Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student-Generated Scientific Inquiry for Elementary Education Undergraduates: Course Development, Outcomes and Implications

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

While some researchers have argued for science classrooms that embrace open-inquiry by engaging students in doing science as scientists do (cf. National Research Council [NRC] 1996; Driver et al. in Sci Educ 84:287–312, 2000; Windschitl et al. in Sci Educ 87(1):112–143, 2008), others have argued that open-inquiry is impractical, ineffective, and perhaps even counter-productive towards promoting normative scientific ideas (cf. Kirschner et al. in Educ Psychol 41(2):75–86, 2006; Settlage in J Sci Teach Educ 18:461–467, 2007). One of the challenges in informing the debate on this issue is the scarcity of well-documented courses that engage students in open-inquiry characteristic of scientific research. This paper describes the design, implementation, and outcomes of such a course for undergraduates planning on becoming elementary teachers. The goal of the class was to immerse future teachers in authentic, open-inquiry (without specific learning goals related to scientific concepts) in hopes that students would come away with a deeper understanding of the nature of science (NOS) and improved attitudes towards science. Data collected from a variety of sources indicate that an authentic, open-inquiry experience is feasible to implement in an undergraduate setting, gives students a more sophisticated NOS understanding, improves students’ attitudes towards science and open-inquiry, and changes the way they intend to teach science in their future classrooms.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Copies of the exam and other course materials are available at http://phys.csuchico.edu/~ljatkins/SGSI/SGSI.html.

  2. The three recommendations for the class with reservations (out of 32 completed) were:

    “I would only recommend this course to patient students. A lot of the course can be very frustrating, due to the fact that certain subjects progress very slowly. It is additionally quite hard because specific answers are rarely given.”

    “I think I would recommend this class to someone if I thought that they were the type of person who would enjoy it. I think that certain people might have a hard time learning in the inquiry style.”

    “I would only recommend this course to students who like to speak up in class because a student who doesn't like to participate wouldn't enjoy it.”

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(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V., Morrison, J., & McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, J. (2003). Lessons learned from TEAL. The MIT Faculty Newsletter, 123(56), p. 5. Retrieved from http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N56/belcher56.56c.html.

  • Bell, R., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 413–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. (2001). Student views about science: A comparative survey. Beirut, Lebanon: Educational Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1996). Views about sciences story. Saint Louis, MO: Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, M. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrett, O. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & Carter, G. (2008). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (2008). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lustick, D. (2009). The failure of inquiry: Preparing science teachers with an authentic investigation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 583–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathematics and Science Teacher Education Program. (1998). MASTEP Survey of Students in funded courses. Retrieved from http://www.oerl.sri.com/instruments/te/studattsurv/instr81.html.

  • McComas, W., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melear, C., Goodlaxson, J., Warne, T., & Hickok, L. (2000). Teaching preservice science teachers how to do science: Responses to the research experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A., & Jones, D. (2008). Experience and reflection: Preservice science teachers’ capacity for teaching inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. (2008). Individual inquiry investigations in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas about science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K., Stewart, V., & Manzey, C. (2010). Teaching for transformative experiences and conceptual change: A case study and evaluation of a high school biology teacher. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 273–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, I., & Atkins, L. (2011). Student-generated scientific inquiry: Rethinking science notebooks. Minneapolis, MN: Experiential session presented at the annual conference of the Association for Science Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R., & Crawford, B. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science (pp. 331–355). The Netherlands: Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (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 

  • Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that does not yet know”. Science Education, 80(5), 535–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 374–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E., Hammer, D., Bell, M., Roy, P., & Peter, J. (2005). Learning and teaching science as inquiry: A case study of elementary school teachers’ investigations of light. Science Education, 89(6), 1007–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., House, R., & Wenzel, S. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and science teacher identities. Science Education, 89, 492–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varma, T., Volkmann, M., & Hanuscin, D. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of their understanding of inquiry and inquiry-based science pedagogy: Influence of an elementary science education methods course and a science field experience. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watters, J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 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(5), 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our students, in particular our undergraduate research assistants Vanessa Quevedo and Rachel Boyd. This work was funded through the National Science Foundation Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program, Grant No. 0837058. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education, California State University, Campus zip 0535, Chico, CA, 95929, USA

    Irene Salter & Leslie Atkins

  2. Department of Physics, California State University, Campus zip 0535, Chico, CA, 95929, USA

    Leslie Atkins

Authors
  1. Irene Salter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leslie Atkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene Salter.

About this article

Cite this article

Salter, I., Atkins, L. Student-Generated Scientific Inquiry for Elementary Education Undergraduates: Course Development, Outcomes and Implications. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 157–177 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9250-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9250-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation