Patterns of Teaching Practice with Respect to Science Content
In-Young Cho and Charles W. Anderson, Michigan State University
This work was supported in part by grants from the Knowles foundation
and the United States Department PT3 Program (Grant Number P342A00193,
Yong Zhao, Principal Investigator). The opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement of the supporting
agencies.
Keywords: teaching practice, patterns of practice, problems of practice,
situated decision, inquiry, problem solving, and teacher education
Introduction
This is a study of science teachers at the beginning of their careers. We
focus on three interns in a five-year teacher education program. Our data come
from their intern years, when they were in school classrooms for at least four full
days every week. Like other beginning teachers, these interns had to respond to
expectations and influences from different communities of practices, and to make
curricular decisions on a daily basis. We explored the ways teacher candidates
developed their curriculum in actual classrooms as they learned how to teach
science content and to develop students’ learning goals. In particular, we focus
on how these candidates engaged students in inquiry and taught problem solving
to their students.
Research questions
•
What were the candidates’ patterns of practice for teaching scientific
inquiry and problem solving?
•
What factors led the candidates to decide on their patterns of practice?
1
Background
Inquiry and problem solving have been extensively discussed in the
science education literature, both as methods of science teaching and as goals
for science learning. Inquiry pedagogy has been the central theme of National
Science Education Standards, yet different conceptualizations of inquiry teaching
include various forms of pedagogical practices. The early history of advocating
the teaching of science through inquiry argued the importance of engaging
students in a process of inquiry. John Dewey placed inquiry at the center of his
educational philosophy and emphasized the process of educating reflective
thinkers. He stated that science teaching should be dynamic, truly scientific,
because the understanding of process is at the heart of scientific attitude (Dewey,
1916/1945). Joseph Schwab (1962) advocated ‘inquiry into inquiry’ as an
approach to the teaching of science. Bruner (1962) asserted that students should
develop the inquiry skill by cultivating their abilities to formulate and critique their
own ideas and theories.
In the academic curriculum period of the 1960s, following the Woods Hole
conference and typically represented as alphabet soup curriculum, inquiry
teaching focused on giving students a better idea of the nature of scientific
investigation and the way scientific knowledge is generated. And most
importantly, the idea of the science laboratory was put into the essential part of
the development of this goal. The basic belief about inquiry of this academic
curriculum is the importance of the fundamental rational structure of knowledge,
logical relations and criteria for judging claims to truth.
In the 1970s, new social concerns such as multicultural education,
functional literacy, and humanistic psychology became important issues.
Subjective and personal knowledge as objective knowledge that can be tested
through reason and empirical evidence attracted more attention. Therefore, the
concept of inquiry moved to more subjective, humanistic orientation of knowledge
construction.
2
Since ‘Nation at Risk’ (1983), AAAS’s Project 2061 identified desired
learning goals, and ‘Science for All Americans’ emphasized nations’ excellence
in science, mathematics and technology learning. This envisioned scientific
inquiry teaching and learning as the central strategy of science for all students by
the NSES (NRC, 1996). During this period, science education studies developed
perspective of inquiry in school science teaching as a process that can construe
both content understanding and the nature of science.
Studies about the role of teachers’ practical knowledge in reform-oriented
inquiry teaching (Eick & Dias, 2005; van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001;
Supovitz, & Turner, 2000; Adams & Krockover, 1997) indicated the importance of
direct and explicit exposure to inquiry learning during method courses in teacher
education or via professional development programs. Practical knowledge as a
constructed knowledge of content and contextualized knowledge of classroom
(Munby, Cunningham & Lock, 2000) plays a major role in shaping teachers’
actions in practice and the core of teachers’ professionality (van Driel et al, 2001).
Meanwhile, studies on the relation between teacher beliefs, knowledge and
practice of inquiry teaching (Wallace & Kang, 2004; Keys & Bryan, 2001; Lumpe,
Haney, & Czerniak, 2000; Bryan & Abell 1999; Richardson, 1996) repeatedly
reported that teachers’ core belief systems play a central role in teachers’
curricular actions, which mostly preside on the institutional school curricular
influences (Munby et al, 2000; Yerrick, Parke, & Nugent, 1997; Tobin &
McRobbie, 1996).
Inquiry in these studies often suggested a broad definition of inquiry as the
incorporation of application into the scientific investigation processes and
scientific reasoning skills. This argument was validated by claiming that the broad
perspective of inquiry, which includes application and problem solving as well as
inquiry as induction of concepts, can be more viable for science classrooms
because students can learn both the content and the nature of science through
rich applicative processes. Therefore, scientific inquiry often indicated both
making inferences and convincing arguments from data, and data analysis as
3
scientific application (Roth, McGinn & Bowen, 1998; Hofstein & Walberg, 1995).
Likewise, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000)
envision that “inquiry abilities require students to mesh these processes –
cognitive abilities and science process skills - and scientific knowledge as they
use scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop their understanding of
science” (p. 18). What cognitive abilities means is not explicitly indicated in the
document, but if we consider it being distinguished from scientific process skills,
it can be understood as constructing and applying scientific knowledge. What we
suggest here as inquiry is a method of scientific investigation of the process of
scientific knowledge construction. That is, the models/theories which meet the
criteria of scientific knowledge suggested by school science curricula based on
the knowledge of current professional communities of science. This needs to be
distinguished from scientific practice as an application of the scientific knowledge
in our conceptual framework for the perspective of inquiry in this study (Anderson,
2003).
Similarly, studies of problem solving teaching are informed significantly by
the emphasis of process which accompanies content understanding. Windschitl
(2004) asserted that current pedagogical discourses in the reform-oriented
science education community are more focused on aligning instruction with
problem solving and inquiry than content knowledge. Considering the
complexities of the situation in which our teacher candidates are located in light
of current school science scientific inquiry practices and reform
recommendations, Windschtl’s observation should be taken seriously. Teacher
candidates’ most often-used teaching practice of scientific inquiry and problem
solving comes from their undergraduate years. Moreover, undergraduate science
courses focus more on acquiring core classical disciplinary knowledge approved
by the current professional scientists’ community than discussions about how
new scientific knowledge becomes constructed in the professional scientific
community. Candidates also experience tightly controlled laboratory courses
during undergraduate years (Trumbell & Kerr, 1993). The implication is that
4
teacher education programs need to provide scientific practice skills such as
scientific inquiry and problem solving practices as well as a disciplinary
knowledge base by the way of legitimate peripheral participation of
apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Literatures contend that two main goals for teaching physical science and
chemistry at secondary and tertiary levels are to foster conceptual understanding
and problem solving ability. In chemistry and physics education specifically,
problem solving is a dominant exercise in the secondary and tertiary classrooms
(Champagne & Klopper, 1977; Shuell, 1990; Malony, 1994; Mason, Shell, &
Crawley, 1997; Taconis, Ferguson-Hessler, & Broekkamp, 2001). However, early
research on problem solving focused on the same issues as science textbooks
and teaching practice. Procedures for working with symbols and data were the
main component of the practice, which primarily focused on quantitative problem
solving procedure. More recent research has focused on the meaning of problem
solving procedures to students. The connection between qualitative conceptual
understanding and quantitative procedural skills became a critical issue for the
teaching problem solving in chemistry and physics classrooms. However, the
research shows that many students still acquire procedural skills without
conceptual understanding.
Traditional problem solving teaching practices rely heavily on exercising a
large number of problems so that the instruction is concerned about the
sequence of problem solving steps rather than conceptual understanding
(Taconis et al., 2001). In addition, typical textbook problems reinforce this
tendency by referring to idealized objects and events, which are not connected to
the students’ real world experiences.
In the 1980s, cognitive processes of problem solving were widely
investigated in relation to mental capacity and domain specific or general
knowledge (Mayer, 1992). Accordingly, that research focused on the application
of those developmental psychological and learning theories into problem solving
instruction. In this tradition, research on problem solving was focused on the
5
difference between novice and expert problem solving strategies and the effect of
innovative problem solving instruction versus traditional or textbook problem
solving instruction. The results showed that novices lack problem solving
experiences, problem solving procedures, and an understanding of the domain
specific knowledge, all of which are needed in developing solutions to physics
problems (Eylon & Lynn, 1988).
In the 1990s, researchers focused increasingly on the qualitative
meanings that learners saw in quantitative problem-solving procedures. These
researchers saw qualitative understanding of quantitative problem solving as a
desirable goal for problem solving instruction in science classrooms. Stewart &
Hafner (1991) contrasted two viewpoints of practicing science: forward-looking
point of view - or “science-in-the-making” in Latour’s (1987) term - and
retrospective point of view, or “ready-made-science” according to Latour (1987).
They recommended that research should emphasize questions about what
students learn from solving problems and how they revise in response to
anomalies in data, in addition to questions relating to model using situations.
Some research has found that novices learn procedural display without
understanding logical principles of the content underlying chemistry and physical
science problems (Heyworth, 1999; Mestre, Dufresne, Gerace, Hardiman, &
Touger, 1993; Mestre, et al., 1993; Bunce, Gabel, & Samuel, 1991). The complex
relation of quantitative problem solving and qualitative understanding is well
documented in Huffman’s (1997) study. The finding is that explicit problem
solving instruction which address both problem-solving performance and
conceptual understanding demonstrated more improvement in the quality and
completeness of physics representation, but has no significant difference in
students’ logical organization of the solution.
Conceptual framework for inquiry and problem solving
Our data analysis for understanding teacher candidates’ patterns of
teaching practice principally based on the O-P-M model (Observations-PatternsModels) for understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and practice in
6
science teaching for motivation and understanding (Anderson, 2003). First, this
framework claims scientific knowledge as three components, “Observations,
Patterns, and Models.” Second, scientific practice includes both Inquiry and
Application. “Inquiry” in this framework denotes reasoning from evidence and
“Application” signifies important uses of models and patterns. Therefore,
scientific “Inquiry” has a narrower sense than traditional inquiry literatures which
include reasoning from patterns and models. Also, “Application” is used in a
broader sense that is not restricted to the quantitative problem solving, but it
includes important use of models and patterns, including explaining phenomena
and making predictions and so qualitative problem solving. Based on this
conceptual framework, we investigated our teacher candidate’s patterns of
teaching practice for science content teaching and students’ learning goals. The
unit of analysis was inquiry and problem solving teachings. In the analytical
process, we developed a general problem solving model which includes all three
case studies from the previous year’s paper.
Observations-Patterns-Models model
Explaining scientific knowledge and practice in reform-based science
teaching and learning, Anderson (2003) depicted three components of scientific
knowledge as the tool of making sense of the material world: a) experiences in
the material world, b) patterns in experience, and c) explanations of patterns in
experience. Each corresponds to Observations, Patterns, and Models in a new
model for initial framework in Teaching Science for Motivation and Understanding.
In thinking about scientific knowledge, it is essential for candidates to understand
the key experiences, patterns and explanations relevant to the topics that they
taught, and to distinguish among them. In thinking about scientific practices,
scientific inquiry and application are essential and the most fundamental kinds of
scientific practices that candidates need to know and apply.
National standards documents emphasize enhancing students’ scientific
thinking skills by means of scientific inquiry teaching and learning. The content
standards are statements of patterns in observations or models that scientists
7
use to explain those patterns — the two right-hand ovals in Figure 1. However,
those patterns and models are always based on specific observations — the lefthand oval. The arrows indicate that assessing understanding of patterns often
involves asking students to relate them to specific observations, as when we
assess understanding of the benchmark about plants’ need for water and light by
asking students to predict what would happen to bean plants grown under
different circumstances.
The ovals in Figure 1. also indicate a variety of synonyms for the
Observations, Patterns, and Models. The rich vocabulary that scientists and
science educators use to make these distinctions indicates how important they
are in both science and science education. There are also some commonly used
terms that are not included or used with restricted meanings:

“Fact” are not found anywhere in this framework. Observations, patterns, and
models are all sometimes referred to as facts.

“Concepts” is another missing term. Again, this term is used with many
meanings in science education, usually referring to either patterns or models.

“Skills” are also missing. The arrows connecting the ovals could be labeled
as skills, but that decision is complicated. More on this in the notes on Chapter
Four.

“Hypotheses” are listed in the Models oval as tentative models or theories.
However, specific predictions based on tentatively held models are also
sometimes called hypotheses (e.g., “the null hypotheses.”)]

“Inquiry” is used in this figure in narrower sense than is typical in science
education. Science educators often use inquiry to denote the entire process of
conducting scientific investigations, which includes both reasoning from evidence
and reasoning from models and patterns. In this figure inquiry is restricted to
reasoning from evidence. Some educators also use a narrower definition of
inquiry, suggesting that all scientific inquiry takes the form of experiments with
independent variables, dependent variables, controls, etc.
8

“Application” is used in this figure in a broader sense than is typical in
science education. Science educators often use application to denote practical
problem solving and/or engineering design. In this figure, application also
includes other important uses of models and patterns, including explaining
phenomena and making predictions (e.g., quantitative or qualitative problem
solving)
Reasoning from evidence (Inquiry): Finding patterns in observations and
constructing explanations for those patterns
Observations
(experiences, data,
phenomena,
systems and
events in the world)
Patterns in
observations
(generalizations,
laws, graphs,
tables, formulas)
Models
(hypotheses,
models,
theories)
Reasoning from models and patterns (Application): Using scientific patterns and
models to describe, explain, predict and design
Fig.1. Scientific knowledge and practices (Anderson, 2003)
Problem Solving Model for Content Understanding
Considering problem solving as one form of scientific practice, we derived
the general model of problem solving process from connected knowledge of
experience, patterns, and explanations in dealing with data, variables and
equations. In reform-oriented science teaching, data analysis is a key step in
scientific inquiry and problem solving is a key form of scientific application,
whereas procedural display, which follows procedures in a linear order, is a
prototype of problem solving in traditional school science teaching. The key issue
is the meaning attached to variables, data tables, and equations: Are they ways
of describing experience and summarizing patterns or are they symbols to
manipulate and procedures to follow?
9
To understand qualitative meaning-making science teaching practice in
quantitative problem solving procedure and data analysis problems of practice,
we propose the problem solving model. Then, we inquire what makes the
difference in the problem solving model for each candidate in terms of situated
decisions in the advancement of learning to teach. We try to adduce teacher
candidates’ development of professional identity among the influences of the
complex interactions between different professional learning communities. To
generate a scientific problem solving model, the data, represented by numeric
and physical parameters, which extracted from experience of material world to
infer patterns and explanations of it, is used to depict variables in equations,
which are representations of scientific principles and laws. Typically, textbook
problems in physical science refer to idealized objects and events which fit to
sets of idealized variables and equations. In solving such idealized problems,
before mathematical manipulation of equations begin, problem solvers must
decide a) which scientific variables would be useful to answer the question, b)
what concepts and principles could be applied to determine those variables. That
is, the problem solving process is composed of allocations of data from
experience/real world examples and phenomena and extractions of variables
from data which can be put into equations, which represent what
patterns/scientific laws and principles are to be applied in explaining the scientific
theories and models (Fig. 2).
10
Problem Solving Model
Inquiry
Application
Data Analysis
Experience
School
science:
Data
analysis
and
problem
solving are
isolated
procedures
Data
Patterns
Represented by
Variables
Equations
Explanations
Reform science
teaching: Data
analysis and
problem solving
are seen as part
of larger
processes of
inquiry and
application
Problem Solving
Figure 2. General model of problem solving
Conceptual framework for candidates’ teaching practices
Teaching practices and problems of practice
Trying to understand and describe teachers’ patterns of practice is a
complex business, particularly since teachers’ practices are based largely on
experience or what van Driel, Beijjard, and Verloop (2001) describe as practical
knowledge. Practical knowledge tends to be action-oriented, person- and
context-bound, tacit, integrated, and based on beliefs. We chose a teaching
practice as the unit of analysis deduced from Wertsch’s (1991) writing about
mediated action as a unit of analysis, and from activity theory (Engeström, 1999).
We used the term practice rather than activity for a couple of reasons. First, it
avoids confusion with another common usage for activity: learning activities in
11
classrooms. Second, the term practice connotes repeated or habitual action,
which is consistent with our intended meaning. Building a pattern of teaching
practice involves developing responses to the four fundamental problems of
practice which are composed of individual practices as shown in Figure 3. This
study analyzed teacher candidates’ learning around the problems of practice:
relearning science content and developing goals for students’ content
understanding.
The four problems of practices are as follows: (Anderson 2003)

Relearning science content and developing goals for students’ content
understanding.

Understanding students and assessing their learning.

Developing classroom environments and teaching strategies.

Professional resources and relationships.
Patterns of practice
Problems of practice
-science content and learning goals
-students and assessment
-classroom management and teaching strategies
-professional resources and relationships
Individual practices
(e.g. grading, managing class
discussions, teaching problem
solving)
Figure 3. A hierarchy of teaching practices
Situated curricular decisions
12
Our understanding of the candidates’ decisions has been influenced by
Smith’s (1996) writing about efficacy and telling in mathematics teaching.
Following Smith, it appears to us that school science persists partly because it
offers a belief system and a set of practices that allow teachers and students to
achieve a sense of personal efficacy and success in their assigned roles.
Reform science teaching, as exemplified by expert practitioners like Jim Minstrell
(1984) or Barbara Neureither (Richmond & Neureither, 1998) offers an alternate
belief system and practices that allow teachers and students to feel efficacious.
Candidates need to respond to two interlocking challenges during intern
years. The first is learning to do the work of science teaching. They were
expected to deal with the multiple demands of being a full-time science teacher
for the first time. The second challenge was making curricular decisions. They
needed to make choices about priorities, about mentors, and about how they will
present themselves as science teachers. As they do, they develop a coherent set
of narratives about their present practice and their future aspirations.
These challenges were difficult because the candidates were situated as
legitimate peripheral participants in three different communities of practice: a)
professional community of science educators who deliberately advocate reformoriented science teaching and learning b) professional communities of teaching
and school administrative staffs and c) communities of parents and students.
The candidates’ decisions about how they would engage each community were
affected by their own norms and values, the kinds of practice that were
encouraged in their school placements, and many other factors. Thus, we
describe these choices as situated curricular decisions - decisions that were
often made subconsciously and were affected both by candidates’ knowledge
and values and their teaching situations.
Method
13
The observations, recordings, and field notes in this study were taken in
completely naturalistic settings. The research method is based on
hermeneutical/interpretive method using multiple data collection, triangulation,
constant comparative analysis, and inductive abstraction by coding and
categorization (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Hutchinson, 1988). This method aims at
discovering and communicating the meaning-perspectives of the participant
teacher candidates by identifying specific structures of occurrences, rather than
overall distribution, and observing the meaning-perspectives of the particular
actors in the particular events. Second, we tried to gain specific understandings
of concrete details and local meanings of each candidate’s teaching practice and
compare and contrast them to distinguish/identify the context/factors shaping
those particular practices and knowledge of science teaching related to the
activities of specific candidates in making decisions and conducting curricular
action. This study seeks to understand and to discover the specific ways in
which teacher candidates develop their practical knowledge and practice,
fundamental to the curricular decisions and actions throughout interactions with
other agents as well as their own beliefs and values within school contexts and
culture.
The data reported were collected during the participants’ intern years.
Data collection began with candidates’ class assignments including lesson and
unit plans, teaching investigation and inquiry cycles. We filmed for the lead
teaching and took observational field notes. Also, semi-structured interviews with
candidates, mentor teachers, and field instructors were taken after class
observations. In considering their viewpoint of science teaching we referred to
philosophy statements submitted by teacher candidates.
Participants
The profiles of three teacher candidates in this study are as follows.
Lisa Barab: Lisa entered the program as an honors student with a near4.0 grade point average in chemistry. She had a major in chemistry and a minor
14
in mathematics. She was an intense, lively student who had a close relationship
with her father, also a chemist. She taught chemistry and mathematics in a
suburban high school.
John Duncan: John was a quiet, thoughtful man who was changing
careers. He had spent six years as a civil and environmental engineer before
entering the program. He had a major in physical science and a minor in
mathematics. Working in a suburban ninth-grade physical and earth science
class, he basically adopted his mentor teacher’s classroom curriculum and
activities.
Mike Barker: Mike was a chemistry major and mathematics minor. Like
John, Mike was changing careers. He came to the program after a successful
16-year career as an industrial chemical engineer and manager. Although his
perspective differed from the program’s, Mike was a well organized and effective
classroom teacher in an urban high school, earning the trust of his mentor and
keeping his students on task in well-paced classes. He taught chemistry and
mathematics.
Results
One of the observations is that teacher candidates’ understanding of
scientific inquiry and the process of problem solving does not necessarily reflect
the nature of science and the reform recommendation of inquiry based science
teaching and learning. They develop their own patterns of teaching practice of
inquiry and problem-solving while learning about those practices from different
communities. They needed to decide what the most desirable practice in their
situation was out of the complexity of teaching practices (Labaree, 2000).
Lisa
The topic Lisa taught was kinetic molecular theory of gases, and the
observed lesson unit was the combined gas law. The general participation
structure of her classroom was based on interactive and cooperative discursive
15
relations between peers and also between teacher and students. Desks were set
up as groups, and students were encouraged to participate in small group
cooperative tasks. Most of the time, they actively discussed and tried to complete
their tasks either in quiz or lab sessions. Lisa was the candidate who actively
searched for ways to enact reform-oriented science teaching. She negotiated
meanings with students through divergent questioning and case-specific
coaching. Her questioning, “What do we need to know?”, made students take
responsibility and authority of their thinking and knowledge acquisition.
As she advocated her teaching philosophy, she aspired to teach scientific
inquiry both in thinking and process skills, and most importantly, based on
students’ own experiences. She developed and used teaching materials which
can connect experientially real phenomena to the chemistry problems or any
activities in chemistry class, because chemistry is all around our actual living
world. She always kept a co-inquirer attitude and did not directly give answers to
students’ questions, but made them recall possible explanations by connecting
real world experiences and previous lessons. Assignments or worksheet
problems stated real world phenomena, not just numerical data. She was willing
to take time for exploration of the phenomena and withdraw students’ own
thinking process in solving problems or discussions about lab activities.
Overall, her teaching was based on model-based reasoning focused on
inductive and causal reasoning starting from exploring Observations/Experiences,
to finding Patterns and to Models/Explanations. Following is the summary of her
teaching practice.
Inquiry teaching
The title of Lisa’s inquiry cycle was “the determination of Boyle’s law from
demonstrations.” The inquiry cycle was formulated by four major sequences of
activities: a) questions: communications, b) evidence: data and patterns, c)
students’ explanations, and d) scientific theories or models. Lisa initiated the
discussion about gaseous pressure by asking questions related to atmospheric
16
pressure differences experienced by students. The specific examples she used
in drawing questions from students’ experience are as follows: ‘your weight at
sea level versus a very high altitude’, ‘your ears popping in a plane’, ‘your ears
popping in the deep water.’ Lisa had three demonstrations: Balloon in vacuum
bell jar, marshmallow in vacuum bell jar, and shaving cream in vacuum bell jar. In
each case, the inflated balloon, marshmallow, and shaving cream in the jar
increased in volume. This happened because of the pressure decrease when the
vacuum pump was turned on to draw out the air and decrease the pressure in
the jar. For these demonstrations, Lisa put emphasis on posing questions which
can lead to students’ prediction. Students were required to record their
predictions in their notes.
Lisa started scientific inquiry from experience inductively and tried to
induce students’ effort to finding patterns in the data from divergent questioning,
demonstrations, and open discussion. Lisa was utilizing experientially real data
that students can access empirically from their daily life and from demonstrations.
She used experientially real questions and demonstrations to expound how to
predict the relation between air pressure and volume in different materials and
phenomena. Lisa wanted to “have the students observe and record what
happens in the various demonstrations. They will record their observations, data,
and make drawings in their notebook. The teacher will perform the
demonstrations in front of the class so all can see. The teacher may even ask
students to come closer, draw pictures, to make better observations.”
Lisa’s strategy for finding patterns from experience was using guiding
questions which lead to discussions that can connect three demonstrations into
one general explanation. She mentioned about facilitating students’ explanations
about their own activities, “Have the students explain what happened in the
demonstration by using drawings as well as words.” And part of the class time
was allocated to discuss and write or draw students’ own explanations about
their observations. Lisa expressed her intention as “Students will be given time
in class to do this, as well as time to talk with one another and discuss their
17
ideas.” Lisa described how to lead students towards finding patterns by
connecting three demonstrations together. She used guiding questions for this
purpose such as “what remained constant in the three demonstrations? What
variables changed? What are the similarities among the demonstrations? Did
they alter in the same way? etc.” Another noteworthy explanation about the
teacher role in facilitating scientific inquiry process was “For the most part, I will
let them work together and struggle. The questions will be asked depending on
how they do.” This shows how she emphasizes students’ own sense-making in
finding patterns to understand the phenomena they observed and discussed.
Lisa’s approach of scientific inquiry represented model-based reasoning
from evidence derived from experientially real data as described above. And the
teacher is a co-inquirer who wants to scaffold students’ active sense-making and
reasoning for scientific inquiry.
Observations
(experiences,
data,
phenomena,
systems and
events in the
world)
Patterns in
observations
(generalizatio
ns, laws,
graphs,
tables,
formulas)
Models
(hypotheses,
models,
theories)
Figure 4. Lisa’s inquiry teaching
Problem solving teaching
When she was teaching solving combined gas law problems, Lisa worked
to connect students’ understanding and her goals for students’ learning.
Therefore, scientific knowledge as Explanations/Theories was not an isolated
entity from students’ own explanations and understanding. Even when she didn’t
ask the chemical impact of the change of physical variables, she treated
problem-solving procedure as how we represent chemical ideas with numbers
18
and physical units and how the relationship between variables are represented in
the questionnaires. Students’ understanding of chemical principles behind
chemical equations and using patterns and explanations in experiences to find
relationships among variables in the chemical equation was a critical factor for
her teaching. She also emphasized understanding of the meanings of chemical
equations and appropriate manipulation of physical parameters and chemical
conditions. For example, she explained the conditional difference between two
temperature (T), volume (V), and pressure (P) sets with the principles of ideal
gas law in a molecular theory by collision theory and molecular speed of gases.
Lisa was acute to students’ prior knowledge base and she carefully guided how
to understand the questionnaire itself first. For example, Lisa coached students
to use dimensional analysis and algebraic skills to manipulate temperature,
pressure, volume, and number of moles of gases correctly. Lisa treated the
problem solving procedure as how we represent chemical ideas with numbers
and units and how the relationship of the parameters is denoted in equations.
Lisa’s problem solving teaching as science application was not separated
from scientific inquiry process. Lisa was determined to teach scientific inquiry as
a way of scientific practice to obtain scientific understanding of the core concepts
of the discipline. She always tried to induce students’ critical thinking about what
theories and laws are underlying behind the equations. Students were highly
encouraged to participate in those discussions. She wanted students to see the
real world experiences as the scientific phenomena and thus exemplified how to
extract data from the experiences and how to put those data into the variables in
appropriate equations. For example, when a student showing the solution of a
gas law problem on her worksheet asked why the pressure goes so big when the
volume changed in a constant temperature, Lisa gave an example. She
explained that when we push one end of a syringe in room temperature, of which
the other end is sealed with cork, you can feel the pressure of the air between
the cylinder and the cork and she explained about the collision theory. Also, she
tried to show how we can combine quantitative and qualitative data analysis to
19
gain sound conceptual understanding. Her aim of teaching science for
conceptual understanding and using scientific inquiry as a tool for it made her
practice closer to excellent science teaching even though sometimes the whole
process could not be enacted as she intended.
Experience
Data
Patterns
Explanati
ons
Represented
by
by
Variables
Equations
Figure 5. Lisa’s problem solving model
John
John’s teaching involved lots of information technical skills such as all
students’ individual use of wireless internet, power point presentations,
demonstration lab kits, and OHP. His classroom was full of visual and
technological representations, teacher explanations, and discussions mainly
between teacher and students. Consequently, important instructional strategies
included using technical resources to find useful data sets or activities. The topic
he taught, ‘Regional and Global Climate Patterns, Seasonal climate change’
actually required global and regional data sets that could not directly be obtained
from students’ own activity. Compared to teacher-student interactions, time spent
in peer discussions was not significant, and desks were arranged toward
whiteboard in a row. Usually, class started with a review of previous lessons
followed by collecting assignments. Teacher-directed explanations accompanied
20
by questioning and students’ short answers were typical for the whole class
lecture time. In a small demonstrative lab and problem-solving with worksheets
sessions, John didn’t organize the class as small group cooperative stations and
did not inquire students’ scientific ideas or their own theories and the reasoning
processes. Scientific knowledge was a declaration established by thorough
scientific processes by professional scientists and students needed to learn
about those key concepts and scientific reasoning skills.
John selected and adapted class activities through extensive information
technology skills and thoughtful consideration of curriculum development
according to the science standards, expectations from mentor teacher and
school setting, and also learning from teacher educators how to teach reformbased science for content understanding.
Inquiry teaching
John’s inquiry cycle was planned for “Regional and Global Climate
Patterns, Seasonal climate change.” In the introduction, John used a
demonstration with a flashlight to show the relation between the angle of light
and the amount of energy transferred from the Sun to the Earth. Students were
asked to think about the questions provided. Data and experience were given as
an assignment in which students visit the U. S. Naval Observatory website and
complete three data tables for the length of the day and maximum altitude in
three different cities in U.S. for four seasons. Also, it contained questions about
the relationship between the length of the day and altitude of the sun and season.
Besides, more questions asked weather patterns for different cities and the
reason for that.
John expected students to find Patterns in data packet and the
assignment activity which required students’ explanations. “Students will be given
the attached assignment. In it, they will be reviewing data and then formulating
explanations.” And he explained how the teacher will help students’ inquiry
learning for finding scientific theories and Models/Explanations. “The teacher will
21
review with the students appropriate theories and models to explain the
Earth/Sun relationship and more thoroughly address the questions presented in
the introductory period.” For this inquiry cycle, John was concerned about
students’ experience, “One thing that was problematic was they had difficulty
visualizing the length of day”. He developed PowerPoint presentations for the
explanations of this inquiry cycle and they helped visualization of the weather
phenomena and effectively captivated students’ attention. Overall, his inquiry
cycle reflected his inductive approach from Observations/Experience to Patterns
and Explanations and he demanded students’ active engagement and generation
of their own Models/Theories for the Patterns in data packet.
However, when he taught “Prevailing wind” by creating “wind rose
diagram”, conducted as a small lab activity, John spent most of the time to give
detailed directions of drawing the diagram with whole class demonstration and
specific indications of how to extract Patterns in data set. The participation
structure was inclined to the teacher’s well-organized sequential presentation of
concepts with scientific reasoning skills about how to conceptualize scientific
Models/Theories and with elaborated instructional directions. There was not
enough evidence if students negotiated their ideas and meanings with presented
scientific ideas and if they could connect current concepts to previous lessons
about the relation between the air mass movements and wind speed.
Observations
(experiences,
data,
phenomena,
systems and
events in the
world)
Patterns in
observations
(generalizatio
ns, laws,
graphs,
tables,
formulas)
Models
(hypotheses,
models,
theories)
Figure 6. John’s inquiry teaching
22
Problem solving teaching
The topic John taught was “describing weather, winds, fronts, and storms”
and the major task of the lesson was reviewing chapter exercise problems. John
had a whole class lecture session with the problem reviews, which basically
require conceptual knowledge of air mass movement and weather patterns. A
major strategy of demonstrative problem-solving was organizing scientific
information of the topic with diagrams and tables and by explaining the
conceptual network of the topic. He tried to organize the specific individual
weather reports suggested in the textbook problems into Patterns in the EPE
framework so that students can understand the relations between concepts.
Then occasionally he gave some Models/Theories about the weather patterns
and air mass movement but they were restricted to local explanations of air
pressure difference and air mass difference not extended to other atmospheric
factors such as heat energy, cycling of water in and out of the atmosphere, etc.
The concepts he employed were air mass, air pressure, wind, front, clouds, wind
direction, weather, and extreme weather according to the questionnaires in the
textbook. For general explanations about the relations between fronts, clouds,
and weather patterns, John distributed ‘side views of fronts that move through
Michigan in a west to east pattern’ diagram and employed questioning and
answering method to explain the pattern; where cool air mass and warm air mass
were located and how they moved, what was the shape of the fronts, what kind
of clouds were formed, and what weather phenomena could be observed in what
regions.
His problem solving teaching focused on finding a good data set that
shows particular earth science phenomena, extracting specific patterns from the
data, and using variables to explain how those patterns are represented by
variables.
23
Experien
ces
Data
Patterns
Explanati
ons
Represented
by
Variables
Equations
Figure 7. John’s problem solving model
Mike
The topics Mike taught were thermodynamics and reaction kinetics. The
observed lesson unit included Hess’s Law and Le Chatelier’s Law. Mike thought
he did not have enough time to do labs in order to affirm the scientific knowledge,
as a body of knowledge to be learned and established by a community of
professional scientists. In a typical lesson students completed a worksheet, and
Mike went over the answers. He liked to prepare students for various tests. Thus,
the learning environment he tried to maintain in his classroom facilitated this
transfer of knowledge; the desks were neatly in rows facing Mike and the board.
His lectures focused on the definitions of basic terms and demonstrating
algorithmic processes for problem solving. His quizzes assessed if students
could define terms exactly the same as Mike taught them and follow the
procedural skills that they learned. Assignments for the same purpose were
given to students. In the post observation interview, he showed how he gave
scores for the quizzes and tests in his class: “One of the challenges that teachers
face is creating an assessment that is a good measure of how much their
students have learned and how much they know.” Mike tried to keep students
24
quiet and working all during the class period to ensure that all students could
learn the science knowledge efficiently.
Mike said that his primary resources for lesson planning were the textbook
and mentor teacher’s notes. He carefully sorted them to find important topics for
each unit and liked to find more problems to give students more opportunity to
exercise problem solving procedures to prepare for tests.
Inquiry teaching
In the first draft of his Gas Law inquiry cycle, Mike described a process
where he gives students the Gas Laws before demonstration for students’
Observations. The first stage of his essential features of classroom inquiry,
‘evidence: data and patterns’, was planned to make students answer the
questions given along with the definition of basic terms and gas laws. His inquiry
plan described, “Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions.
Basic vocabulary and conversion factors are given to the students along with
three gas laws (Boyle’s, Charles and Gay-Lussac’s).” This deductive approach of
scientific inquiry reflected Mike’s priority of science content teaching and
students’ learning goals: application of theories and correct use of problemsolving procedures. According to Mike, school science does not allow in-depth
inquiry unlike scientist’s science so that the scientific inquiry cycle as
Observations-Patterns-Models cannot be practically exercised in school science
classrooms.
In his revised “Inquiry cycle” assignment, one of the essential features of
classroom inquiry he identified was ‘cooperative work with peer students.’
However, it happened as a way of examining the other students’ answers to the
problems in the worksheet if it is correct or not. And it was not a form of students’
active involvement in discussing how they reach the result or what they think
each of the process and connecting associated phenomena from their real world
experience. Students were asked to know about the mechanism of how textbook
25
scientific knowledge works in high school chemistry and how to obtain the skills
for obtaining right answers.
Observations
(experiences,
data,
phenomena,
systems and
events in the
world)
Patterns in
observations
(generalizatio
ns, laws,
graphs,
tables,
formulas)
Models
(hypotheses,
models,
theories)
Figure 8. Mike’s inquiry teaching
Problem solving teaching
Mike focused on the algorithmic principle and mathematical skills for
solving thermodynamic chemical problems to obtain right answers and mastery
of scientific terms. Making science accessible to students was his main purpose.
He treated the variables in chemical equations as symbols to be manipulated
correctly. The introductory part of his lesson was often a recall of vocabulary.
Then, he reminded students of some procedures to use in chemical equations to
obtain right answers in problem solving. For example, he introduced the term
enthalpy change in terms of how to calculate the overall enthalpy change for the
chemical reaction. Mike conducted several of these demonstrations for Hess’s
Law problems. He skipped discussions about the real merits of this mathematical
process of calculating enthalpies. He explained enthalpy of reaction without
explaining or drawing enthalpy diagrams. Mike treated the exothermic reaction
and endothermic reaction as if they were characterized as the signs of enthalpy
of reaction, ΔH. He said that if the sign was negative, the reaction was
exothermic, and if the sign was positive, the reaction was endothermic.
Mike emphasized detecting variables which can provide clues about how
to get the answer and taught how to put those variables into chemical equations.
26
His explanations about the algorithms to apply to the equations from given
variables often did not include what chemical principles and laws are represented
by the equations. His intention to teach algorithms for the key element of
problem solving resulted from his instructional objectives. He believed that
through successful experiences of dealing chemical equations with mathematical
tools and variables, students can achieve an understanding of scientific terms
and basic concepts.
Experience
Data
Patterns
Explanati
ons
Represented
by
Variables
Equations
Figure 9. Mike's problem solving model
Discussion
All three candidates were among the best this program should offer. They
were thoughtful, informative both intelligently and technologically and most of all
they held strong aspirations for being an effective science teacher. They made
their situated decisions in the context of the expectations and influences of
professional communities of practice. The factors that affected their situated
curricular decisions included the professional communities of practice in their
27
schools, their content understanding, and their beliefs about the role of school
science and science teaching.
School professional community of practice
One prominent influence was the expectations and demands from their
school professional communities of practice. Lisa taught an elective chemistry
class in suburban high school and her mentor teacher shared reform-based
science teaching idea and supported finding resources and planning classroom
activities. They also had co-planning meetings with other chemistry teachers
regularly. John was teaching earth science, which was neither his major nor
minor, in a suburban high school. He was coping with his mentor teacher’s
extensive curriculum coverage and didactic teaching style. He developed a
significant amount of curriculum materials using visual and information
technology skills. Mike taught a lower-track class in an urban high school. His
mentor teacher had an agreement in teaching priorities with him and had the
same chemistry learning background as a chemical engineer.
Content understanding
Candidates’ depth of understanding and ways of thinking about the
content that they taught were different. Lisa came closest to the view of science
advocated by the reform documents. She saw chemistry as providing a set of
intellectual tools for making sense of the material world and changes in it. Mike’s
understanding of chemistry was process-oriented; he had 15 years’ experience
working as a chemical engineer. He viewed school science content as the “hard
core” assumptions that differentiate right and wrong answers to problem solving
practice within a “research program” (Lakatos, 1970). Also, it had been a long
time since he had studied the specific topics that he was expected to teach in the
high school curriculum, and he was more inclined to see chemistry as providing
utilitarian tools for practical problem solving. John, who was teaching out of his
28
field, was more prone to see science as consisting of canonical facts and
procedures to be reproduced by their students.
Beliefs about school science and science teaching
Lisa believed school science can be a practice of scientific method to
construct active science knowledge building. With this strong constructivist belief
of science learning and teaching, she encouraged students to actively engage in
scientific sense-making. Lisa saw chemistry as intrinsically interesting, and she
wanted her students to share her interest and understanding of chemistry as a
way of making sense of the material world.
John shared Lisa’s focus on science as a way of making sense of the
world, but his approach was more formal and less intuitive than Lisa’s. In part
because he was teaching earth science, he relied more on archived data sets
and less on direct experience than Lisa did. He also emphasized the importance
of having students master correct procedures for data analysis and problem
solving. He wanted his students to find patterns in data, but he exerted careful
control over both the data and the pattern-finding processes.
Mike saw chemistry as intrinsically useful, and he wanted his students to
learn how to use the tools that it provided. He saw school as a place where
students would learn the skills that they needed in work and in life, and he saw
chemistry as a place to learn those skills. He was especially concerned with the
mathematical skills that students need for correct problem solving.
References
Abd El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A, Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science
education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419.
29
Adams, P. E. & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning
secondary science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29-50.
Anderson, C. W. (2003). Teaching science for motivation and understanding. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
(http://scires.educ.msu.edu/Science05/public/te802/TE802Readings.html).
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, January-February, 32-41.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bryan, L. & Abell, S. K. (1999). The development of professional knowledge in learning
to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121139.
Bunce, D. M., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, J. V. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problemsolving achievement using problem categorization. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 28(6), 505-521.
Champagne, A. B., and Klopper, L. E. (1977). A sixty-year perspective on three issues in
science education: I. Whose ideas are dominant? II. Representation of women.
III. Reflective thinking and problem solving. Science Education, 61(4), 431-452.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. ( 1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick(Ed.), Knowing,
Learning and Instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Crawford, B. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (1999). Elements of a community of
learners in a middle school science classroom. Science Education, 83, 701-723.
Dewey, J. (1916/1945). Method in science teaching. Science Education, 1, 3-9.
Reprinted with a new introduction by the author (1945) Science Education, 29,
119-123.
Doyle, W. (1984). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-200.
Eick, C. & Dias, M. (2005). Building the authority of exereince in communities of practice:
The development of preservice teachers' practical knowledge through coteaching
in inquiry classrooms. Science Education, 89, 470-491.
30
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y
Engeström, R Miettinen, & R-L Punamäki (Eds.). Perspectives on activity theory.
Cambridge: Cambride University Press. Pp. 19-38.
Eylon, B., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: an examination of four research
perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aladin Publishing Company.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47-63.
Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice
students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of
Science Education, 21(2). 195-211.
Hofstein, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B. J. Fraser, & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education: An international perspective (pp. 120). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Huffman, D. (1997). Effect of explicit problem solving instruction in high school students'
problem-solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (6), 551-570.
Hutchinson, S. A. (1988). Education and grounded theory. In Eds. Robert R. Sherman, &
Rodman B. Webb. Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods.
Explorations in Ethnography Series: The Falmer Press, London, 123-140.
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(6), 631-645.
Labaree, D. F. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult
practices that looks easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 228-233.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I.
Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. New
York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-195.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers' beliefs about
their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3),
275-292.
Malony, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Washington DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
Mason, D. S., Shell, D. F., and Crawley, F. E. (1997). Differences in problem solving by
nonscience majors in introductory chemistry on paired algorithmic-conceptual
problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 905-923.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd Ed.). New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Mestre, J. P., Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Touger, J. S. (1993).
Promoting skilled problem-solving behavior among beginning physics students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 303-317.
Minstrell, J. (1984). Teaching for the development of understanding of ideas: Forces on
moving objects. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.), Observing science classrooms:
Perspectives from research and practice (1984 yearbook of the Association for
the Education of Teachers in Science, pp. 55-73). Columbus, OH: ERIC Center
for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School Science Culture: A case study of
barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84, 193-211.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: the
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Science Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp. 57-64). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Richmond, G. & Nuereither, B. (1998). Making a case for cases, American Biology
Teacher, 60 (5), 335-342.
32
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive deelopment in social context.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice
teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific
representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25-48.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F.
Brandweine (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Shuell, T. J. (1990). Teaching and learning as problem solving. Theory into Practice, 29,
102-108.
Smith, P. J. III. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for
refrm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 27(4). 387-402.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. NewYork: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Stewart, J. and Hafner, R. (1991). Extending the conception of “problem” in problemsolving research. Science Education, 75(1), 105-120.
Supovitz, J. A. & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., and Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science
problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in
science Teaching, 38(4), 442-468.
Tobin, K. & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science
curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223-241.
Trumbell, D. & Kerr, P. (1993). University researchers' inchoate critiques of science
teaching: Implications for the content of preservice science teacher education.
Science Education, 77, 301-317.
van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., and Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and
reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
Wallace, C., & Kang, N.(2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science
teachers' beliefd about Inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33
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.
34