Investigation of secondary science teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 43, NO. 9, PP. 938–962 (2006)

Investigation of Secondary Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices afterAuthentic Inquiry-Based Experiences

Sherri L. Brown,1 Claudia T. Melear2

1University of Louisville, 279 CEHD, 2301 S. Third St., Louisville, KY 40292

2University of Tennessee Knoxville, A406 Claxton, Knoxville, TN 37996-3442

Received 1 June 2004; Accepted 9 May 2005

Abstract: This study continues research previously conducted by a nine-university collaborative,

the Salish I Research Project, by exploring science teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to inquiry-

oriented instruction. In this study, we analyzed the relationship among secondary science teachers’

preparation, their beliefs, and their classroom practices after completion of a course designed to provide

authentic inquiry experiences. From Teacher Pedagogical Philosophy Interview data and Secondary

Science Teacher Analysis Matrix observational data, we analyzed links between the teachers’ conveyed

beliefs and observed practice regarding the teachers’ actions (TA) and students’ actions (SA). Also

presented is a listing of teachers’ perceived influences from university preparation course work. Results

indicated that 7 of the 8 teachers professed a belief in teacher-centered or conceptual style with regard to

TA and SA. The observational results indicated that 7 of the 8 teachers displayed a teacher-centered or

conceptual style with regard to TA and SA. Inconsistencies between interview and observational data were

unexpected, as half of the teachers professed slightly greater teacher-centered styles with regard to TA than

what they actually practiced in their classrooms. All teachers reported that an inquiry-based science course

was valuable. � 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 43: 938–962, 2006

Research has indicated that many preservice science teachers do not employ inquiry

instructional practices upon leaving their preparation programs (Salish I Research Collaborative,

1997). In an effort to encourage more widespread inquiry instruction, some science teacher

educators have collaborated with scientists to provide authentic inquiry experiences for inservice

and preservice teachers through science courses and professional development (Brown, Bolton,

Chadwell, & Melear, 2002; Gilmer, Hanh, & Spaid, 2002; Gottfried, 1993; Granger, 2002;

Hemler, 1997; Melear, Goodlaxson, Warne, & Hickok, 2000; Melear, Hickok, Goodlaxson,

& Warne, 1998; Lunsford, Melear, & Hickok, 2005; Pyle et al., 1997; Schwartz, Lederman, &

Crawford, 2000; Spiegel, Collins, & Gilmer, 1995; Van Hook, 2002; Westerlund, Schwartz,

Correspondence to: S.L. Brown; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20110

Published online 8 August 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Lederman, & Koke, 2001; Wilson & Lucy, 2002). These interventions include three models:

institutes, apprenticeships, and courses.

Most teacher-preparation programs have the same overarching goal: to provide preservice

and/or inservice teachers authentic, inquiry-based scientific experiences. From these experiences,

teacher educators hope that teachers’ beliefs of the scientific processes and their skills in experi-

mentation procedures help teachers incorporate more inquiry-based methods that focus on

students’ thinking in their classrooms.

Authors of the National Science Education Standards (NSES) recommend that teachers

should use inquiry-based scientific reasoning and processes in instruction (National Research

Council, 1996). More specifically, NSES Teaching Standard A states that all ‘‘teachers of science

[should be able to] plan an inquiry-based science program for their students.’’ NSES Teaching

Standard B states that science teachers ‘‘encourage and model the skills of scientific inquiry, as

well as the curiosity, openness to new ideas and data, and skepticism that characterize science’’

(National Research Council, p. 37). Not only do these standards suggest that future science

teachers embrace supportive beliefs about inquiry but that they also use inquiry-based methods in

their classrooms.

Science teacher educators are faced with the challenge of constructing preparation programs

that provide explicit inquiry-based experiences that develop positive beliefs that influence

instructional practices. Our operational definition of an authentic inquiry-based experience

centers on investigations of scientific phenomena. The learner observes the phenomena,

manipulates/‘‘tinkers with’’ materials, asks questions, designs investigations, conducts experi-

ments, analyzes data, and reports results. This type of authentic inquiry experiential setting is on

the far end of the continuum from a ‘‘cookbook’’ laboratory setting in which students follow

prescribed steps and note outcomes. This study investigated the relationship among secondary

science teachers’ preparation, their beliefs, and their classroom practices after completion of a

course designed to provide authentic inquiry experiences.

Theoretical Background

The influence of teachers’ beliefs on practice begins with an understanding of relationships

between the two. Rokeach (1968) defined beliefs as ‘‘inferences made by an observer about

underlying states of expectancy’’ (p. 2). Vygotsky (1978) added a social aspect to beliefs by

including the interconnected inferences in how a person constructs themselves in relation to the

world. From his or her own belief constructs, a person will take actions. Therefore, examining

teachers’ belief systems provides greater insights to the types of experiences that teachers provide

in their classrooms (Simmons et al., 1999).

The NSES Teaching Standard B (National Research Council, 1996) encourages teachers to

use the ‘‘skills of scientific inquiry, as well as the curiosity, openness to new ideas, and skepticism

that characterizes science’’ (p. 32). When teachers display these values of everyday science,

students will assimilate similar attitudes into their dispositions (National Research Council,

1996). Prior to changes in classroom practices, teachers need to change their beliefs first

(Simmons et al., 1999; Tobin & Jakubowski, 1990). Hence, a teacher with a belief construct of

inquiry-based science will be more likely to practice inquiry with his or her students by modeling

authentic science skills in a student-centered environment.

Simply holding beliefs about the benefits of inquiry-based practices is not always sufficient

to implement them in the classroom. Guskey (1985) and Bolster (1983) reported that practice

often precedes beliefs with regard to change. Simmons et al. (1999) found that simply altering

the variables, such as how teachers feel and act, may not be sufficient to bring about change in

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 939

classroom practices. A viable strategy is to get teachers engaged in authentic inquiry-based

research science experiences themselves. Unfortunately, Roth (1998) found that students who

have completed both a high-school and an undergraduate degree may not have experienced such

inquiry-based science. Roth argued that undergraduate college science courses do not adequately

prepare teachers to perform authentic scientific research; therefore, potential science teachers may

neither have the experiences nor the competencies needed to teach inquiry. Additionally, the 1999

Survey of Science Education Doctoral Programs in the United States (Jablon, Lederman,

McComas, & Yager, 1999) reported that most students did not experience science through inquiry

methods in high-school or college settings. They recommended that all future potential science

teachers take at least one course that uses an inquiry-based approach. From this study, we

hypothesize that the teachers’ beliefs and practices will change as a result of experiences with

authentic inquiry-based science methods.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate links among teacher-preparation inquiry-based

experiences, secondary science teacher’s beliefs about scientific inquiry, and their use of scientific

inquiry in teaching. Specifically, we sought to explore the relationship among preservice

and practicing teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to inquiry instruction during their

preparatory years to their inquiry-based courses in our science teacher-preparation program and

subsequently to their teaching practices in the classroom settings.

Method

To determine teachers’ beliefs and practices, we used both qualitative and quantitative

research methods. A review of several interview and observational instruments was conducted

(A list of these reviewed instruments will be provided upon request.) The goal of the Salish I

Research Collaborative (1997) aligned closely with the goals of our study in that we were seeking

feedback from our teachers to improve our preservice preparation of science teachers. Therefore,

to describe our teachers’ beliefs and practices, we selected Salish I instruments to collect interview

and observational data (Salish I Research Project Supplement, 1997). The Teacher Pedagogical

Philosophy Inventory (TPPI; Richardson & Simmons, 1994) was selected to describe teachers’

beliefs, and the Secondary Science Teaching Analysis Matrix (STAM; Gallagher & Parker, 1995)

was selected to measure teachers’ and students’ actions.

The TPPI had been used in several studies (Adams & Krockover, 1997; McGlamery &

Fluckiger, 2001; Simmons et al., 1999; Waggett, 1999) and was continually under revision

(L. Richardson, personal communication, Oct. 4, 2001). The developers have no reliability data,

but the extensive Simmons et al. (1999) study indicated that validity had been established through

comparisons of interview data. Our rationale for selecting the TPPI instrument was that it (a)

addressed the research questions; (b) was explainable by TPPI co-constructor, Kristen Rearden;

and (c) coded in a similar fashion to the STAM instrument.

Interview data were collected through face-to-face interviews using the TPPI. All interviews

were transcribed verbatim from the audiotapes. Unfortunately, reliability and validity data were

not available for the TPPI instrument at the time of the study. To save the participants time, address

the research questions, and replicate another study (Waggett, 1999), we decided to select only the

germane TPPI questions. From the 44 TPPI questions, we selected the following 14 open-ended

questions as those questions pertinent to the goals of our study (Note: TA is teacher’s actions, SA is

students’ actions, and PT is philosophy of teaching.)

940 BROWN AND MELEAR

1. Describe a well-organized classroom. (TA)

2. Describe the best teaching/learning situation that you have ever experienced. (PT)

3. In what ways do you try to model the best teaching/learning situation in your

classroom? (PT)

4. What are some of the impediments or constraints in implementing that kind of model?

(TA)

5. What are some tactics you use to overcome these constraints? (TA)

6. How do you believe your students learn best? (SA & PT)

7. How do you know when your students understand a concept? (SA & PT)

8. In what ways do you manipulate the educational environment to maximize student

understanding? (TA & SA)

9. How do you accommodate students with special needs in your classroom? (SA)

The remaining five TPPI open-ended questions were selected because they specifically

address teacher-preparation course work:

10. Which of your undergraduate education courses were beneficial to you when you began

teaching? Why or why not?

11. Which of your undergraduate education courses were not beneficial to you when you

began teaching? Why or why not?

12. Which of your undergraduate science courses were beneficial to you when you began

teaching? Why or why not?

13. Which of your undergraduate science courses were not beneficial to you when you

began teaching? Why or why not?

14. What changes would you make in undergraduate education courses to make the

experience more meaningful?

Again, several observational instruments were reviewed prior to selecting the STAM. Our

rationale for selecting the STAM instrument was that it (a) addressed the research questions

specifically, (b) measured activity along a continuum, (c) was one on which we were trained, and

(d) coded similarly with the TPPI instrument.

The STAM observational data were collected from classroom visits. Prior to gathering

observational data, the first author and a trained graduate student collaborated to code 4 teachers’

observational data. We independently scored and then discussed the underlying rationale for

the scoring. Additionally, STAM rubric statements such as few, some, and many were quan-

tified to increase interrater reliability. E-mail correspondence between Donald Duggan-Haas

(Duggan-Haas, Gallagher, & Parker, 2001) and the first author confirmed that we had used the

STAM rubric correctly.

During the data-collection phase, the first author observed and videotaped 18 classroom

lessons, which included 3 hr of each teacher’s instruction. An assistant, a science education

doctoral student trained in using the STAM, observed classroom instruction in 9 of these

18 sessions, and viewed videotapes of the other 9 sessions. The datasets from the first author and

the assistant were compiled and compared statistically to determine interrater reliability. An

acceptable interrater reliability was selected at 80% because this was the interrater reliability

reported by the 1997 Salish I Collaborative. The STAM scores for the two raters were compared

and determined to be�87% interrater reliability. The assistant’s STAM data were used to establish

an acceptable interrater-reliability purposes only and is not reported in this study.

The observational and interview qualitative data were then quantified, where ‘‘qualitative

information is [converted] into numerical codes that can be statistically analyzed’’ (Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 1998, pp. 125–126).


Finally, the first author, participating as the graduate teaching assistant for two sections of the

Knowing and Teaching Science: Just Do It course, provided a qualitative data source. Within

the role of graduate teaching assistant, the first author attended all class sessions where she

documented students’ behavior, discussed students’ experiments, and observed students’ experi-

mental processes. This extensive anecdotal record collected during these course experiences

was closely reviewed for common themes.

Participants

Participants from this study were selected from four cohorts who completed the Knowing

and Teaching Science: Just Do It course from 1997 to 2001. In selecting participants from these

cohorts, researchers wanted an equal representation, or balanced participant number, to represent

each cohort. It was essential that cohort members were currently teaching and that we had an equal

number from each cohort. Only 2 of the original 8 in Cohort I were teaching, so they were included.

From Cohort II, only 3 of 8 were currently teaching; therefore, these teachers were included.

Cohort III participants were not invited because they had either left the teaching field, were

completing an apprenticeship model, or teaching in an environmental institute (a nonschool

environment). To keep numbers across cohorts equal, 3 participants from Cohort IV were

randomly selected.

All teachers who were invited to participate in this study consented. All 8 had completed the

inquiry-based university science course for preservice teachers, and all had completed or were

completing a 36-week internship requirement for the Master’s of Science degree in Education.

Table 1 describes the timeline of each cohort’s completion of the Knowing and Teaching Science:

Just Do It course, the internship year, the interview, and the classroom observation. Even with

the relatively small sample size, we found the extensive descriptive interview and observational

data to be a rich source for a longitudinal study of secondary science teachers from a single

teacher-preparation institution. Some of these participants were involved in smaller studies in

which data have produced similar initial findings (Suters, Melear, & Hickok, 2002).

As noted from Table 1, Aaron, Abigail, and Addie were completing their first year of teaching

experience whereas Barbara, Bob, and Brianna had completed 2 years of teaching, and Carla and

Christy had completed 3 years of teaching. Table 2 provides additional demographic data.

Inquiry-Based Course

The inquiry-based course, taught collaboratively by a botanical geneticist and a science

teacher educator, was designed to provide authentic, experiential, scientific opportunities for

Table 1

Cohort description for the knowing and teaching science: Just Do It course

CohortNo.

CohortParticipantsTotal No.

StudyParticipantsTotal No. Course Year

InternshipYear

TeachingExperience

Year(s)b

InterviewMonth(s)/

Year(s)

ObservationMonth(s)/Year

IV 11 3 2000/2001a 2001/2002 0 November–December/2001

January–March/2002

II 8 3 1998 1999/2000 2 November/2001–January/2002

January–March/2002

I 8 2 1997 1998/1999 3 January/2002 March 2002

Note. Numerical values are explained.aCourse was taught both Fall and Spring semesters.bInternship year counts as 1 year of teaching experience within the state of Tennessee and within the study.


preservice science teachers. It explicitly afforded preservice teachers ‘‘the opportunity to

conduct hands-on investigative-based research with a living organism, [and] the opportunity

to translate the experience into the development of laboratory applications suitable for use in a

7–12 or undergraduate classroom’’ (Hickok, 2001, p. 1). During the course, the teachers

individually or collectively studied an unknown and presented an inquiry-based lesson

that was suitable for students in Grades 7 to 12. They also wrote and presented a critical

overview of a scientific research journal article and presented their own research results for class

discussions.

All sessions of the course were taught in a laboratory setting. Because the science experiments

required work outside the class period, the teachers had access to the lab as needed. On the first

day of class, the scientist provided each teacher a vial containing an unknown substance which

was situated within the current real-world context. For example, when the Mars sojourner was a

major news event, the scientist distributed vials of an ‘‘unknown’’ substance and indicated that it

was from Planet Mars. The teachers were charged to determine the composition of the Martian

specimen.

During class sessions, teachers recorded all daily activities in a laboratory notebook.

Notebook inscriptions provided important data about the processes they used during their

experiments. The inscriptions included questions, drawings, numerical data, graphs, tables, lists,

calculations, experimental methods, text, equations, figures, and charts. Additionally, teachers

kept a separate journal and wrote reflections about questions, concerns, and frustrations regarding

the extent to which the course related to previous science course experiences and about the nature

and development of their scientific thinking. To encourage candid reflections, the scientist did not

read the reflective journals until after the course was completed. Course grades were based on

scores from rubrics for the oral and written presentations as well as the journal inscription

notebook.

The teacher-preparatory, inquiry-based science course has been the site of previous research.

Researchers and participants in the Salish II study presented beginning research on this course by

examining the teachers’ journal responses (Melear et al., 1998). By evaluating their journals, the

scientist’s postclass discussions, and teachers’ remarks, Melear et al. (2000) provided results of

Table 2

Participant’s cohort number, subject area, gender, age, B.S. degree, grade level, and Ocean Beach

Estuarine Ecology course participation

TeacheraCohort

No. Subject Area GenderAge

(years) B.S. DegreeGradeLevel

Ocean BeachEstuarine

Ecology CourseParticipation

Aaron IV Physical Science M 32 Marketing/BusinessAdministration

9 Yes

Abigail IV Basic Biology F 43 Biology 10 YesAddie IV Honors Biology F 23 Biology 9 YesBarbara II Basic Biology F 28 Biology Chemistry

Minor10 Yes

Bob II Life Science M 29 Psychology 8 NoBrianna II Honors Biology F 24 Biology Chemistry

Minor9 Yes

Carla I Physical Science F 27 Biology 9 NoChristy I Life Science F 28 Biology 7 No

aPseudonyms are used to preserve anonymity.


critical incidents that occurred during course participation. Hickok, Warne, Baxter, and Melear

(1998) also published the details of students’ initial process skills, their generated questions, and

their experimental protocols after ‘‘tinkering with’’ the C-fern spores.

Following this inquiry-based science course, a science methods course underscored and

reinforced the experiential learning from the inquiry-based science course. All teachers in this

study completed this methods course as well. This course afforded preservice teachers the

opportunity to conduct inquiry experiments with various living objects such as fish, seeds,

earthworms, mealworms, and roly polies. The teachers also wrote inquiry-based lesson plans

based on their course experiences.

Five of the 8 participants also attended an optional preservice summer course (see Table 2):

Ocean Beach and Estuarine Ecology Education and Ornithology and Beach Processes. This

course underscored and reinforced the experiential inquiry-based science course learning.

This course included three informational classes on campus that prepared teachers for 4 days

of primitive camping experiences on a barrier island. During the extreme camping excursion,

teachers conducted mathematics and science inquiry-based experiments using living and

nonliving objects. Examples of previous experimental topics include inquiry research on island

erosion, fiddler crab habitat, horseshoe crab body length, dog fennel density, and resurrection fern

density.

Data Analysis

Teacher belief data were coded using the interview protocol of the Salish I Research Project’s

TPPI (Richardson & Simmons, 1994). All interviews were conducted within a 3-month time

period and were coded according to the concept maps provided with the TPPI Standard Operating

Procedure and Coding Scheme (Salish I Research Project Supplement, 1997). A two-paragraph

summary based on supportive statements was compiled for each teacher. One of the paragraph

summaries pertained to the TAwhile the other pertained to the SA. Simmons et al. (1999) defined

the TA and SA categories as:

teacher actions—the number and kinds of teaching methods used; the nature and frequency

of labs, demonstrations and hands-on activities; the nature of teacher–student interactions;

and the nature of the teacher’s questions.

student actions—the nature and purposes of students’ writing; the nature and frequency of

students’ questions; the nature of student–student interactions; the nature and existence

of student initiated activities; and the students’ understanding of and response to teacher

expectations. (p. 935)

Additionally, the observational instrument, the STAM, was one of the products of the 1997

Salish I Research Project as well (Gallagher & Parker, 1995).

From each teacher’s observation, researchers completed a STAM Record of Activity Sheet.

Additionally, a science education doctoral student, who was trained in using the STAM,

independently analyzed each teacher’s classroom instruction and then completed the Record of

Activity Sheet (either with video or during actual class session). Data from the Record of Activity

Sheet include date, tape number, activity/transition, start time, and description. Each segment of

the teacher’s lesson was defined as either a transition or an activity. Transitions were defined as

those portions of class time devoted to beginning or ending an activity. Activities were defined

as those portions of class time where science content was taught.

The transitions and activities were then coded using the STAM Analysis Matrix. A summary

STAM score for each teacher’s 22 subcategories was compiled in tabular format. The following


identifying letters designated on the STAM rubric were used: A was didactic; B was transitional;

C was conceptual; D was early constructivist; E was experienced constructivist; and F was

constructivist inquiry.

These six individual categories were collapsed and reported as one the following three

descriptors: didactic (1) and transitional (2) were combined and grouped under the heading

teacher-centered; conceptual remained conceptual; and early constructivist (4), experienced

constructivist (5), and inquiry constructivist (6) were combined and renamed student-centered. In

following the Salish I Project (1997) reporting scheme, the final results were reported under these

three descriptors. The descriptive themes that best captured the teachers’ beliefs and performances

as defined by Simmons et al. (1999) are explained in Figure 1.

A STAM numerical median for each of the five categories was determined: content, teachers’

actions, students’ actions, resources, and environment. To calculate this simple numerical median,

an ordinal number between 1 and 6 was assigned to each of the following matrix styles: 1

(didactic), 2 (transitional), 3 (conceptual), 4 (early constructivist), 5 (experienced constructivist),

and 6 (constructivist inquiry). The TA median and the SA median was determined. We also used

the STAM Activity Sheet to compile a summary, the Video Portfolio Summary, which consisted of

one overview paragraph and a paragraph each about the TA and the SA.

To categorize the TPPI response data, the Salish I Research Project Supplement’s (1997)

coding levels were used. Within the Standard Operating Procedure, each TPPI question was

presented in the form of a map that displayed various responses linked to the lettered codes. These

lettered codes were identical to the STAM, where A signified didactic, B signified transitional,

and so forth. Again, the same ordinal-numbering sequence was assigned to each of the matrix

styles (1¼ didactic, 2¼ transitional, etc.).

For TPPI Level I coding, the first author reviewed every transcript and highlighted text that

appeared relevant to the categories for each question map. For Level II analysis, each teacher’s

transcript response codes were transferred onto a grid. The distribution of responses across the

grid provided one of the following labels: didactic, transitional, conceptual, early constructivist,

experienced constructivist, or constructivist inquiry. Then the median value of the coding

frequency for both the TA and SA was determined and reported. Again, the six individual

categories were collapsed and reported as one of three descriptors (see p. 12).

Finally, the TPPI data of the teacher’s perceptions of TA and SA were compared with the

STAM data of the teachers’ TA and SA observations. From these comparisons, links between the

teachers’ philosophy and their practice were determined and reported. Each teacher’s TPPI and

STAM median value for TA and SA is provided in Table 3.

Results

The analysis of the descriptive data revealed three important themes: (a) The teachers viewed

the inquiry-based science course as valuable, (b) the teachers predominantly professed and

displayed teacher-centered behaviors, and (c) the teachers expressed beliefs that were not always

consistent with their actions.

Value of the Inquiry-Based Course

To present the preparation-program’s influential factors, summation data of the teachers

were gathered from five specific TPPI questions (see Questions 10–14). Two of the teachers

attended the local university for undergraduate science course work; 6 teachers received their

undergraduate degrees from other institutions. Most of the teachers responded to the questions


about their science course work from courses they had taken at the local university while acquiring

their license to teach science.

From the TPPI Questions 10 to 13, we were able to elicit the teachers’ postintervention views

regarding how the science teacher-preparation program had influenced their practices and beliefs.

Teacher-centered Conceptual Student-centered

transmits content knowledge to students

integrates content and processes

employs student-centered investigations; acts as facilitator; emphasizes content with activity to provide sound science learning opportunities

stresses the factual and descriptive nature of science

emphasizes the explanatory nature of science by organizing important ideas

stresses the nature of science as negotiated understanding and inquiry

uses very few real-world applications, examples, or connections

generates examples and connections

shares the construction of science examples and connections with students; encourages students to contribute examples and analysis

relies heavily on algorithms and rote learning

assists students in clarifying understanding; focuses labs/demonstrations on concepts; seeks to change unscientific ideas

places responsibility on students to acquire and process their own science knowledge through their own actions

solicits minimal student input and rarely allows students to generate questions or procedures

encourages both procedural and conceptual students’ questions and student-initiated activity

focuses questions on students’ ideas and instructional goals; encourages students’ questions to be conceptual

permits few student–student interactions

encourages some student–student interactions

encourages student–student interactions to focus on understanding

uses textbooks, videos, drills, review games

uses hands-on activities, group work, and discussion of ideas and frequent homework

uses hands-on activities, group work, project work, and laboratory investigations

uses fact-centered tests with majority of items requiring short answers

uses quizzes, and tests to reinforce and check students’ understanding of important concepts

focuses assessment on understanding and applying ideas; uses alternative forms of assessment

Figure 1. Teaching style defined by teachers’ beliefs and performances. From ‘‘Beginning teachers: Beliefs

and classroom actions,’’ by Simmons et al., 1999, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, pp. 930–954.

Copyright 1999 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


All of the teachers selected the inquiry-based science course as beneficial. Aaron, Abigail, and

Bob classified the course as a College of Arts and Science course. These 3 teachers were the oldest

in age, and 2 of the 3, Bob and Aaron, held bachelor’s degrees outside of the natural science area.

Based on responses to the TPPI, these 3 teachers perceived the inquiry-based science course as a

significant course for learning science as a process as opposed to learning discrete facts. As Aaron

said: ‘‘[I am] much more of an ‘observationist’ than I am a scientist so to speak and [that course]

made me see the importance of thinking for yourself and not expecting to the get the answers from

the teacher’’ (November 30, 2001). Abigail stated that ‘‘I am trying to learn [science] so I can

teach. I would like to take courses from my previous career again to have a different perspective

on how to teach concepts versus just try to learn them’’ (November 28, 2001). Bob noted the

following:

All [my] undergraduate courses were pretty standard . . . . it is mainly content based [and]

you learn a lot of stuff. The most beneficial was the science inquiry class I took. It was

probably the most interesting, although frustrating at the time. [The course provided] neat

ways to get kids to work and get problems on their own [and] have them come up with or

construct their own ideas of what they need to be doing and let them figure out their own

way. (December 10, 2001)

These 3 also may have perceived and classified the course as a College of Arts and Science

course because an ‘‘actual practicing scientist’’ taught it. Aaron described himself modeling the

scientist’s questioning technique while teaching in the classroom. Since all teachers had

completed the inquiry-based science course and it was the primary course using inquiry-based

instruction, the teachers’ rationale for selecting it as one of the most beneficial courses was an

important factor to consider. Included are 4 teachers’ rationales. Abigail said that ‘‘science is not

just memorizing and learning how to outline and know vocabulary. You want your kids to be

questioning and curious’’ (November 28, 2001). Barbara said that ‘‘If I hadn’t taken that class,

I wouldn’t have felt comfortable doing that kind of stuff’’ (January 4, 2002). Finally, Brianna

stated:

Table 3

Ordinal data from TPPI and STAM codes for teachers’ and students’ actions

Teachera

Interviews Observations

TPPITAb

TPPISAc STAM TA

STAMSA

Aaron 4 3 3 2Abigail 2 3 3 2Addie 3 3 3 3Barbara 2 3 4 2Bob 1 2 2 2Brianna 3 3 3 3Carla 2 2 1 2Christy 2 3 3 3

Note. TPPI¼Teacher Pedagogical Philosophy Interview. STAM¼Secondary Science

Teacher Analysis Matrix.aPseudonyms are used to preserve anonymity.bTA¼ teacher’s actions.cSA¼ students’ actions.


I didn’t even know what inquiry was at all before that class and was forced to figure it out.

I had always heard about inquiry but I hadn’t done it myself . . . actually seeing the

frustration yourself, understanding what it is like . . . . And then have no confidence, then

get your confidence back and then feel good about yourself . . .was good because it shoved

you back . . . on the student’s perspective . . . . Since I was going to do inquiry and expect a

lot out of them, I needed to be aware of what they may be feeling. Instead of being like

gosh, why are you feeling like an idiot? It is ok if you feel like an idiot. You probably will.

It is normal. (December 14, 2001)

Christy said that ‘‘It was one of the best ones to show about inquiry’’ (January 16, 2002).

A complete listing of the educational and science course work along with the frequency of their

selection is shown in Figure 2.

College of Education College of Arts and Sciences

Inquiry-based science course (5) Inquiry-based science course (3)Education in CulturalProspective Chemistry (2)

Physics (2)

Professional Internship Geology

Field Experience BiodiversityProfessional Studies – TheLearner Aquatic EcologyProfessional Studies: Teachers,School and Society Cell biology

General Genetics

General Entomology

Organic Chemistry

Biochemistry

Comparativ

Chemistry and Society

e Invertebrate Zoology

Ocean Beach and EstuarineEcology

MostB

eneficial

All courses

Child Psychology None (5)The Disadvantaged Student:Psycho-educational Perspectives ImmunologyComputer Applications inEducational NeurobiologyDeveloping Reading Skills inContent Fields Anatomy/Physiology

Teaching Science Grades 7-12 Organic ChemistryProfessional Studies – TheLearner

LeastB

eneficial

None Physics

Plant Evolution

Figure 2. Teachers’ reactions to college of education and liberal arts course work.


Suggested Changes in Courses

Teachers provided suggestions for changes in their educational course work that would

have made their teacher-preparation experience more meaningful (Question 14). From their

suggestions, three areas to focus on for improvement emerged: classroom management, authentic

experiences, and lesson-plan construction.

Addie, Bob, and Carla expressed a need for an increased concentration regarding classroom-

management skills. Bob confirmed that inquiry methods were ideal; however, he discovered that

inquiry was ‘‘very difficult [to implement] because of dealing with discipline [problems] and

students who can’t stay on task.’’ Addie felt her preparation course work ‘‘touched on management

issues but [she] wanted more . . . . [she wanted] to talk about real life [such as], this is what is

happening in the classroom right now. What would you do?’’ Addie felt discussions such as these

would have been more practical. Barbara did not specify classroom management but focused on

reaching students who were sleeping or misbehaving in class. Barbara felt that she got in ‘‘the real

world and [began to wonder] how one can motivate unmotivated students?’’

Addie, Barbara, Brianna, and Christy felt authentic experiences and/or authentic instructors

were needed for preparing them for the ‘‘real world’’ of teaching. Brianna thought ‘‘there needed

to be more science education classes taught by science teachers because a lot of the education

people seemed disconnected from the actual classroom.’’ Barbara felt that ‘‘hearing real-life

stories of [teachers] who had been in the worst classes or worst situations would be able to [help]

by giving advice on how to motive students.’’ Addie finalized her thoughts by requesting course

work that focused on aspects that were appropriate to being in the classroom. Christy felt her

internship year in the schools prepared her best as the education courses ‘‘can prepare you in some

way, but you don’t know much until you step into the classroom.’’

Abigail wanted more time allocated to the preparation of writing appropriate lesson and unit

plans. She believed that planning ‘‘probably made the biggest difference in quality teaching.’’

Aaron, Brianna, and Carla wanted the lesson-plan instruction tailored to the state-adopted, end-of-

course Gateway test topics. Brianna expressed that ‘‘a lot of the lesson plans should correlate to the

Gateway, which is how evaluators want you to correlate it . . . . The [evaluators] don’t care about

the National Standards; they want to see what you are doing for the Gateway test’’ (interview data,

December 14, 2001).

Aaron felt he ‘‘had no earthly idea how to apply a lesson to the standards or to the Gateway

exam,’’ so he encouraged the teaching of this application concurrent with teaching methods.

Carla wanted educational courses ‘‘to be more like the Gateway workshops where [she] learned

a ton activities.’’

Predominance of Teacher-Centered Beliefs and Behaviors

From the postintervention interviews, the following teaching styles were professed for both

TA and SA. Given that TPPI Questions 2 and 3 were precursors to Questions 4 and 5 and that TPPI

Questions 6 and 7 overlapped with SA, the Philosophy of Teaching domain will be embedded

within the discussion of TA and SA. All comments were taken directly from the TPPI interview

transcripts conducted between November 2001 and January 2002.

TA Beliefs. Five of the 8 teachers held teacher-centered perceptions with regard to their

actions (TA). Bob held didactic, and Abigail, Barbara, Carla, and Christy held transitional.

Addie and Brianna held conceptual while Aaron was the only one who held student-centered

perceptions. The 5 teachers holding teacher-centered beliefs with regard to TA represented a


well-organized classroom (Question 1) from the perspective of their planning and their class-

room’s physical space. Bob referred to the ‘‘arrangement of the desks so students could focus’’

while Carla discussed the classroom design so that all ‘‘would be able to see the board and hear the

teacher.’’ Carla continued to refer to the classroom physical space: ‘‘You wouldn’t [want to]

have the trouble makers sitting together.’’ Carla also mentioned classroom logistics in ‘‘keeping

things the same as far as where [students] turn in assignments and where they go to get late work.’’

Christy and Carla believed a well-organized classroom began with the teacher’s planning.

When explaining why they were not able to implement their best teaching and learning

environments (Questions 2 & 3) in their classroom, the 5 teachers holding teacher-centered beliefs

identified impediments or constraints (Question 4) that were uncontrollable and school related.

Common constraints were class size, tracking, and administrative decisions. Carla felt that ‘‘when

you have thirty-one basic kids in the class, it is hard to do inquiry activities.’’ Christy thought the

‘‘facility [was] the biggest constraint.’’ Bob responded that ‘‘administrative constraints [were]

the only big impediment to keep[ing] the class like [he] would like it to be.’’

Strategies used by these 5 teachers to overcome constraints (Question 5) were minimal, if any.

Carla indicated that she ‘‘would do some labs with other classes that [she] probably wouldn’t do

with the basic kids because the basic kids would be fighting with the meter sticks if you turned your

back.’’ Bob reported that he just worked extra time to overcome administrative duties. Barbara

said she relied on assigning students 50 sentences to overcome behavioral issues.

In manipulating the environment to maximize student learning (Question 8), these 5 teachers

reported strategies connected to the physical environment. Abigail ‘‘dressed in a costume and

decorated [the room] for Halloween.’’ Bob stated that he would

threaten students to work [because our] discipline policy extends into academic discipline

not just behavioral stuff. Forgetting their materials or books would be grounds to get a

demerit . . . . fear plays a large role in manipulating the educational environment. I can’t

think of anything else that we do [pause] yeah scare tactics (interview data, November 30,

2001).

The 3 teachers holding student-centered or conceptual beliefs with regard to TA focused on

students’ learning and interactions. Aaron stated that a ‘‘semicircle [is better] than rows because

[I] can make eye contact with the students [I am] discussing things with.’’ Brianna preferred to

provide a ‘‘variety of different stations to provide stimuli to keep the students’ attention.’’

These 3 teachers also explained constraints in achieving an optimal learning environment

from the viewpoint of understanding their students’ learning styles while encouraging their

students to persevere. Aaron stated he had a ‘‘conglomeration of a diverse classroom, and it is not

only in size but different personalities, different cultures.’’ Brianna noted that she had to overcome

students’ initial response to quit inquiry prematurely. With inquiry activities, she found some

students ‘‘looked at it and said ok, I can’t do it.’’ Hence, she found ‘‘it took a little more time for

those classes since those students were used to worksheet answers where there was only once

correct answer.’’

To overcome constraints, the 3 teachers used strategies that were empowering for the

students. Brianna tried to increase students’ confidence by avoiding the word ‘‘wrong.’’ Instead of

saying ‘‘wrong,’’she would say ‘‘ok well that is a good point, why is this not working? What do you

think you could have done differently?’’ Using the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (Myers &

McCauley, 1985) and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1991), Aaron ‘‘tried to focus on

the strengths of students who may have had different personalities or different cultures.’’ Addie

focused on her students’ motivation and on her management style.


Finally, the 3 teachers maximized student learning by focusing on their own personal actions

and students’ ideas. Aaron ‘‘randomly asked a lot of questions in order to keep all students

involved [and he] attempted to make every student’s opinions matter by having [students] ask

questions rather than just give a straight lecture and do an activity.’’ Brianna noted that even with

31 students, she valued ‘‘stations that students can manipulate materials themselves . . . . There is a

little bit of congestion, but to get them up and actually looking at stuff is more of an investigative

approach.’’

SA Beliefs. All but 2 teachers held conceptual perceptions with regard to their SA; Bob and

Carla held teacher-centered perceptions for SA. The 6 teachers with conceptual beliefs referred to

how their students learned best (Question 6) in a variety of ways such as active learning, learning

interest, and social learning. Since the teachers’ comments were very similar, a synopsis of these

6 teachers’ perspectives is presented.

Abigail, Addie, Barbara, and Brianna believed active learning was the best way their students

learned. Active learning was described as hands-on activities, inquiry labs, and student

involvement. Aaron, Christy, and Brianna portrayed active learning as students writing their own

explanations in their journals. Aaron felt that students learn best when they are interested in the

topic; hence, a teacher should attempt to spark each student’s interest. Brianna, Barbara, and

Addie noted that students learned best in a social environment promoted by debates, peer-

teaching, cooperative groups, and discussions. The 2 teachers holding teacher-centered

perceptions for SA, Carla and Bob, described best learning as a focus on repetition and student

listening skills.

In responding to how teachers know if their students understand a concept (Question 7),

teachers with conceptual beliefs, such as Christy, reported that they look for students to ask

critical-thinking questions that may go beyond the scope of the lesson. Brianna, Barbara, and

Abigail believed their students had learned a concept when they could explain it to others. On the

other hand, Bob and Carla, holding teacher-centered beliefs, responded that quizzes and tests were

indicators of students’ understanding.

To accommodate students with special needs in the classroom (Question 9), teachers holding

conceptual views, such as Brianna, Aaron, and Barbara, indicated they would change instructional

strategies and/or curriculum. Abigail and Addie noted that they would provide extra time and

personalized attention to students with special needs. Conversely, Carla felt her study guides and

repetitive methods met any special needs her students may have.

SA and TA Behaviors. From the observations, the following teaching styles were exhibited

for both TA and SA. Aaron, Abigail, Addie, Brianna, and Christy displayed conceptual behaviors

while Bob and Carla displayed teacher-centered behaviors. Barbara was the only teacher who

displayed student-centered behaviors. Aaron, Abigail, Barbara, Bob, and Carla displayed teacher-

centered (traditional) behaviors while Addie, Brianna, and Christy revealed conceptual behaviors.

Figures 3 and 4 provide a graphical comparison of perceptions and teaching behaviors.

Inconsistent Beliefs and Actions

Figure 3, regarding TA, illustrated that Abigail, Barbara, Bob, and Christy displayed

behaviors that rated higher than their conveyed beliefs whereas Aaron and Carla displayed

behaviors that rated lower than their conveyed beliefs. The behaviors and perceptions for Addie

and Brianna were congruent. With regard to SA, Figure 4 revealed that Addie, Bob, Brianna,


Carla, and Christy displayed behaviors that were congruent with their conveyed beliefs. Aaron,

Abigail, and Barbara displayed behaviors that rated lower than their conveyed beliefs. Figures 5

and 6 show the reorganization of the previous data onto a matrix which displays each teacher’s

position with regard to their beliefs and actions for both TA and SA.

Thematic Analysis of Interviews and Observations

The following section includes four points related to our three previous themes. In addressing

the first finding regarding the course value, we discuss (a) the categories of learning inquiry and (b)

the experiences in the course. To develop our second finding regarding teachers’ teacher-centered

beliefs and behaviors, we discuss the nature of teaching practice. Finally, to explicate our third

finding of inconsistency between teachers’ expressed beliefs and observable actions, we discuss

teachers’ beliefs and practices.

Categories of Learning Inquiry

The teachers of this study were supportive of inquiry-based investigations. From responses to

our study, we determined that teachers seem to move through various categories during the

research experience provided from the Knowing and Teaching Science: Just Do It course.

Figure 3. Teacher TPPI and STAM comparison data for teachers’ actions.

Figure 4. Teacher TPPI and STAM comparison data for students’ actions.


In particular, we found that they (a) developed inquiry-based thinking, (b) developed inquiry-

based skills, (c) developed an awareness of possible frustration, (d) lacked immediate answers, (e)

experienced loss of self-confidence, (f) experienced comfort of doing inquiry, and (g) questioned

experimental protocols. To explicate these seven categories, we describe each category using the

substantiating data taken directly from the TPPI interview transcripts.

The first category of inquiry-based thinking requires learning science in which students

initiate the scientific query from experiences with the phenomena. We believe that students who

investigate their own questions to provide conclusions based upon observable evidence

experience joy, empowerment, ownership, and pride of their own learning. Abigail underscored

this belief by stating the ‘‘importance of having students ask questions and develop that kind of

thinking’’—that science is not just memorizing and knowing vocabulary, but asking questions and

being curious. Bob concurred by stating that students should ‘‘get their own problems, construct

their own ideas, and figure out their own way.’’ The second category, developing inquiry-based

skills, has students act upon their query by forming researchable questions and designing

experiments that investigate the phenomena. Carla stated that the course was a ‘‘good example of a

lab experience that helped you figure [your questions] out on your own . . . . Everything I learned

was stuff I generated.’’ Abigail found the course process ‘‘humbling in realizing that she had not

even noticed things until she heard other [classmates] discussing it.’’ Abigail regretted that she had

spent time researching the C-Fern in the library; in hindsight, she would have rather spent that time

observing the things going on with C-Fern in class.

In the third category, the teachers’ awareness of possible student frustration increases

when they experience firsthand the feelings that accompany the inquiry process. We believe that

experiencing the students’ possible frustration will assist in the teachers’ understanding and

implementation of inquiry-based teaching strategies. Brianna’s explanation of her feelings

underscored her experience in that she had not done inquiry herself and

ActiActions ons

StStudenudent-centered Co-centered Conceptnceptual al Teacher-centered Teacher-centered

StudStudent-centent-centered Aaron ConConceptceptual al Addie

Brianna

Beliefliefs

Teacher-centered Teacher-centered Barbara Abigail Christy

Carla Bob

Figure 5. Belief and action matrix for teachers’ actions.

Actions

Student-centered Conceptual Teacher-centered Student-centered Conceptual Addie

Brianna Christy

Aaron Abigail Barbara

Beliefs

Teacher-centered Carla Bob

Figure 6. Belief and action matrix for students’ actions.


that actually seeing the frustration yourself, understanding what it is like . . .was good

because it shoved you back . . . on the student’s perspective . . . . Since I was going to do

inquiry and expect a lot out of them, I needed to be aware of what they may be feeling.

(interview data, December 14, 2001)

Category 4, the lack of immediate answers, refers to teachers’ response to students’

questions and responses. We believe the learning of science is achieved best when learners

negotiate their own thinking through justification and rationalization. This thinking process

does not occur when teachers provide immediate answers to students’ questions. The lack of

immediate answers in the authentic inquiry-based course was evident when Aaron said it ‘‘made

[him] see the importance of thinking for yourself and not expecting to the get the answers from the

teacher.’’ Aaron’s transition of his question/answer experience into the secondary classroom

setting was an uncomfortable one, as his students ‘‘would get so frustrated [because] they were not

used to’’ this question/answer technique. Aaron routinely replied to his students’ request for

immediate answers by asking them to ‘‘keep thinking about it;’’ however, the mentoring teacher,

not being accustomed to this question/answer technique, would ‘‘blurt out the answer’’ and then

follow with ‘‘oh, sorry.’’ Aaron’s mentoring teacher thought that he was asking the question

because he ‘‘really did not know.’’ Due to this discovery experience, Abigail found that she

was able to empathize with her students’ struggles. Abigail stated that she ‘‘wasn’t trying to make

her students feel dumb but instead wanted to help them figure out the answer rather than just

provide it.’’

When learning science via an open-inquiry process, teachers often experience a loss of

confidence in their science knowledge. This is Category 5. As in Category 3, we believe that

experiencing the students’ possible loss of confidence will assist in the teacher’s understanding

and implementation of inquiry-based teaching strategies. All but 2 teachers received an

undergraduate degree in science; hence, their comfort with science knowledge was high. After

completing the inquiry-based course, Brianna, who possessed a biology degree with a chemistry

minor, said she now understood ‘‘what it was like to feel like a complete moron and have no

confidence . . . . I used to think I was smart, now I am not so sure.’’ Experiencing the comfort of

doing inquiry, Category 6, is defined as working through the initial frustrations of inquiry to reap

the satisfaction of finding answers to your personal questions. Brianna stated that she ‘‘had no

confidence, then [she] got her confidence back and then felt good about herself . . . . There were a

couple of weeks of ‘Ah, I am a genius.’’ Carla even found value in the frustrations of the inquiry-

based process by stating ‘‘sometimes you learn a lot more from your mistakes than you do from

what you thought were initially investigating.’’ Abigail also expressed her frustration as she did

not ‘‘feel very smart in the inquiry situation.’’ Finally, Aaron found the laboratory ‘‘atmosphere

was a bit stressful at times, but that his confidence did build.’’

Category 7, questioning of experimental protocols, was evident when one negotiates how to

conduct an experiment (i.e., establishing a control, establishing sample size, controlling variables,

and analyzing data). We believe that when students are required to design their own protocol, as

opposed to following cookbook lab procedures, they begin to experience science in a greater

authentic sense. For example, Addie said that she had ‘‘followed step-by-step but I did not really

think about the makeup of an experiment, and I really didn’t know until this course. It [has] helped

now in carrying them out in my own class.’’ Barbara added that she ‘‘felt comfortable giving

students stuff and having them go at it’’ because she had experienced the process of ‘‘finding about

what something was with the scientific method.’’ Abigail admitted that she did not want to take the

course initially but was ‘‘glad [she] took it because it gave [her] a lot of ideas on how to do things in

[her] classroom.’’ She stated that ‘‘the course made [her] a better teacher.’’


Experiences in the Course

Overall, the preservice teachers expressed appreciation of the course climate in that it

provided opportunities to experience similar frustrations to what their students would possibly

encounter. Again, we describe their course experiences using the substantiating data taken directly

from the TPPI interview transcripts.

The teachers made empathetic statements (e.g., when their students displayed frustration

when an immediate answer was not given and/or a predetermined experimental outline was not

dictated). Therefore, the preservice research experience was valuable to the teachers because

they were able to experience scientific inquiry in the same way that they would teach their classes.

This experience made them empathetic with the difficulties of inquiry, which has not been

previously reported in the literature.

The newly graduated teachers struggled during the inquiry-based science course. They were

hesitant to voice opinions or ideas aloud in cooperative groups for fear of appearing ‘‘dumb or

stupid.’’ Most of these teachers already had obtained an undergraduate major in science, and they

felt they were expected to possess capabilities in designing experiments and other scientific skills.

The teachers’ knowledge of scientific protocol was limited. Even with a biology degree or an

advanced scientific background, almost all teachers began their first experiments using a sample

size of 1. Most began experiments by testing one variable per single sample. Controls and

duplicates were not a working part of their scientific lexicon. As a graduate teaching assistant

to the scientist who taught the course, the first author noted that all students with a degree in

biology were not prepared to explore their unknown using appropriate scientific methodology.

For example, Aaron expressed disdain in designing a control for his group’s experiment. His group

was ‘‘drawing a blank as to what the controls could be since they were comparing the ratios of

types of spores.’’ He further admitted that his group’s experimental process felt like ‘‘throwing

things at the wall and hoping something will stick.’’ Students in the course were shocked and

frustrated to discover that they did not have a workable experimental design because they did not

have a control; actually, they just had more observations of the unknown.

After completing authentic inquiry-based course work, the teachers were able to experience

authentic inquiry from the student’s perspective. By participating in this course and other inquiry-

supportive courses, these teachers had actually completed the trials and tribulations in designing

and reporting experimental results. Brianna stated that when she first began the course, ‘‘a lot of us

were saying [that we] have been in Biology courses the whole entire time in college—why can

[we] not figure this out? Why are [we] such retards?’’

During the course, the teachers slowly realized that the answers were not going to be given to

them directly; they would have to learn from each other. They had to ask the questions, design the

experiments, analyze the results, and then present conclusions. By forging through the awkward

and uncomfortable feelings of the experimental unknown during the inquiry-based science course,

the teachers experienced an authentic inquiry environment. Carla commented on her initial

feelings by saying:

we had always been given the information that we needed and we didn’t ever have to figure

it out for ourselves. So we were all just like, we can’t do this. We would get frustrated and

leave and go out in the hall and talk about it after class for an hour about how awful that

was and we hated it. (interview data, January 15, 2002)

The teachers’ responses to the TPPI questions regarding TA and SA seemed to be framed within

their definitions of and experience with inquiry methodology. Their definition of inquiry was

derived from three sources: the scientist’s inquiry-based science courses; the additional teacher-

preparation courses; and the secondary-school settings.


Nature of Teaching Practice

In this study, student-centered teaching styles in the classroom were very rare occurrences.

Addie and Brianna were the only teachers who scored consistently within the conceptual domain

for SA and TA. The remaining 6 teachers scored in the teacher-centered and conceptual domains.

Therefore, the majority of the inservice science teachers remained at the teacher-centered to

conceptual range in their current teaching beliefs and practice.

Beliefs and Practice

Three of the 8 teachers expressed beliefs about TA that were more teacher-centered than

were observed during their lessons. This finding indicates that these teachers may have had a

more intuitive feeling of what it meant ‘‘to do inquiry.’’ Barbara stated that the course ‘‘helped

me understand what inquiry-based instruction was because, before that I had no idea what inquiry

was . . . . It had a lot of impact on me knowing what inquiry was.’’ Through the rich experiences of

inquiry-based instruction within the teacher-preparation program, these teachers seemed to have

gained an enhanced understanding of authentic inquiry.

In general, we found that teachers who expressed teacher-centered beliefs responded to the

TPPI questions about TA by listing perceived uncontrollable impediments. These teachers were

not able to implement their self-described optimal pedagogical techniques due to the physical

environment or administrative duties. Teachers holding student-centered beliefs or conceptual

beliefs focused on techniques they could change and implement and then they strove to enact their

beliefs. We found teachers holding teacher-centered beliefs responded to TPPI questions about SA

from a traditional, didactic instructional sequence such as drill, practice, review, and then test.

Teachers holding student-centered beliefs or conceptual beliefs responded to TPPI questions

about SA from the viewpoint of encouraging innovative techniques which asked students to

perform science at a higher level than drill and practice.

Closer evaluation of those 3 teachers who expressed greater teacher-centered beliefs than

their actions with regard to TA revealed similar patterns in their TPPI responses. When asked to

describe a well-organized classroom, Abigail and Barbara requested further clarification. Abigail

immediately asked whether the question’s focus was on the ‘‘decor or the teaching.’’ Barbara

similarly asked if the question was ‘‘talking about the way it was arranged or talking about when

the students were there too.’’ Additionally, when asked about impediments or constraints in

implementing their best model, Abigail, Barbara, and Christy focused on the physical

environment or classroom-management techniques. When asked about how to manipulate the

educational environment to maximize student understanding, all 3 teachers responded with

physical manipulations they could do to the environment. Abigail discussed the playing of music,

Barbara mentioned the displaying of models and posters, and Christy alluded to holding class

outside.

In comparing teachers’ beliefs and actions with regard to their SA, Figure 6 shows

congruency among 5 of the 8 teachers. The remaining 3 teachers, Aaron, Abigail, and Barbara,

held beliefs in the conceptual realm while exhibiting teacher-centered actions. Those 3 teachers

expressed that students learned best in hands-on, authentic, cooperative environments. All 3 stated

that the best way of knowing when their students have learned a concept is when they can discuss

or explain it. In addition, all 3 stated that they provide more individualized time and modified

lesson plans to accommodate students with special needs.

Another notable distinction is that Abigail and Barbara expressed beliefs that were more

teacher-centered than actions with regard to TA, but also expressed beliefs more student-centered


than actions with regard to SA. Christy also expressed beliefs more teacher-centered than her

actions with regard to TA, but was congruent with conceptual beliefs and actions with regard to

SA. The remaining 5 teachers were congruent on the inquiry continuum with regard to TA and SA.

Conclusions

The teachers of this study were supportive of inquiry-based investigations, as they expressed

appreciation and saw value in the research experience provided from the Knowing and Teaching

Science: Just Do It course. The teachers explained their appreciation of the course climate in that it

provided opportunities to experience similar frustrations to what their students would possibly

encounter. They valued experiencing scientific inquiry in the same way that they would teach their

classes, even though they struggled with the open-inquiry style of the course.

During observations, student-centered teaching styles in the classroom were rare occurrences.

In this study, even after 3 years of teaching experience, no teacher coded predominantly within the

student-centered styles. This finding supports the results of the Salish I Research Collaborative

(1997) and the Salish II (Robinson & Yager, 1998). Collaborative by reporting teachers’ beliefs

and practices with regard to TA and SA. The Salish I study found that first-year teachers were

mostly teacher-centered in their actions (Simmons et al., 1999). In addition, first-year teachers had

described themselves as student-centered during their interview, and then their actions revealed

teacher-centered styles. They discovered that the TA and beliefs became more congruent as they

increased in years of teaching experience; however, these congruent TA and beliefs were still

reported within the teacher-centered styles.

Our observational findings also indicated that a greater number of teachers displayed

conceptual and student-centered behaviors with regard to TA than to SA. The observational

experience itself might have caused this result. Simmons et. al. (1999) noted this possibility in that

the ‘‘research process itself may become an intervention for change’’ (p. 949). Presuming that

teachers have been exposed to some form of an inquiry teaching method (either through teacher-

preparation programs or through professional-development activities), the teachers’ comfort and

confidence with inquiry-based methods may increase; however, the teachers’ students may not

have had previous exposure routinely to any type of inquiry-based method, and hence, the students

may initially experience greater frustration than the teacher experiences.

Continuing with the Salish I study results, Simmons et al. (1999) stated that ‘‘beginning

teachers described their practice as very student centered’’ (p. 947). Of the 69 participants in

their study, they found that the ‘‘observed teaching practice contrasted starkly with teacher

beliefs . . . . While teacher[s] professed student-centered beliefs, they behaved in teacher-centered

ways’’ (p. 947). Waggett’s (2001) research reported a similar finding among 42 participants.

Wagget gathered data on teachers’ beliefs and practices by utilizing the TPPI and the ESTEEM

(Burry-Stock, 1993) observational instrument and reported that the ‘‘stated [teacher] beliefs do

not necessarily manifest into desired practice’’ (p. 46).

On the other hand, 3 teachers in our study expressed TA more teacher-centered during the

interview than what was observed during their classroom practice. These 3 teachers expressed

teacher-centered beliefs with regard to TA; however, from observations of these teachers, they

scored as either conceptual or student-centered with regard to TA.

The source of the tension among these 3 teachers, Abigail, Barbara, and Christy, with greater

student-centered TA than perceptions may be the result of a literal interpretation of the TPPI

questions regarding the vocabulary ‘‘constraint and/or impediment’’ and ‘‘educational

environment.’’ Demographic data showed that these 3 teachers varied in cohort, age level, and

teaching experience. Course experiences also did not seem to delineate these 3 teachers.


All 3 listed the Knowing and Teaching Science: Just Do It course as most beneficial and found no

science preparation course to be least beneficial. Barbrara was the only 1 of the 3 who had

completed the Ocean Beach and Estuarine Ecology Education and Ornithology and Beach

Processes course at the time of the interview; however, she did not refer to it as least or most

beneficial during her preparation. Certain educational preparation course work appeared

incongruent with regard to what the 3 teachers valued. Abigail listed one particular education

course as most beneficial and ‘‘thought it would have been better as a full semester’’ while Barbara

and Christy listed that same course as the least beneficial.

One similarity between Abigail and Barbara was that they taught Basic Biology. Barbara

described her ninth-grade Basic Biology population as one in which the students were older than

the typical ninth-grade age (i.e., possibly 18 years of age), uninterested in school, and possessed

Individualized Education Plans. Abigail concurred in that she described her class as reluctant,

unmotivated learners. During a visit to Abigail’s class, a student proudly displayed his ‘‘juvy’’

(i.e., juvenile detention) card to the first author. Both of these teachers expressed time constraints

in implementing the ideal classroom environment. In addition, with management issues being a

concern, Barbara assigned ‘‘busy work.’’ For example, she asked students to write 50 sentences of

‘‘I will not talk when I am not suppose to.’’ She implemented the sentences for several reasons: (a)

Students responded to writing instead of early morning detention, and (b) students avoided an

office referral which would result in an automatic suspension.

Because of Abigail and Barbara’s focus on management and time, their beliefs were

categorized as teacher-centered; however, it was apparent upon entering their classrooms that

Abigail and Barbara displayed conceptual to student-centered behaviors. Barbara had a long-term

ongoing investigation where students were observing the growth of their plants. The students

appeared to consider the science classroom as their own as their work/projects were displayed

throughout the room. Students freely used materials responsibly (e.g., a hot glue gun, wires, etc.)

in designing projects and completing assignments. Students entered Barbara’s room prior to the

bell and retrieved their work from the previous day to begin early. Even with a great deal of

management issues in Abigail’s first science classroom, she encouraged students to work in

cooperative groups and to present class projects.

We believe that the teachers expressing teacher-centered beliefs responded to questions

regarding overcoming constraints in implementing the best teaching/learning situation from an

external point of view; hence, they stated external impediments such as class time, facilities, and/

or administration. To maximize student learning, these teachers discussed interventions in terms

of the physical classroom environment such as managing student behavior and decorating the

classroom. Another explanation of the tension could be the result of the teachers’ mimicking

actions from the inquiry-based course without having a belief system firmly in place.

Five teachers expressed congruency between the SA stated during the interview and

observed during classroom practice. Again, we believe this finding is indicative that these

teachers may have had a more intuitive feeling of what it meant ‘‘to do inquiry.’’ According to

the results of the Salish I report (1997) and Waggett’s (2001) study, one would have expected

to find incongruity between the interview responses and the observed behavior. From their

studies, one would have predicted that observed behavior would be more teacher centered while

interview responses would be more student centered. Even taking into account the smaller sample

size, our study results conflict somewhat with Simmon et al.’s (1999) and Waggett’s (2001)

findings.

We believe that the 3 teachers, Aaron, Abigail, and Barbara, expressing conceptual beliefs

while exhibiting teacher-centered behaviors responded to SA questions from a broad perspective.

These teachers explained how their students learned best and how they accommodated special


needs by citing every pedagogical method that they had ever implemented with their students (e.g.,

hands-on, cooperative groups, journal writing, and guided notes). From two classroom

observational visits, it is highly unlikely that the teacher would use all of the expressed methods

with the students; therefore, the SA were not as student-centered as the teacher had professed.

Implications

Additional research is warranted to better understand why inquiry-based and student-

centered instructional approaches are so difficult to implement, even for those 3 years into

teaching. Three recommendations arise from our study:

1. Further research should seek to determine beliefs about and expertise with inquiry as a

scientific method or even before an inquiry course if possible. The 3-hr observation in our

study may not have been extensive enough to indicate what occurs during classroom

instruction on a typical day. An approach that determines explicitly the type of inquiry

methods teachers and students are capable of performing would be useful. During our

study, the teachers were instructed to perform teaching methods that would be

representative of any normal instructional day. A researcher may determine where the

teacher’s best practice would be situated along the continuum by asking the teachers to

conduct their best inquiry practice. The inquiry style that teachers and students are

capable of conducting may or may not be determined to be different than determining

what they are currently doing in their classroom routinely.

2. Further research should explore factors that inhibit the use of inquiry. Is the lack of

inquiry primarily due to teacher’s inquiry-based skill level, the actual physical school

setting, and/or another yet-to-be-proclaimed impediment? Researchers might investi-

gate barriers(s) in implementing inquiry-based models within the school setting by

soliciting responses from a randomly assigned group of national and international science

teachers. Researchers might develop a questionnaire from the existing literature of

teachers’ self-reported, perceived inquiry constraints, and/or impediments could be

designed. After conducting a field-test/pilot study with the questionnaire, researchers

could then address content and test validity of the instrument. The survey should be

distributed both nationally and internationally to similar demographically based school

districts. With the national and international professed teachers’ constraints, teacher-

preparation programs can begin to analyze and improve methods to address these issues,

either with course work or professional development. These preparatory interventions

would be able to assist teachers in lessening or alleviating these inquiry instructional

barriers.

3. Researchers should conduct longitudinal studies on beliefs and practice. By collecting

data on the same participant sample throughout their first 5 years of teaching experience,

researchers can determine the changes in teachers’ beliefs and behavior with increased

years of teaching experience. Questions about the timeline for teachers’ change with

regard to beliefs and actions change can be addressed. Additionally, by soliciting teachers

to act as co-researchers to conduct analysis of their own instruction, researchers can

further validate the observed data. By continuing the research and training of teachers

after graduation, researchers can solicit inservice teachers to reflect on teaching beliefs

and actions that were encouraged by the university preparation program.

4. Researchers also might investigate varieties of ways to support teachers in using inquiry-

based methods. While the course in this study provided appropriate experiences, it did not

seem sufficient to alter beliefs or teaching practices in all teachers. Researchers might

closely analyze the effects of mentors as well as analyze video cases to assist teachers in

making important shifts in practice.


Conclusion

Discovering that preservice and inservice teachers find value in the inquiry-based science

course in assisting them to become better science teachers underscores the need for this type of

course. The course provided experiences with open-ended investigations and/or inquiry-based

frustrations that some of the teachers had not experienced; however, even with the self-proclaimed

value of the course, the teachers’ beliefs and behaviors were not consistent with this type of

inquiry-based learning. Our evidence supports previous research findings in that first-year

teachers remain mostly teacher-centered in their beliefs and with their behaviors in the classroom.

One surprising finding was that the teachers professed beliefs that were congruent or more teacher-

centered than their actions. The course experience may be necessary to provide an awareness of or

a demonstration of the skills used with inquiry-based science. Although we propose value in an

inquiry-based science course experience, we remain cautious; we cannot conclude that this type

of course can solely bring about change in teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and actions. In conclusion,

we find the inquiry-based science course experience necessary, but not sufficient in bringing about

belief and behavior change with secondary science teachers.

References

Adams, P.E. & Krockover, G.H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary

science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29–50.

Bolster, A.S. (1983). Toward a more effective model of research on teaching. Harvard

Educational Review, 52, 294–308.

Brown, S.L., Bolton, K., Chadwell, N., & Melear, C.T. (2002). Pre-service secondary science

teacher apprenticeship experience with scientists. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED 465 610)

Burry-Stock, J.A. (1993). Expert Science Teaching Education Evaluation Model (ESTEEM)

Manual. Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE),

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.

Duggan-Haas, D., Gallagher, J., & Parker, J. (2001). Secondary science teaching analysis

matrix. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Gallagher, J. & Parker, J. (1995). Secondary science teacher analysis matrix (STAM). East

Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Teacher Education.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. How children think and how schools should teach.

New York: Basic Books.

Gilmer, P.J., Hahn, L.L., & Spaid, R.M. (Eds.). (2002). Experiential learning for pre-service

science and mathematics teachers: Applications to secondary classrooms (pp. 000–000).

Tallahassee, FL: SERVE.

Gottfried, S.S. (1993, April). A formative evaluation of scientific work experience program

for science teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, Atlanta.

Granger, C.R. (2002). Student and teachers as research scientists (STARS). Retrieved

February 10, 2002, from http:/ /www.umsl.edu/�sep/stars.htm

Guskey, T.R. (1985). Staff development and teacher change. Educational Leadership, 42,

57–60.

Hemler, D.A. (1997). Research experiences in teaching preparation: Effectiveness of the

Green Bank preservice teacher enhancement program. (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia

University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 07A.


Hickok, L.G. (2001). Knowing and teaching science: Just do it! Retrieved April 17, 2002,

from http:/ /fp.bio.utk.edu/botany/Botany_courses/Botany 531.htm

Hickok, L.G., Warne, T.R., Baxter, S.L., & Melear, C.T. (1998). Sex and the C-Fern: Not just

another life cycle. Bioscience, 48, 1031–1037.

Jablon, P., Lederman, N., McComas, W., & Yager, R. (1999). [Core experiences for science

education doctoral programs]. Unpublished raw data.

Lunsford E.B., Melear, C.T., & Hickok, L.G. (2005). Knowing and teaching science: Just do

it. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science: Best practices in professional development (pp. 133–

146). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

McGlamery, S. & Fluckiger, J. (2001, March). Improving the connection between pre-

service and in-service teacher preparation. Paper presented at the meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Melear, C.T., Goodlaxson, J.D., Warne, T.R., & Hickok, L.G. (2000). Teaching preservice

science teachers how to do science: Responses to the research experience. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 11, 77–90.

Melear, C.T., Hickok, L.G., Goodlaxson, J.D., & Warne, T.R. (1998). Responses of preservice

secondary science teachers to learning science in an apprenticeship: The research experience

(RE). In J.B. Robinson & R.E. Yager (Eds.), Translating and using research for improving

teacher education in science and mathematics: The final report from the OERI-funded Chautauqua

ISTEP research project (pp. 26–35). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (pp. 94–139). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

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

Author.

Pyle, E.J., Obenauf, P., Heatherly, S.A., DiBiase, W., Hemler, D., Govett, A., Evans, J., &

Gansneder, B. (1997, January). The impact of the teacher research experience learning ‘‘real’’

science in a ‘‘real’’ context. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the

Education of Teachers in Science, Cincinnati, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED405220)

Richardson, L. & Simmons, P. (1994). Self-Q research method and analysis, teacher

pedagogical philosophy interview (TPPI): Theoretical background and samples of data. Athens:

Department of Science Education, University of Georgia.

Robinson, J.B. & Yager, R.E. (Eds.). (1998). Translating and using research for improving

teacher education in science and mathematics: The final report from the OERI-funded Chautauqua

ISTEP research project (Salish II). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roth, W.-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.

Salish I Research Collaborative. (1997). Secondary science and mathematics teacher

preparation programs: Influences on new teachers and their students. Iowa City: University of

Iowa, Science Education Center.

Salish I Research Project Supplement. (1997). Secondary science and mathematics teacher

preparation programs: Influences on new teachers and their students; Instrument package and

user’s guide. Iowa City: University of Iowa, Science Education Center.


Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B. (2000, January). Making connections

between the nature of science and scientific inquiry: A science research internship for preservice

teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in

Science, Akron, OH.

Simmons, P.E., Allen, E., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., Richardson, L.,

Yager, R., Craven, J., Tillotson, J., Brunkhorst, H., Twiest, M., Hossain, K., Gallagher, J., Duggan-

Haas, D., Parker, J., Cajas, F., Alshannag, Q., McGlamery, S., Krockover, J., Adams, P., Spector,

B., LaPorta, T., James, B., Rearden, K., & Labuda, K. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and

classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.

Spiegel, S.A., Collins, A., & Gilmer, P.J. (1995). Science for early adolescence teachers

(Science FEAT): A program for research and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6,

165–174.

Suters, L., Melear, C.T., & Hickok, L.G. (2002). Views of science teachers one–three years

after a pre-service inquiry-based research course. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tobin, K. & Jakubowski, E. (1990, April). Cognitive process and teacher change. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Boston.

Van Hook, S. (2002). Physics 101: Introduction to physics middle childhood educators

section, spring 2002. Retrieved February 7, 2002, from http:/ /physics.bgsu.edu/�vanhook/

phys101_s2002/phys101_s2002htm

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waggett, D.L. (1999). A study of patterns in pedagogical beliefs of preservice science

teachers over three semesters of instruction and associated practica. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Iowa, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 12A, 4371.

Waggett, D.L. (2001, April). Secondary science teacher candidates’ beliefs and practices.

Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa

Mesa, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 453 083)

Westerlund, J.F., Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Koke, J.R. (2001, March). Teachers

learning about nature of science in authentic science contexts: Models of inquiry and reflection.

Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,

St. Louis, MO.

Wilson, J.W. & Lucy, E.C. (2002, January). Providing an astronomical experience for in-

service and pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the

Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.


Documents

Investigation of secondary science teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences