the claims they were willi=
ng
to make about fostering science teaching and learning. Examples of claims
include statements such as
Asking questions promotes science
learning.
Students should explore their own ideas in a meaningful way, making observations and hypotheses continually.<= o:p>
Students should not be cornered =
into
‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, but should focus on the
investigative process.
Listening to students’ ide=
as
aids the teacher in getting a sense of where the child stands academically,=
and
how to approach their learning.
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; (prospecti=
ve
teachers, excerpts from final)
From these claims, the prospecti=
ve
teachers developed recommendations that they could follow in their own
classrooms. These recommendations were meant to be concrete guidelines that=
the
prospective teachers could readily translate into practice. The following i=
s a
sample of recommendations made by several different prospective teachers.
Encourage students to give reaso=
ns
and explanations behind their thinking so that it may get them to think even
more in depth about the topic.
Encourage curiosity
(“wonderings”).
Turn children’s unproducti=
ve
questions into productive ones that promote investigation of real materials=
.
Encourage students to formulate =
and
investigate their own hypotheses.
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
(prospective
teachers, excerpts from final)
Reflections
The
excerpts above, along with data from the intervening sessions, provide evid=
ence
of the prospective teachers’ evolving understandings about inquiry. T=
he
prospective teachers came into the course claiming that they valued hands-on
engagement and providing students with choices. Furthermore, many noted the
important role the teacher plays in establishing a safe environment in which
children’s curiosity is encouraged and their ideas are seriously
considered. However, their postings on the online forum and self-reflection=
s at
the end of the course indicate a general consensus that this vision contras=
ted
with their own experiences. In particular, several prospective teachers
reflected upon the impact that an emphasis on “getting the right
answers” had on their learning:
My science classes rarely encour= aged curiosity, or investigating answers that differed from the “rightR= 21; one. Rather, my past teachers listed off facts that I needed to memorize in order to do well on a test…In my schools, students were rewarded for getting good grades and the only way to do that was to get the “right” answers. As a result, they have produced a world of sur= face learners, who have learned to memorize material rather than understand it.<= o:p>
Another student wrote,
This kind of authoritarian teach=
ing
style was very common during my public school years. I remember being asham=
ed
for giving the wrong answer, especially since I thought I had a good reason=
for
giving it. This is what I learned from my experience: that I was afraid of
getting the wrong answer, that the teacher was not interested in my ideas a=
nd
reasoning ability, and finally, that learning can never be fun.
In addition to making the
prospective teachers feel anxious and insecure about their science learning,
they also felt that, despite their ability to get good grades, they never
really understood the material. In response to a peer’s post, one
prospective teacher wrote:
You wrote: “Other times I =
was
so paranoid about getting the right answer and finishing on time, I barely =
paid
attention to what I was actually discovering, and forgot everything I had
learned within hours.”
It is sad, but that pretty much =
sums
up my K-12 schooling. I cannot tell you how many times I have just memorized
material to get a good grade on a test. If you were to test me on any of it
now, I assure you that I would do horrible I don’t remember any of it
(because I never really learned it), which I guess just verifies the fact t=
hat
teaching methods need to change because students aren’t learning anyt=
hing
except for how to memorize facts.
Another articulated explicitly t=
he
discrepancy between what had been a reality and a hoped for vision of a
different way:
Becoming a teacher is important = to me because I never want my students to feel the same way I did in the classroom. I want them to feel secure in learning, and be intrinsic learner= s. I want them to learn because they love it and they want to discover, not beca= use I dictate their learning by offering rewards for getting the right answer.<= o:p>
The challenge for these prospective teachers was to learn
how to make such a vision happen.
Modeling
Inquiry
Our perception is that the
prospective teachers began the course with some positive images upon which =
to
draw but apparently without explicit knowledge about how to bring about the=
ir
visions for teaching science in ways that foster student learning. This cou=
rse
provided models of inquiry teaching and learning through readings, video cl=
ips
of elementary classrooms in which students learned through inquiry, and
in-class inquiry activities during which the prospective teachers were
themselves in the role of science learners. The prospective teachers were a=
ble
to practice being in the role of a facilitator of inquiry by teaching lesso=
ns
to 4th graders. Finally, they reflected on their experiences
throughout the course, and used their own writings to create their own
framework for teaching and learning science.
=
T=
his
combination of modeling activity and reflection is critical to the developm=
ent
of an understanding not just of what inquiry is, but also how to create a classroom environment that supports
learning through inquiry. One prospective teacher’s comments on a rea=
ding
in Harlen’s book (1988) illustrates the importance of providing these
models:
When reading the chapter, I found
myself getting excited to teach science, which I honestly thought I would h=
ave
a difficult time doing. This model of teaching deviates from what I have be=
come
accustomed to. It was exciting to read about how the classroom should be, a=
nd
made me excited to become a teacher so I could implement more open-ended
instruction and integrate the proposed ideas in my classroom. I want to
encourage students to be curious and take initiative in their learning
experiences. I want to include my students in their learning, not just hand=
out
worksheets and facts for them to memorize. I did rote learning all througho=
ut
my schooling and I hated it. Why would I want to make my students do the ve=
ry
thing I despised?
Another prospective teacher
discussed the value of putting into practice the ideas we had been discussi=
ng
in class:
So far a lot of what I have learned= in our own class is the value of stimulating students to ask questions and won= der about what they are learning. The experience at the Elementary School allow= ed me to see students questioning science first hand. Our activity included testing insulators and conductors. Towards the end of the lesson, we spent = time learning what the students had tried and getting them to explore what had happened. The learning that the students were doing seemed primed by questioning, not what I have always seen in a "typical" classroom= .
= <= o:p>
This prospective teacher makes a
distinction between what she calls a “typical” classroom (in ot=
her
words, the style of teaching she has seen modeled), and the type of classro=
om
environment she hopes to create. She goes on to explain why she feels it is=
so
critical to listen to children’s ideas and to allow them to work thro=
ugh
to their own conclusions:
One
of the more major discoveries worked on in our class session at Adam's was =
the
group that found in their experience that string could conduct electricity.
This was obviously (to us) not the case, but it was an amazing experience to
see the students work on figuring this out for themselves. Not incidentally,
the entire class was very curious to find out if the string really could pa=
ss
electricity, or if something else was going on. In the end, the students
decided that based on their configuration, both the string and the wire were
needed to make the electricity form a circuit. This is a situation in which=
it
was extremely valuable to let the students work through the problem, re-work
their model, and get feedback from their classmates- all made possible by a
setting primed by questions. Had we never asked the students what they had
found out in their experimenting and simply shown them what a conductor and
insulator should be, this moment would never had occurred in the classroom,=
and
the students would have either continued to believe that string was conduct=
ing
electricity, or not taken a second look to see if it really could or not.
Another
prospective teacher described how the combination of personal learning thro=
ugh
inquiry, observing videos of children learning through inquiry, facilitating
inquiry in the classroom, and reflecting upon these experiences was a criti=
cal
step in her development of an understanding of how to teach science through
inquiry. In her final reflection, which she entitled, “Change of
Heart”, she states:
From previous education courses I
have completed, I had been introduced to the notion of learning through mea=
ns
of inquiry. However, it was not until this course where I was able to see t=
he
process of inquiry unravel. I was able to become an elementary school stude=
nt
again and learn about a concept that I have never really grasped. Additiona=
lly,
I was given the opportunity to observe elementary students do the same
activities performed in class.
Personally, my thoughts regarding
learning and teaching science changed drastically upon our trip to the
elementary school. It is one thing to observe children learn and another to=
be
part of their learning. As I stated in my initial response to the survey
conducted at the beginning of the term, I rated myself as being unconfident=
in
my ability to teach science. I also rated my excitement about science as
mediocre. Upon getting the students engaged in the activity, I realized my
attitude was changing. We discussed the advantages of integrating inquiry in
the classroom; however it was really exemplified when I was able to see it =
take
place first hand. Students were excited to learn about science! It was
something I had never experienced before, and to be honest, it was refreshi=
ng.
I was surprised to see how engaged the students were and even more surprised
that I was loving every minute of teaching it.
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
(prospective
teacher, self-reflection)
Remembering
that these reflections are written publicly, on an online forum read by all=
or
in assignments turned in to the instructor, one should be cautious in in
interpreting such remarks. Ho=
wever,
our impression has been that the discomfort that many of the prospective
teachers seemed to feel early in the course abated as they gained experienc=
e in
learning through inquiry themselves and especially as they engaged the chil=
dren
in similar inquiries.
Reflecting
on Reflection
We
think a key aspect of this course was its on-going requirement for reflecti=
on,
in the discussions in class, in science logs the prospective teachers kept
about their explorations in class, in the postings for the online forum, in
their analyses of video of children learning, and in a final that involved =
an
act of research, identifying common themes in their own writings in order to
identify those aspects that seem most important to themselves in building t=
heir
own frameworks to guide their evolving teaching practices.
The centrality of reflection to learning is well known. Nearly a hundred years ago, Dewey = (1910) wrote about “how we think” and later restated his insights into= the relations of reflective thinking to the educative process (1933). Our empha= sis on reflection mirrors that of Abell and B