Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experience and Reflection: Preservice Science Teachers’ Capacity for Teaching Inquiry

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the relationship between preservice teachers’ inquiry experience and their capacity to reflect on the challenges involved in implementing inquiry into classrooms. For data, we draw on the personal narratives of preservice science teachers enrolled in science instruction courses. Preservice teachers with extensive inquiry experiences perceive implementation challenges principally in terms of teaching and student learning. This contrasts with the perceptions of preservice teachers with limited inquiry experience for whom the main concerns relate to the negative perceptions of others, time, the curriculum, and materials. By identifying these perceptions, it may be possible to develop courses that assist limited and moderate-experience preservice teachers’ move toward the perceptions of their more inquiry experienced colleagues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81(1), 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bochner, A.P. (2001). Narrative’s virtues. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 131–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee for the Review of Teaching, Teacher Education. (2003). Australia’s teachers, Australia’s future:. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, D., & Orme, L. (2000). Teacher professionalism: The wrong conversation. Education Canada, 40(1), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common frameworks of science learning outcomes, K–12. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching, Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multiperspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. M., Munford, D., & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90, 522–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. (1991). Using a methods course to promote reflection and inquiry among preservice teachers. In B. R. Tabachnich & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry oriented teacher education (pp. 56–76). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R. L., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilgheman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified for science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://www.acds.edu.au.

  • Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBoskey, V. K. (1997). Teaching to teach with purpose and passion: Pedagogy for reflective practice. In J. Loughran, & T. Russell (Eds.), Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 150–163). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, W., Jones, D., & Bartley, A. (2007). The encouragement of scientific inquiry: A shared responsibility. The Register, 9(3), 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.). Life, history, and narrative (pp. 5–24). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qualifications & Curriculum Authority, England. (2000). National curriculum for England. Retrieved May 19, 2006. from: http://www.nc.uk.net.

  • Rearick, M. L., & Feldman, A. (1999). Orientations, purposes, and reflection: A framework for understanding action research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, G. (1999). Teaching as a professional discipline. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnich, B. R. (1991). Reflections on reflective teaching. In B. R. Tabachnich & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry oriented teacher education (pp. 1–21). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, P7B 5E1

    Wayne Melville & Anthony Bartley

  2. Faculty of Education, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, ON, Canada, L2S 3A1

    Xavier Fazio

  3. Sir Winston Churchill Collegiate and Vocational Institute, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, P7C 1V5

    Doug Jones

Authors
  1. Wayne Melville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Fazio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Bartley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Doug Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayne Melville.

Appendix

Appendix

C&I Course Inquiry and Reflection

Our students participate in a number of activities designed to engage them with a range of structured, guided and open inquiries, and reflection on those experiences. The following inquiries and opportunities for reflection are presented in an approximate chronological order through the academic year.

  1. 1.

    At the beginning of the academic year, all preservice teachers are asked to participate in a questionnaire that asks about their inquiry experience, their understandings of the nature of science, and their expectations for the C&I courses. The same questionnaire is administered at the end of the course in order to examine perceptual changes.

  2. 2.

    Open inquiry. The preservice teachers are asked to prepare an open inquiry on a topic of their choice. In introducing this activity, the instructors highlight the difficulties that will be encountered, such as the development of a question, the shaping of a method, the identification of variables, data collection and analysis, and presentation. The finished inquiry is presented towards the end of the course to their colleagues, local science teachers, and faculty members from both the education and science faculties. The preservice teachers are periodically asked to reflect on their progress (or lack of) and what they are learning of the nature of inquiry. These reflections are drawn together at the end of the course in discussions around the nature of science and their understanding of the scientific method.

  3. 3.

    Structured and guided inquiries. Throughout the course there are several opportunities for preservice teachers to engage in these forms of inquiry. These may be demonstrations by the instructors, activities posed by the instructors, or lessons developed by the preservice teachers when they are asked to present material from the provincial curriculum. An important consideration in these inquiries is the development—and application—of protocols for the giving and receiving of feedback. Public opportunities for both written and oral reflection and discussion are provided after each activity or presentation.

  4. 4.

    In the fall semester, before the first placement, all preservice teachers visit a local high school that has developed a reputation for the teaching of inquiry. During this visit, the preservice teachers are encouraged to observe the teaching and learning that occurs in different teachers’ classrooms and to talk to both students and teachers about their observations. Opportunities are provided for the preservice teachers to reflect on their visit after their return to the faculty.

  5. 5.

    During the first placement in November and December, all preservice teachers are encouraged to keep in contact with their instructors. For those preservice teachers who remain in the local area, the instructors will visit their classes and provide feedback on what they have observed. These visits are continued in the second placement. The preservice teachers are also required to provide a written reflection on their experiences.

  6. 6.

    Early in the winter semester, the science chair of the school that was visited in the fall presents a session on the challenges that his school has faced in implementing inquiry over the past 8 years. This includes such issues as perceived constraints on the use of inquiry, the importance of collaboration and political support from the school administration, assessment, and the benefits of inquiry. The preservice teachers are encouraged to discuss any of the points that are raised and also provide a written reflection on what they have heard and seen in the presentation.

  7. 7.

    Preservice teachers are asked to volunteer to be interviewed about their perceptions of the nature of science, the scientific method, and the teaching of science as inquiry. Those interviews and the questionnaires form the data set for this research.

About this article

Cite this article

Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A. et al. Experience and Reflection: Preservice Science Teachers’ Capacity for Teaching Inquiry. J Sci Teacher Educ 19, 477–494 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9104-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9104-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation