Dr

A graduate assistant= 217;s development as a teacher Educator while implementing an open inquiry project

Sophia J. Swe= eney, University of Arkansas

Michael J. Wa= vering, University of Arkansas

Abstract

<= /span>This study examined the multiple contexts influencing a graduate assistant’= ;s development as a teacher educator as she created and implemented an open inquiry project for preservice elementary teachers. The graduate assistant’s own concurrent enrollment in doctoral-level courses in pedagogical content knowledge and curriculum development, as well as on-goi= ng written and verbal dialogue with her program advisor, provided several feed= back loops that all influenced and reinforced the graduate assistant’s understanding of inquiry and supporting inquiry experiences for preservice teachers. The graduate assistant demonstrated her development as a teacher educator in four knowledge bases for teaching: (a) general pedagogical knowledge; (b) subject matter knowledge; (c) knowledge = of context; and (d) pedagogical content knowledge (Grossman, 1990) within the context of the development and implementation of the open inquiry project.<= /p>

Introduc= tion

Well-developed teacher knowledge bases and the successful integration of those knowledge b= ases have been identified as critical components of effective teaching (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986; 1987). Teacher educators must possess knowledge of effective pedagogy, subject matter, classroom contexts, and the representat= ion of subject matter in meaningful ways (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986). Effec= tive teacher educators also engage in reflective practice and make explicit thei= r professional knowledge about teaching and learning (Leura & Otto, 2005; Smith, 2005)= .

&= nbsp; Science education reform documents call for teachers to have first-hand experiences with scientific inquiry in order to support inquiry in their own classrooms (National Research Council [NRC], 1996; 2000; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2004). The purpose of this study was to investigate the development and integration of graduate assistant’s teacher knowledge bases as she created and implemented a research-based open inquiry project = for preservice teachers enrolled in an elementary science methods course. The graduate assistant is the first author of this paper.

Theoretical Framework

Effective Teachers

Well-developed teacher knowledge bases and the successful integration of those knowledge b= ases have been identified as critical components of effective teaching (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986; 1987). Four broad knowledge bases encompass the professional knowledge necessary for effective teaching: (a) general pedagogical knowledge; (b) subject matter knowledge; (c) knowledge of conte= xt; and (d) pedagogical content knowledge (Grossman, 1990). Shulman (1987) asse= rts that the role of teacher education programs is to help preservice teachers integrate those knowledge bases. Pedagogical content knowledge, or “subject matter knowledge for teaching” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9), consists of “the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Teacher educators, in addition to knowing about learners and learning, possessing e= xpertise in subject matter, responding to classroom contexts, representing subject matter in meaningful ways, and engaging in reflective practice have an additional responsibility. “A major element in a teacher educatorR= 17;s professional knowledge is the skill of making knowledge about teaching and learning explicit” (Smith, 2005, p. 181). Teacher educators, then, mu= st be able to articulate their professional knowledge about the teaching and learning process through an oral narrative, justifying and explaining their= own practices. The ability to do so requires a high level of metacognition, and= the practice is difficult for most teacher educators and mentor teachers (Zanti= ng, Verloop, Vermut, & Van Driel, 1998).

The National Research Council describes effective science teachers as those who= are reflective practitioners, possess science content knowledge and utilize inq= uiry to teach science (NRC, 1996). Luera and Otto (2005), describe two different types of reflective practice. The first type of reflective practice, metacognition, represents one’s ability to discern what one knows and does not know. “The second type of reflective practice focuses on reflection-in-action, also called action research . . .” (Leura & Otto, 2005, p. 245), the means by which teachers engage in problem-solving classroom dilemmas. Effective science teachers provide opportunities for th= eir students to learn science, learn about science, and do science through the process of inquiry (NRC, 1996).

&= nbsp; Inquiry

“Inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (NRC, 1996, p. 31). Despite this power= ful assertion, a series of science education reform documents that call for sci= ence learning through inquiry (American Association for the Advancement of Scien= ce, 1993; NRC, 1996; 2000; NSTA, 2004) and a voluminous body of research that b= acks this statement, science is not being taught through inquiry (Windschitl, 20= 03). Research has demonstrated that teachers teach in the way they were taught (Bryan & Abell, 1999; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). However, the majority of teachers entering teac= her preparation programs have never conducted an inquiry investigation (Shapiro, 1996; Windschitl, 2000). The National Science Teachers Association (2004), = recognizing this gap between theory and practice in teacher preparation programs, calls= for the incorporation of inquiry into teacher preparation programs to give teac= hers the experiences and background knowledge they need to support inquiry in th= eir own classrooms.

&= nbsp; Schwab (1978) proposes school curriculum that accurately represents the discipline, making clear the conceptual framework of the discipline as well as the way knowledge is added to the discipline. Incorporating inquiry into science content and methods courses gives students the opportunity to experience firsthand how science knowledge is added to the discipline.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; The essential features of inquiry include: (a) formulating scientifically orien= ted testable questions; (b) gathering evidence to answer the questions; (c) for= ming explanations based on the evidence; (d); connecting explanations to known science content; and (e) communicating and defending explanations (NRC, 200= 0). Inquiry can take many forms, with varying amounts of teacher and student control (W= indschitl, 2003). In open inquiry the teac= her allows students to develop their own questions and design and conduct their= own investigations (Windschitl, 2003). Fortunately, many teacher preparation programs are responding to the challenge of science education reform by incorporating inquiry experiences into science content or methods courses (= e.g. Haefner & Zembal-Saul, 2004; Nugent, Kunz, Levy, Harwood, & Carlson, 2006). Open inquiry projects were incorporated into the elementary science methods course described in this paper in order to provide firsthand inquiry experiences to preservice elementary teachers.

Research Design

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; A qualitative typological analysis of multiple documents was used to examine = my development as a teacher educator, using the teacher knowledge bases descri= bed by Grossman (1990) as the typologies (categories). The knowledge bases necessary for effective teaching are: (a) general pedagogical knowledge; (b) subject matter knowledge; (c) knowledge of context; and (d) pedagogical con= tent knowledge (Grossman, 1990). The documents analyzed all related to preservice teachers and inquiry, and included (a) the syllabus for the elementary scie= nce methods course; (b) my reflective journal entries from the elementary scien= ce methods course; (c) initial and revised inquiry project guidelines and assessment criteria I created for the elementary science methods course; (d) reflections and responses to self-selected and assigned readings in the pedagogical content knowledge course in which I was concurrently enrolled; = and (e) the final paper for the pedagogical content knowledge course.

Setting <= /p>

The study was conducted over a period of a semester, as I developed and taught a new elementary science methods course, Teaching Science. The elementary sci= ence methods course was taught in a stand-alone format for the first time for a = new four-year degree program offered by our university. The class members consi= sted of the first cohort of students completing the four-year degree program for Childhood Education, culminating in a Bachelor of Science in Education, licensure and certification to teach pre-kindergarten through fourth grade.= The students were juniors, and had already completed their general education science requirements.

I was beginning the second semester of my doctoral program in the Department = of Curriculum and Instruction. The semester of this study, I was enrolled in a Teaching Internship, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and Curriculum Development= as part of my doctoral coursework. My program advisor (and co-author of this paper) taught the PCK course and served as the supervisor for my Teaching Internship. My development and implementation of the new science methods co= urse fulfilled the requirements of my teaching internship. I met with my advisor regularly to discuss my progress with the science methods course and submit= ted a reflective journal entry to him each week. These journal entries are deno= ted as “TS” (Teaching Science) throughout the paper.

In the PCK course each week I located and wrote reflective responses to articl= es related to the development of pedagogical content knowledge. These journal entries are cited as “PCK” in this paper. In Curriculum Development, I developed a two week unit through the process of backward de= sign (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). The unit focused on teaching inquiry to pres= ervice elementary teachers, and included the open inquiry project as one component= . The unit was due at the end of the semester, after my students completed the op= en inquiry project, so I had the opportunity to revisit and revise weak elemen= ts of the project.

The course syllabus was based on the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Prepara= tion (2003) and described the course expectations regarding inquiry. An open inq= uiry project, such as the one described in this paper, was not a specific course requirement. In fact, I initially had not planned to include the project in= the course.

Findings

My development as a teacher educator is described through a narrative recounti= ng of my experiences during the planning and implementation of the open inquiry project. The impacts of the doctoral coursework in which I was enrolled, my reflections, my written and oral dialogue with my advisor, as well as the i= nfluences of the current science education literature regarding inquiry experiences f= or preservice teachers, are woven throughout this narrative.

Planning and Development= of the Inquiry Project

The assignments for the doctoral level course, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, in which I was enrolled, were a major influence in my decision to incorporate = the open inquiry project into the science methods course. I was responsible for locating, summarizing and writing a reflection on an article related to pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) each week. While seeking information regarding inquiry and preservice teachers, I discovered Shapiro’s (19= 96) paper describing the independent inquiry projects of preservice teachers. This happened the sixth week of the semester. I remarked in my Teaching Science = (TS) reflective journal,

. . . when searching the literature today, I came across a study that showed conducting an inquiry investigation firsthand was a rich experience for preservice teachers. I thought about [incorporating] this [open inquiry project] initially, but was hesitant to, since we don’t have a space to set up and leave experiments that requ= ire time. I am going to revisit this idea (TS, February 24, 2006).

The following week, I sough= t out additional information regarding inquiry projects and preservice teachers. “I ke= ep reading articles that state that most teachers have not experienced inquiry during their science coursework. How, then, can we expect them to know how = to support inquiry in their own classrooms, as encouraged in the National Scie= nce Education Standards?” (TS, March 3, 2006). I made the decision to inc= lude an open inquiry investigation in the course, and began to formulate the assessment criteria and project expectations. An entry from my reflective journal describes my initial plan:

My students are going to conduct a mini-inquiry, gathering data over a 10-day period, after spring break. I’ve let them know this [project] was coming up, and [have] given them enough criteria that they can begin formulating questions: 1) it has to be a testable question; 2) the question can’t be answered by looking it up= in a book, journal, on the web, etc. 3) the question has to emerge from their = life (TS, March 3, 2006).

&= nbsp; Goals and Expectations of the Open Inquiry Project

One of the key principles of quality professional development is “using research-based methods that mirror those needed in the classroom” (NS= TA, 2006, p. 1). The National Research Council asserts, in the professional development standards of the National Science Education Standards, that teachers need to engage in inquiry and reflect on the “processes and outcomes” of learning science through inquiry (NRC, 2000, p. 59). The open inquiry project was incorporated into the elementary science methods course in order to give preservice teachers firsthand experiences conducting open inquiry. In open inquiry, = the teacher allows the students to develop their own questions and design and conduct their own investigations (Windschitl, 2003).

The preservice teachers were required to reflect on the inquiry experience, as well as reflect on how the experience impacted their understandings of inquiry in their future classro= oms (Windschitl, 2003). =

The project and evaluation criteria were organized around the essential feature= s of inquiry, described by the National Research Council (2000): (a) formulating scientifically oriented testable questions; (b) gathering evidence to answer the questions; (c) forming explanations based on the evidence; (d); connect= ing explanations to known science content; and (e) communicating and defending explanations. The inquiry project was to be conducted over a period of two weeks. Students were required to complete a project planning sheet, keep a journal, and create an electronic or paper poster.

The preservice teachers completed a project planning sheet that addressed each = of the five essential feature of inquiry described in the previous paragraph (= NRC, 2000), and included prompts to guide them in their thinking and planning. U= pon completion of the project planning sheet, I met individually with each of t= he students to discuss the project, ask or answer questions, and approve the project plan. The individual conferences lasted from 5-10 minutes. I noted = in my reflective journal that, while the individual conferences were time consuming, they allowed me to support each student in the way they needed. “. . . I think [the individual conference] was a huge factor in the project success” (TS, May 5, 2006).

The preservice teachers were required to collect data over a period of ten days= and keep a journal during their investigations. A dual journal format was used, similar to the journals used in t= he open inquiry investigations of preservice teachers described by Windschitl (2003). The dual journal contained pages visually divided in half with a vertical line. One half of the page served as the research log, and contain= ed the data and observations of the ongoing investigation, as well as frustrat= ions, challenges and solutions. The other half of the page was used to record reflections, describing how the inquiry process was informing the preservice teachers’ thinking about inquiry in their future classrooms.

The culminating experience of the inquiry project was to create a paper or electronic poster, describing the process and results of the inquiry. Stude= nts took turns explaining their projects and defending their results during evaluation phase of the project. Twenty of the 23 projects and posters were very high quality. The preservice teachers understood and incorporated the elements of inquiry into their projects, and were able to defend their conclusions based on evidence they collected and known scientific explanati= ons.

Developing as a Teacher = Educator

&= nbsp; Effective teachers possess and integrate = four broad knowledge bases: (a) general pedagogical knowledge; (b) subject matter knowledge; (c) knowledge of context; and (d) pedagogical content knowledge (Grossman, 1990). The following passages illustrate how I developed as a teacher educator in each these four knowledge bases through the development= and implementation of the open inquiry project. Also included is evidence of my= engagement in both types of reflective practice, (a) striving to understand what I knew and did not know and (b) engaging in problem-solving as I created and imple= mented a research-based open inquiry project (Luera & Otto, 2005).

&= nbsp; General Pedagogical Knowledge and Subject Matter Knowledge

Early in the semester, I dallied with the idea of incorporating an open inquiry project into the elementary science methods course. My discovery of Shapiro’s (1996) and Windschitl’s (2000; 2003) papers confirmed= the importance of including open inquiry in teacher preparation programs. The following passage relates my initial lack of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge regarding the implementation of open inquiry projects with preservice elementary teachers.

The reason we are doing [the inquiry project] at the end [of the semester] was because it took ME that long to c= ome to an understanding that it was a valuable way for my students to learn abo= ut the nature of science, inquiry and the importance of independent investigat= ion in the elementary classroom. I didn’t find the articles I needed to p= oint me in that direction until halfway through the semester. Then it took me mo= re time to decide how the project would manifest in our situation, as the rese= arch I read was grounded in different circumstances. I am still a novice at crea= ting assessment tools for adults, so then it took more time for me to create the guidelines and rubrics (TS, March 31, 2006).

&= nbsp; The published literature was instrumental in providing me with the content knowledge and pedagogical support I needed to implement the open inquiry project in my classroom.

&= nbsp; Knowledge of context

Effective teachers use their knowledge of context in order to provide learning experiences that are responsive to the learners and situations presented in each unique classroom setting. The open inquiry project included two elemen= ts that were included with future elementary teachers in mind. First, the rese= arch problems or questions the preservice teachers were going to investigate dur= ing the inquiry project had to arise from their own lives. Second, the preservi= ce teachers were not restricted in the science content sources they used to support their explanations of their project results.

The preservice teachers were required to describe the life circumstances that inspired their questions in writing on their project planning sheets, and t= o me verbally during individual conferences. Seeking answers or solutions to problems that arose out of one’s everyday life, I believe, reinforces= the notion that “science is for all students” (NRC, 2000, p. 19). An entry from my reflective journal for my pedagogical content knowledge course expands this idea:

I chose this very personal approach because I want my students to know that science is a human endeavor: that science touches all aspects of their lives, and they can do science. In tur= n, I hope that this is what they model and convey to their future students” (PCK, March 6, 2006).

The notion of science being= for everyone, and the connection of science to everyday life was supported by t= hree competencies from the syllabus, which was aligned with the NSTA Standards f= or Science Teacher Preparation (2003): (a) engage P-4 students effectively in = the study of the relationship of science to other human values and endeavors; (= b) relate science to the personal lives, needs, and interests of P-4 students; and (c= ) use prior conceptions and P-4 student interest to promote learning.

&= nbsp; The second element of the project developed specifically for preservice element= ary teachers was the lack of restriction on sources they used to support the conclusions of their investigations. The preservice teachers were required = to connect their findings to a minimum of two sources of information. Other than a cau= tion to be discerning in their choice of sources, there were no restrictions on = the sources they could use. This meant that they could use websites or informational texts, including children’s literature, to support their assertions, and were not required to use the professional scientific literature.

I felt justified in this accommodation for a couple reasons. Although students should be learning science content through inquiry (NRC, 2000), the goal of this project was to provide an open inquiry experience rather than to learn specific science content. This emphasis was appropriate in an elementary science methods course, and supported development of two of the three characteristics of effective science teachers listed in the National Science Education Standards, utilizing inquiry to teach science and engaging in reflective practice (NRC, 1996). Additionally, since science students from preschool through fourth grade would not be using the professional science literature to make sense of their investigation findings, I thought that the option to use sources similar to the preservice teachers’ future stud= ents was appropriate and relevant.

&= nbsp; Pedagogical content knowledge

I had a great deal of difficulty reconciling my new role as a teacher of teachers. I had experience teaching preschool and early elementary children science through inquiry. I had experience teaching adults science through inquiry. However, I struggled with knowing how to teach future teachers to teach children science through inquiry.

I am feeling somewhat trapped betwe= en two worlds. I know how to create . . . an environment to support scientific inquiry in children. . . I would be much more competent creating and runnin= g a classroom with kids and letting the preservice teachers come and watch. The= n, at least, we would have a contextual staring point for dialog (TS, January = 27, 2006).

Pedagogical content knowled= ge (PCK) is the knowledge of how to teach subject matter to others. Although I had t= he knowledge I needed to teach preservice teachers how to personally conduct o= pen inquiry investigations, I was uncertain about how to support them in transferring that knowledge to the elementary classroom. “I wasn̵= 7;t clear on how best to help my students make the leap from understanding their own inquiry to supporting inquiry in their future classrooms” (TS, Ma= rch 3, 2006). The preservice teachers only observed, rather than practiced teac= hing in their practicum classrooms, further exacerbating the problem of translat= ing their knowledge of inquiry to a practical setting. The dual journal provide= d a way for the preservice teachers to at least reflect on the value of open inquiry in their future elementary classrooms.

&= nbsp; Reflective practice

Throughout the semester, I had many opportunities to reflect on my teaching practice through weekly entries in reflective journals for both my teaching internsh= ip and the pedagogical content knowledge course. I also had the opportunity to reflect on and revise the open inquiry project before I incorporated it int= o a more comprehensive two-week curriculum unit on inquiry that I created for m= y Curriculum Development course.

Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt, and Van Driel (1998) note that some mentor teachers are hesitant to relate their practical knowledge of teaching in the classroom. = As a graduate assistant and nascent teacher educator fumbling my way through a n= ew course and new project, I found the opposite to be true. I was compelled to provide a rationale for each assignment and experience in the science metho= ds course. “Along with the modeling, I am trying to explicitly explain a= nd justify what I am doing and why” (TS, February 3, 2006). I did not re= alize, before reading the article by Zanting and colleagues, that making tacit knowledge about learning explicit was a responsibility I had as a teacher educator.

Conclusion

Effective teachers possess well-developed teacher knowledge bases and successfully integrate those knowledge bases (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986; 1987). I created and implemented a research-based open inquiry project for preservice elementary teachers for a new elementary science methods class in response = to recent science education reform documents (National Research Council [NRC], 1996; 2000; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2004). During the process of implementing the inquiry project, written and verbal dialogue wi= th my own teachers and mentors, the published literature on inquiry and science education, the challenges of learning more about inquiry, pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge through my own coursework, and the process of examining and reflecting on my own practice all influenced my development a= s a teacher educator. This research brings to light some of the challenges of a nascent teacher educator striving to support the development of her students’ teacher knowledge bases in science education while her own = are still developing.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Ben= chmarks online. Downloaded December 28, 2006, from = http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/onli= ne/bolintro.htm

Bryan, L. A., & Abell, = S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach = elementary science. Journal of Research in Sci= ence Teaching, 36, 121-139.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowl= edge and teacher education.

New York: Teache= rs College Press.

Haefner, L. A., & Zemba= l-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’

developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning.

International Journal of Science Educa= tion, 26(13), 1653-1674.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of = New York Press.

Leura, G. R., & Otto, C= . A. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based elementary = science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 241-258.

National Research Council. = (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

            National Academy Press.

National Research Council. = (2000). Inquiry and the national science educa= tion standards: A

        &= nbsp;   guide for teaching and learning. Washington,= DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2004). Position state= ment: Inquiry. Downloaded April

            3, 2006, from http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=3D43

National Science Teachers Association. (2006). Position statement: Professional develop= ment in science education. Downloaded December 27, 2006 from http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=3D45

National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Downloaded December 28, 2006, from = http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf

Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Levy, R., Harwood, D., & Carlson, D. (2006, April). Assessment of a field-based inquiry-focused model of instruction on pre-ser= vice teachers’ science

learning a= nd attitudes. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, = San Francisco, CA.<= /p>
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Educa= tion and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. J.

            Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum and lib= eral education: Selected essays/Joseph J.

        &= nbsp;   Schwab (pp. 229-272). Chicago: University of Chica= go Press.

Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A ca= se study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an

            independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that do= es not

            yet know”. Science Education, 80<= /i>(5), 535-560.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Thos= e who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

        &= nbsp;   Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Know= ledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

        &= nbsp;   Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators’ expertise: What do novice teachers and teacher educators <= /p>
            say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 21<= /i>, 177-192.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe,= J. (2005). Understanding by design= (2nd ed.). Alexandria, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">VA: &n= bsp;     Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Windschitl, M. (2000, April= ). An analysis of preservice science teachers’ open inquiry

            experiences. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational

            Research Association Conference, New Or= leans, LA.

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classr= oom practice? Science Education, 87= (1), 112-143.

Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J. D., & Van Driel, J. H. (1998). Explicating practical knowledge: An extension of mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher Education,= 21(1), 11-27.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education washed out by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7-11.