Preparing Teachers as Researchers in Courses on Methods of Teaching Science

Emily H. van Zee

Science Teaching Center, 2226 Benjamin, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, Maryland 20742

Abstract: The four standards for professional development of teachers of science from the NationalScience Education Standards (NRC, 1996) provided a frame for reflection upon ways in which prospec-tive teachers engaged in research in my courses on methods of teaching science. Students learned both sci-ence content and science pedagogy by inquiry. An extended research project helped students to integrateknowledge of science, learning, pedagogy, and students, and to apply that to teaching science. Studentsbuilt knowledge, skills, and attitudes for lifelong learning by participating in a research festival and pre-senting at conferences. I designed this science-teaching methods course in the context of a teacher educa-tion program that is attempting to implement reform approaches to instruction. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons,Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 791–809, 1998.

Kyle, Linn, Bitner, Mitchner and Perry (1991) recommended that “the process of recog-nizing the role of teachers-as-researchers should permeate every teacher education course” (p.416). More recently, Pekarek, Krockover, and Shepardson (1996) recommended that “the no-tion of teachers as researchers ought to be incorporated in science teacher preparation and pro-fessional development programs” (p. 112). This article reflects upon one approach to achievingthese goals in courses for prospective early childhood and elementary school teachers. I discussbelow meanings of the term “teacher research,” a rationale for preparing teachers to do researchas they learn to teach, and ways to educate prospective teachers as researchers.

Definition

What does it mean to do teacher research? Duckworth (1986) suggested that teaching is aform of research when a teacher engages students in exploring their own ideas. Such researchincludes considering both what these ideas are and how to engage students in making sense ofthem. Duckworth envisioned a world in which a teacher “would have time and resources to pur-sue these questions to the depth of her interest, to write what she learned, and to contribute totheoretical and pedagogical discussions on the nature and development of human learning” (p.494).

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 35, NO. 7, PP. 791–809 (1998)

© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/98/070791-19

Contract grant sponsors: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland and Spencer Foun-dation

Contract grant sponsor: NSFContract grant number: MDR 91-55726

Richardson (1994) characterized much teacher research as practical inquiry, which she de-fined as “conducted by practitioners to help them understand their contexts, practices, and, inthe case of teachers, their students. The outcome of the inquiry may be a change in practice, orit may be enhanced understanding” (p. 7). Feldman (1996), for example, described the process-es by which a group of physics teachers conducted action research to enhance their normalteaching practices.

Teachers also may participate in more formal research, often through projects associatedwith universities. Richardson (1994) characterized formal research as “designed to contribute toa general knowledge about and understanding of educational processes, players, outcomes, andcontexts and the relationship between or among them” (p. 7). She described the difference be-tween practical inquiry and formal research in terms of purposes: Was the intent primarily toimprove one’s own practices or to contribute to an established and general knowledge base?

Teachers’ roles as formal researchers have varied considerably. Their participation may beextremely limited, such as collecting data as directed by others (e.g., Duggan, Johnson, & Gott,1996). Some teachers have engaged in close collaborations with university researchers, such ascoauthoring research articles (e.g., Abell & Roth, 1995). Others have undertaken the entire re-search process, such as formulating the questions, obtaining funding, conducting the research,and communicating the findings (e.g., Minstrell, 1982, 1989, 1992). The Teachers as Re-searchers Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association has definedits mission in terms of research that teachers conduct themselves or in which they share equalcredit and responsibility in collaborations with others (Teacher as Researcher SIG Newsletter,1995, June). The formation of this group in 1989 recognized teachers as legitimate members ofa premier organization devoted to educational research.

As the instructor of courses on methods of teaching science, I want my students to beginenvisioning themselves as researchers as they form identities as teachers. By this, I mean thatthey view themselves as capable of formulating pedagogical research questions, of exploringthese questions in the context of their own teaching practices, and of communicating their find-ings to others through presentations and writings.

Rationale

Why should teachers become researchers? One purpose of educational research is to guidereform. Teachers may be influenced to change their practices more readily by reading reports ofresearch by other teachers (e.g., Gallas, 1995) rather than by university researchers (e.g., Lemke,1990). Questions asked and findings reported by teachers may make more sense to other teach-ers and be more directly applicable to classroom contexts than research conducted by universi-ty researchers. Novice teachers who are attempting to put into practice reform approaches to in-struction may receive more respect and encouragement from colleagues and administrators ifthey can articulate their rationales, tie these to national standards and the research literature, andpresent case studies of their approaches to instruction at professional meetings. In addition,teachers who participate as colleagues, rather than as subjects, in projects with university re-searchers can provide practical guidance in an investigation.

Collaborating with university researchers can deepen teachers’ understanding and use of re-search. Pekarek et al. (1996), for example, quoted a teacher who stated, “I have changed mymethods of teaching based on research techniques that I have learned from . . . [the] project”(p. 112). These authors recommended forming “an intellectual community of learners, whereinresearchers and teachers collaboratively reflect upon the issues associated with science teachingand learning. Engaging teachers as researchers provides a perspective whereby teachers envi-

792 VAN ZEE

sion research as relevant to and informing of their practice” (p. 112). Developing such a researchperspective seems to me to be an essential component of learning to teach.

Instructional Approaches

How can teachers learn how to do research as part of their preparation to teach? At the Uni-versity of California at Berkeley, future secondary science and mathematics teachers enroll inmany of the same courses as doctoral students in science and mathematics education (Lowery,Schoenfeld, & White, 1990; van Zee & Bush, 1994). In some graduate programs, prospectiveteachers collaborate on research projects while participating in special-topics seminars (e.g.,Hines & Mussington, 1996). Readings for such seminars are no longer limited to journal arti-cles (e.g, Duckworth, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). Instructors can select from a vari-ety of texts that discuss methodologies for teacher research (e.g, Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993;Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995; Hopkins, 1993; Patterson, Stansell, & Lee, 1990).

Interpretive research methods can serve as tools for learning how to teach as well as forlearning about teaching (Cronin-Jones, 1991). Student teachers, for example, may gain researchexperience by participating in debriefing sessions with their supervising teachers (Erickson &MacKinnon, 1991). Incorporating research into teaching methods courses is particularly impor-tant for undergraduates, who may not have the opportunity to enroll in research seminars. Anemphasis on research can build upon many experiences that commonly occur in courses that in-clude a field component (Posner, 1985). Examples include journal writing, interviewing chil-dren about their ideas about a topic, and microteaching. My intent with the “teacher as re-searcher” theme was to coordinate such experiences into coherent research projects.

Research Questions

This study articulates ways in which “teacher as researcher” served as the guiding metaphorin my design of courses on methods of teaching science in elementary schools and early child-hood settings. I framed my reflections in terms of the four standards for the professional devel-opment of teachers of science that are set forth in the National Science Education Standards(NRC, 1996). I chose this framework for several reasons. As a new instructor in courses onmethods of teaching science, I wanted to identify and assess ways in which I was meeting thestandards set forth by my professional community. I needed to articulate these both for myself,to clarify what I was attempting to do, and also for my students, to explain my unexpected ap-proaches to instruction in the broader context of the reform agenda. In addition, my departmentwas urging assistant professors to develop teaching portfolios for their tenure review files. Lo-cating components of my courses in a framework recently produced by my professional com-munity seemed appropriate for that purpose. I also believe that teacher education reformers needto develop detailed knowledge about ways in which instructors are trying to accomplish the ob-jectives embodied in the standards. This article contributes to such a literature.

The research questions were:

• In what ways have I engaged prospective teachers in research that models learning sci-ence content by inquiry? In learning science pedagogy by inquiry?

• In what ways have I engaged prospective teachers in research that helps them to inte-grate knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy, and students and to apply that under-standing to science teaching?

• In what ways have I used research as a context to help prospective teachers build theknowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to engage in lifelong learning?

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 793

• In what ways has the “teacher as researcher” metaphor contributed to a coherent and in-tegrated teacher education program?

This document is itself an example of teacher research in that it communicates aspects ofmy practices that may be useful to other instructors with similar goals. I intend this to be a re-flective account rather than a presentation and analysis of data. The article provides an exampleof the kind of research that I envision my students undertaking as teachers who contribute to re-form through documentation of, reflection upon, and communication of their teaching practices.

Methodology

The setting for this study was a mid-Atlantic research university where I teach courses forprograms in early childhood and elementary education. My courses on methods of teaching sci-ence meet once a week for 2 h (undergraduate) or 3 h (graduate). In all programs, the studentsalso participate concurrently in field experiences where they can observe children learning sci-ence and also take responsibility for teaching science under the supervision of their mentorteachers. For example, the undergraduate elementary education majors spend 2 days a week as-sisting in their mentor teachers’ classrooms and 2 days a week on campus in a block of cours-es on methods of teaching language arts, reading, mathematics, social studies, and science. Theyalso spend 2 full weeks in the schools, 1 early in the semester and 1 toward the end.

The classes included in this study were one graduate course for participants in a master’sand elementary certification program ( n= 17; fall 1995), three undergraduate courses for ele-mentary education majors ( n= 26, fall 1995; n = 28, fall 1996; n = 22, spring 1997), and twosections of an undergraduate course for early childhood education majors (n = 31, n= 33, spring1996). Most of the students were white, although my classes included representatives fromAfrican-American, Asian, Latino, and Middle-Eastern populations. Only a few of the studentswere males. Most were females of typical college age; however, all of the graduate students andsome of the undergraduates were adults who had decided to return to school in midlife.

As the author of a self-study, I acknowledge here some of the experiences that contributedto my thinking in designing these courses on methods of teaching science. I have taught mid-dle school science, participated in physics education research and curriculum development proj-ects (Rutherford, Holton, & Watson, 1970; McDermott, Rosenquist, & van Zee, 1983, 1987),collaborated with an experienced teacher researcher (van Zee & Minstrell, 1997a,b), taught ina teacher education program that emphasized preparation to do research (Lowery et al., 1990;van Zee & Bush, 1994), and facilitated collaborative research with beginning and experiencedteachers (van Zee,1998; van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild, 1996).

This was an interpretative study (Erickson, 1986; Gallagher & Tobin, 1991) that involveddocumenting and reflecting upon ways in which I engaged prospective teachers in doing re-search. Data sources included course syllabi, copies of students’ written work, and responses toinformal questionnaires distributed in class. I framed my reflections in terms of the standardsarticulated in National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). This document sets forthstandards for science teaching, the professional development of teachers of science, assessmentin science education, science content, science education programs, and science education sys-tems. Of these, I selected the four professional development standards (NRC, 1996, chap. 4) tocompare my design decisions with national recommendations for courses for teachers. In usingthis framework to guide reflection, I asked myself in what ways my courses met these standardsand assembled descriptions of relevant activities and assignments with examples of studentwork. I also used the six standards for science teaching (NRC, 1996, chap. 3) as an assessment

794 VAN ZEE

tool for the course. Because my intent was to model these standards in the course, I asked stu-dents in two sections of the course for early childhood majors to rate the extent to which thecourse matched these standards. I used a t test to test for significant differences (p , .05) froma neutral mean of 3.0 for ratings on a Likert scale from 1 (not a good match) to 5 (good matchto the standards).

Overview of Courses on Methods of Teaching Science

My instructional approach is similar to those identified as constructivist (Fensham, Gun-stone, & White, 1994). In designing the courses, my goals were to increase the competence andconfidence of the prospective teachers in teaching science. My assumption was that the best wayto do this would be to establish contexts similar to those recommended for elementary schoolclassrooms (NRC, 1996, Teaching Standards A–F). Thus, my methods courses modeled in-struction in which students develop shared understandings through collaborative inquiries insmall groups. Activities focused primarily upon inquiries into science content and pedagogy. Myrole as instructor was to organize and facilitate learning experiences rather than to provide in-formation or judge answers. I modeled a wide variety of techniques for on-going assessmentsof teaching and learning. My intention was to create an environment in which students had thetime, space, and resources to learn through thinking and talking with each other about what theywere doing, what they had been reading, and what they had been experiencing in their schoolplacement settings. I hoped my students would perceive themselves as members of a commu-nity of learners who actively participated in decisions about the content and context of theirwork. My course was one of several in a teaching methods block for which the professors triedto provide a coherent instructional program.

Incorporating Research Experiences in Courses on Methods of Teaching Science

My courses provided opportunities for prospective teachers to learn how to do researchwhile they learned how to teach. I describe these opportunities below in terms of the four stan-dards for professional development (NRC, 1996). These involve providing opportunities for: (a)learning by inquiry; (b) integrating knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy and students andapplying that to teaching science; (c) building the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for lifelonglearning; and (d) developing a coherent and integrated teacher education program. In the de-scriptions below, I have used the present tense to describe the current version of instructionalapproaches that have evolved over the 2 years that I have taught these courses.

Learning Science Pedagogy as Well as Science Content by Inquiry

Professional Development Standard A states that “the professional development of teach-ers of science requires learning science content through the perspectives and methods of in-quiry” (NRC, p. 59). I have extended this to read “professional development of teachers of sci-ence requires learning science pedagogy as well as science content through the perspectives andmethods of inquiry.” As recommended in the Standards, I emphasize long-term, coherent in-quiries rather than fragmented, one-shot sessions (NRC, p. 72). In the section below, I describetwo sustained inquiries. One focuses upon science pedagogy in a variety of science contexts:observation and analysis of science learning progress. The other focuses upon specific sciencecontent within which a variety of pedagogical issues can be examined: coming to understandthe changing phases of the moon.

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 795

Observation and Analysis of Science Learning in Progress

The prospective teachers begin the course by analyzing factors that fostered learning dur-ing the most positive science experiences that they can remember. Throughout the course, theywrite weekly reflective journals that describe and analyze science learning events that they haveobserved or experienced. These reflections form the data for developing a personal frameworkfor fostering science learning. They complete the course by designing instruction based uponthe personal frameworks derived from their observations. I discuss these components of thecourse below.

Initial Analysis of Factors That Foster Science Learning. We begin the course by elicitingmemories of prior experiences in learning science and identifying common themes. I ask theprospective teachers to draw pictures of positive experiences they have had in learning sciencein any context, write captions for their pictures, and list factors that fostered their learning inthose instances. Then, members of each group tape their pictures to a large poster and jointlyconstruct from their individual lists a summary of factors that seem to have fostered sciencelearning during the positive experiences they have depicted in their drawings. Each group sharesthese insights in a large group discussion near the end of class. The groups also put their posterson the walls of our laboratory as reminders all semester long that every person in that classknows something about effective ways to teach science well. Opening the course by compilingsuch evidence of competence is important because many of these prospective teachers enter acourse on teaching science with feelings of high anxiety.

An example drawing is shown in Figure 1. This early childhood education major drew apicture of herself in a chemistry lab and wrote the caption, “Learning about chemistry and oursociety exposed me to interesting facts about pollution and our ozone layer.” She identified sixfactors that fostered her learning: “interesting subject matter, interest of the teacher in the sub-ject, teacher was patient and funny, I was interested in our world, I liked my classmates, teacheralso looked in the future of our world.” Her group members drew pictures of finding the ve-locity of a falling object by dropping it from the roof of a building in physics, dissecting a sharkin biology, collecting rocks on a geology field trip, exploring the outdoors on an environmentaleducation field trip, and throwing rocks in a pond and watching the ripples. Among the factorsthat the group listed as fostering science learning were “hands-on experiments; subject matterinteresting; allowed to make mistakes; teacher’s enthusiasm; and learn by doing.”

Ongoing Analysis of Science Learning in Progress. Throughout the course, the prospectiveteachers gain experience with writing reflections and then interpreting these with a particular fo-cus of interest. Each week, they write a reflective journal that (a) describes a science learningevent that they have observed or experienced and then (b) analyzes factors that fostered learn-ing in that instance. They share their weekly reflections with their group members by sendingthese via e-mail or bringing copies to class. Each is responsible for commenting upon one groupmember’s journal each week. By exchanging such journals and comments, the prospectiveteachers are participating in a community of researchers who share reflections upon their expe-riences.

Development of a Personal Framework for Fostering Science Learning. The prospectiveteachers analyze their reflective journals for common themes and use these to craft claims aboutfactors that foster science learning. On the last day of class, they highlight sentences in their re-flective journals in which they had identified factors that fostered science learning during theevents they had observed or experienced. Then, they cut out the highlighted sentences, sort theseinto three to five piles, and write a summary statement for each pile. Each summary statement

796 VAN ZEE

makes a claim about science learning on the basis of the observations they have made duringthe semester. Near the close of class, the prospective teachers share with the whole group thethree to five claims they have constructed about science learning in progress.

This process is illustrated in Figure 2, in the writings of Kim Marie de Groot, a prospec-tive teacher in one of the sections of the course for early childhood education majors. Figure2(a) shows a reflective journal which describes a science learning event that occurred at home.During the last session of the class, the author of the journal highlighted a sentence identifyinga factor that fostered learning, cut it out, and taped it to a sheet with similar sentences from oth-er journals, as shown in Figure 2(b). She then summarized these sentences by constructing aclaim about a factor that fosters science learning: “The students are able to conduct the experi-ment or observation on their own.” She reported this claim in the take-home final, along withothers that she had constructed in this process, as shown in Figure 2(c).

Designing Instruction Based Upon the Personal Frameworks Derived from Observations.For the take-home final, the prospective teachers write recommendations for science teachingbased upon their claims, illustrate ways that they would meet these recommendations in teach-ing topics of their choice, and make connections to district, state, and national statements ofgoals for science teaching. They also formulate research questions about science learning andteaching that they would be interested in exploring in their own classrooms in the years ahead.For example, one student asked: “How do we foster learning environments where students’ ideasand concerns are solicited and the foundation for science learning?”

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 797

Figure 1. A prospective teacher’s drawing of a positive experience in learning science.

798 VAN ZEE

Figure 2. Analysis of science learning in progress. (a) A prospective teacher’s reflectivejournal with highlighted sentence that identified a factor that fostered science learning inthis instance. (b) A prospective teacher’s sheet on which she assembled related highlight-ed sentences from several journals and wrote a statement summarizing the factor that fos-tered science learning in these instances. (c) An excerpt from a prospective teacher’s take-home final in which she asserted her claims about factors that foster science learning basedupon her analysis of her reflective journals.

My belief is that deriving claims from their own observations helps prospective teachersbuild personal frameworks to guide their science teaching that will be more meaningful than amultitude of recommendations from district, state, and national sources. Formulating researchquestions based upon their own interests and experiences may prompt them to begin undertak-ing research in their own classrooms as they begin to teach.

Coming to Understand the Phases of the Moon

By studying one topic in depth throughout the semester, prospective teachers can experi-ence something that they may have missed in their previous courses, coming to understandsomething deeply through sustained inquiry. Learning particular content also provides a sharedcontext for inquiring into learning and teaching science. I discuss below aspects of inquiringabout a particular science topic, the phases of the moon, and inquiring about science pedagogyin this context.

Inquiring about Science Content. We spend 15–20 min each session in talking about themoon in ways similar to those described by Duckworth (1986). My approach is based on ma-terials developed for students (Elementary Science Study, 1968) and teachers (McDermott,1996). Early in the course, the prospective teachers record what they already know about themoon and what they would like to find out about it. They also write an explanation for the chang-ing phases of the moon as they understand this before instruction. Many seem to harbor ideasabout the sun/earth/moon system that researchers have documented in a variety of contexts(Jones, Lynch, & Reesink, 1987; Klein, 1982; Lightman & Sadler, 1993; Nussbaum, 1985;Sharp, 1996). For example, typically about one fourth refer explicitly to the earth’s shadow suchas “The dark part of the moon that we cannot see is the earth’s shadow.”

During almost every class, we discuss what they have observed that week and what theyare thinking about their observations at that point. They also note questions that emerge fromtheir moon-watching experiences. For example, some have wondered: “Why does the lit part ofthe moon change sides?” “I want to know why the moon changes position in the sky every night

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 799

Figure 2. (Continued)

at the same time. I am tracking this by trying to look for the moon about the same time everyday.”

About the middle of the semester, each group compiles its data and identifies patterns inthe changing shape of the lit portion of the moon. When the moon is visible during the day, wego outside to compare the sun shining on balls in their hands with the moon they see in the sky.After they match the lit shapes on their balls with the lit shape of the moon in the sky, they tryto move the balls to replicate the changing phases they have observed for the moon. We con-tinue the conversation inside in small groups, with an overhead projector light playing the roleof the sun.

Inquiring about Science Pedagogy in the Context of an Inquiry about Science Content. Inaddition to summarizing observations, identifying the patterns observed, and developing a mod-el to explain these patterns, the prospective teachers write papers reflecting upon the processesby which they came to understand the changing phases of the moon. In some courses, I alsohave engaged the prospective teachers in explicit exploration of pedagogical issues in this con-text. During spring 1997, for example, each group formulated a pedagogical research question,collected data, developed interpretive claims, assembled evidence to confirm (or disconfirm)those claims, and presented their findings on posters displayed at a research festival held joint-ly with graduates of the course who are now beginning teachers (van Zee, 1998).

One group, for example, examined the following research question: “How did the partici-pants [students in the course] go about formulating and understanding the different phases ofthe moon?” Their rationale included “In order to understand how our children construct knowl-edge, we must understand the development of our own knowledge construction.” Their datasources included an audiotaped conversation in which they discussed their methods of learningabout the moon with each other. One claim they constructed was that “If students use informa-tion in a visual manner, they may be more inclined to understand concepts and construct theirown knowledge.” Evidence for their claim included a summary of a class activity, “In 4/1/97’sclass we took a field trip to look at the moon [from the courtyard outside our building]. We heldPing-Pong balls up to the sky to see the angle [formed by pointing one hand at] the sun [andone hand at] the moon and what ways the angles determine the phases of the moon.” Throughsuch experiences, I hope that they will begin to value research practices such as formulatingquestions, collecting data, and developing interpretations that involve asserting claims and pre-senting relevant evidence.

Integrating Knowledge of Science, Learning, Pedagogy, and Students, and Applying That to Teaching Science

Professional Development Standard B states that “Professional development of teachers ofscience requires integrating knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy, and students and apply-ing that understanding to science teaching” (NRC, p. 62). I attempt to achieve this goal by in-volving the prospective teachers in extensive research projects centered around topics they teachin their placement settings late in the semester. As discussed below, they survey resources intheir placement setting, design and conduct interviews with adults and children about their top-ics, and then design, facilitate, and reflect upon conversations about their topics with peers inclass and with children in their schools.

Survey of School Resources for Teaching Science. To explore the settings for their researchprojects, the prospective teachers write short papers that discuss the physical, staff, and techno-

800 VAN ZEE

logical resources for teaching science in their schools, constraints they perceive for teaching sci-ence in these settings, factors that seem particularly important for students on account of theirgender, race, socioeconomic status, or need for special assistance, and ways in which they mightpromote learning science in their placement classrooms and schools.

Interviews with Adults and Children. To prepare for teaching the topic, each prospectiveteacher conducts interviews to find out how two children and an adult think about the topic be-fore instruction. To prepare for the interview, they consult with their mentor teachers to identi-fy suitable topics and to hear advice about teaching the topics, survey ways that various curric-ula present their topics, read relevant sections of their texts and the research literature, andidentify technological resources relevant to their topics.

Design of a Conversation about Science. On the basis of their findings from preparing andconducting the interviews, the prospective teachers design conversations about their topics. I usethe phrase “design a conversation” rather than “plan a lesson” to emphasize the importance ofengaging their students in talking and thinking about science as well as doing a hands-on ac-tivity. This assignment also requires a more thorough consideration of pedagogical issues thanis typically included in lesson plans. For example, their writeups include questions to initiateand facilitate the conversations and a summary of ideas that are likely to emerge during the dis-cussions. They also discuss ways in which their designs meet the recommendations made bystate and national statements of educational goals for science (AAAS, 1993; MSPAP, 1994;NRC, 1996), ways they could use their topics as contexts to teach other disciplines, and waysthey could address multicultural issues in these contexts.

Facilitation and Reflection upon Conversations about the Topic with Peers and Children.The prospective teachers facilitate their conversations about science with their group membersin class and with children in their school placement settings. Near the end of the semester, theyturn in the complete projects with the previous assignments and written reflections. The reflec-tions include descriptions of what happened when they facilitated their conversations about sci-ence with their peers in my course and with children at their schools, their assessments of learn-ing in both contexts, and a reflection upon their experiences in undertaking this research project.

The assignments that comprise the research project are typical assignments in methodscourses. Incorporating them into an extended research project, however, provides prospectiveteachers with the opportunity to integrate knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy, and stu-dents, and apply that to teaching science

Building the Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes for Lifelong Learning

Professional Development Standard C states that professional development programsshould enable teachers “to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to engage in life-long learning” (p. 68). One of my goals is to help prospective teachers envision themselves ascontributors to a community of teacher researchers who enjoy learning and teaching science. Ihave developed several ways to provide models of reflective practitioners and opportunities toparticipate in professional events. As discussed below, these include (a) using cases developedby experienced teachers, (b) organizing a research festival at which prospective teachers meetpracticing teachers who conduct research in their own classrooms, and (c) encouraging prospec-tive teachers to present their projects at conferences.

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 801

Case Studies Developed by Experienced Teachers. Several experienced teachers and I havebeen developing case studies of student and teacher questioning during conversations about sci-ence and mathematics (Iwasyk, 1997; Simpson, 1997; van Zee et al., 1996). Using these casestudies in class provides examples of teachers who are conducting research in the context oftheir own teaching practices.

Research Festival. Once each semester, the prospective teachers meet in small groups withpracticing teachers who are conducting research in their own classrooms. This research festivalis a joint meeting of my course and the Science Inquiry Group, whose members meet monthlyafter school to share experiences and insights about their science teaching (van Zee, 1998). Mostare beginning teachers who were graduates of my methods courses in earlier years. Figure 3shows a flyer for the research festival that includes titles for case studies written by membersof the Science Inquiry Group. These serve as models of pedagogical studies for my students.During the current semester, my students also are visiting the classrooms of Science InquiryGroup members and facilitating science activities with their students. The research festival andsubsequent collaboration may encourage my students to continue to engage in research on sci-ence learning and teaching as they begin their teaching careers.

Conference Presentations. Participating as a group can help prospective teachers becomeconfident presenters at conferences. Some of my students have presented their research projectsat a conference for K–8 teachers organized by the Maryland Association of Science Teachers(Kwan, 1996; Ramadhan, 1996; Williams, 1996).

Developing a Coherent and Integrated Teacher Education Program

Professional Development Standard D states that preservice and inservice professional de-velopment programs for teachers of science are coherent and integrated. My science-teachingmethods course fits in with a teacher education program that is attempting to implement reformapproaches to science and mathematics instruction (van Zee, Roberts, & Layman, 1996). With

802 VAN ZEE

Figure 3. Flyer for the research festival.

support from the National Science Foundation, the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Prepa-ration program is a statewide effort to revise a major portion of the course of study, includingchanges in course content and method of delivery in science and mathematics classes, in the re-lated methods courses, and in field experiences (Layman & Knight, 1996).

Comparison of Teaching Methods Used in the Course to National Standards for Science Teaching

As shown in Table 1, Teaching Standards A–F of the National Science Education Standards(NRC, 1996) served as an assessment tool for my teaching. In the two sections of a course forearly childhood majors, I asked my students to rate the extent to which my teaching methodsmatched each standard on a scale of 1 (not a good match with the standard) to 5 (good matchwith the standard). A rating of 3.0 represented a neutral position.

In Section 1 of the course, all of the means were significantly greater than 3.0 (two-tailedt test, p , .01) indicating that these students thought that the teaching methods in the course

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 803

Table 1Perception of prospective teachers of the match between teaching methods used in a science-teaching methods course and Teaching Standards A–F of the National Science Education Standardsa

Section 1 (n 5 26) Section2 (n 5 20)

M SD M SD

Teaching Standard ATeachers of science plan an inquiry-based 4.7*** 0.45 4.3 0.93science program for their students.

Teacher Standard BTeachers of science guide and facilitate 4.8** 0.51 4.2 1.00learning science.

Teaching Standard CTeachers of science engage in ongoing 5.0*** 0.20 4.6* 0.60assessment of their teaching and ofstudent learning.

Teacher Standard DTeachers of science design and manage 4.6** 0.57 4.3 1.16learning environments that provide studentswith the time, space, and resources neededfor learning science.

Teaching Standard ETeachers of science develop communities 4.8*** 0.43 4.1 1.07of science learners that reflect the intellectualrigor of scientific inquiry and the attitudesand social values conducive to science learning.

Teaching Standard FTeachers of science actively participate 4.8*** 0.41 4.2 1.06in the ongoing planning and developmentof the school science program.

aNational Science Education Standards, National Academy of Sciences, 1996.Mean differs significantly from 3.0 on a scale from 1 (not a good match to the standards) to 5 (good match to the stan-dards), two-tailed: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

were a good match with the national standards for science teaching (NRC, 1996). These in-cluded Teaching Standard A: teachers of science plan an inquiry-based science program fortheir students (4.7); Teaching Standard B: teachers of science guide and facilitate learning sci-ence (4.8); Teaching Standard C: teachers of science engage in ongoing assessment of theirteaching and of student learning (5.0); Teaching Standard D: teachers of science design andmanage learning environments that provide students with the time, space, and resources need-ed for learning science (4.6); Teaching Standard E: teachers of science develop communitiesof science learners that reflect the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and the attitudes andsocial values conducive to science learning (4.8); and Teaching Standard F: teachers of scienceactively participate in the ongoing planning and development of the school science program(4.8).

In Section 2 of the course, only one of the means was significantly greater than 3.0. Thiswas the mean for Teaching Standard C: teachers of science engage in ongoing assessment oftheir teaching and of student learning (4.6). However, the rest of the means for this section wereall . 4.0, indicating a trend in the direction of a judgment that teaching methods used in thecourse were a good match to the standards. The difference in results may be due to the presencein Section 1 of several students who embraced my student-centered approach to instruction withenthusiasm. These were women with families who were returning to school to complete theirundergraduate degrees. Their contributions in class and on our listserv may have made it mucheasier for their classmates to understand, accept, and prosper in the context of an unfamiliar in-structional approach.

Discussion

This interpretative study examined ways in which prospective teachers learned how to con-duct research in courses for learning how to teach. I framed my reflections in terms of the stan-dards for professional development cited in the National Science Education Standards (NRC,1996). My students learned both science content and science pedagogy by inquiry. Sustained in-quiries included both investigating science pedagogy in the context of science learning eventsthey observed or experienced and investigating science content such as the changing phases ofthe moon. An extended research project helped them to integrate knowledge of science, learn-ing, pedagogy, and students, and to apply that to teaching science. The research project includ-ed consulting with the mentor teacher to select a topic to teach in the placement classroom, sur-veying resources for teaching science in this setting, designing and conducting interviews aboutthat topic with adults and children, and designing, facilitating, and reflecting upon conversationsabout the topic with peers and children. The prospective teachers built knowledge, skills, andattitudes for lifelong learning by using cases studies of questioning developed by experiencedteachers, participating in a research festival, and presenting at conferences. I designed the sci-ence-teaching methods course in the context of a teacher education program that is attemptingto implement reform approaches to instruction (van Zee, Roberts, & Layman, 1996).

This study contributes to the literature that Anderson and Mitchener (1994) described asemerging research on educating prospective teachers to become reflective practitioners (p. 30).My design for the course has much in common with other courses that emphasize reflectiveteaching (Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; Schön, 1988). Abell & Bryan (1997), for example, de-scribe four contexts for reflection that help prospective teachers to identify, examine, and refinetheir ideas, beliefs, and values about science teaching and learning. In my course also, prospec-tive teachers reflect upon themselves as science learners in their studies of a science topic; theyreflect upon others’ teaching through use of case studies of experienced teachers; they reflect

804 VAN ZEE

upon their own teaching during their field experiences; and they reflect upon expert opinions inmaking connections to the readings. Our courses seem to differ in emphases on interpretingthese practices explicitly as preparation for conducting ongoing research in one’s own class-room.

Conducting research in the context of one’s own teaching practices can be difficult. Wong(1995), for example, experienced tensions he articulated as conflicts of purpose and conduct.Wilson (1995) responded to Wong’s account by asserting that she did not view her teacher andresearcher roles as competitive, but rather as compatible, enabling her to integrate inquiry andinstruction. Baumann (1996) responded to Wong and Wilson’s debate by noting that he experi-enced conflicts of time and task. I place myself close to Wilson and Baumann [and Duckworth(1986)] in viewing research as integral to my teaching. For example, engaging students in ana-lyzing science learning in progress is an act of research on my part as well as theirs. I hope tomodel ways that they might engage their own students in similar thinking about both sciencecontent and pedagogy. Through such interactions, learning how to learn may become a naturalcomponent of curriculum in classrooms in which teachers invite their students to participate inresearch on teaching.

This self-study is necessarily limited in its perspective. Outside observers might have ana-lyzed quite different aspects of these courses. The structure described here is evolving; there arelikely to be many changes in the beliefs and intentions expressed.

What implications might one draw for instruction? My intent has been to describe a vari-ety of ways in which instructors might prepare prospective teachers to conduct research as partof learning to teach. A cautionary note is required, however. Many of my students expect me tolecture on strategies for teaching science rather than to engage them in inquiries about scienceteaching and learning. When I have asked for anonymous feedback on questionnaires distrib-uted in class, some have written quite negative comments. For example, “The class has too muchbusywork, i.e., journal writing and moon observations. . . . I think there should be more lecturesrather than group sharing. I prefer the standard teacher lecture.” “I do not feel that the student-centered activities are a realistic approach in the classrooms I have observed. Students tend tobe off task and frustrated by lack of direction.” “I am finding myself confused, frustrated withthe majority of the assignments.” Perhaps most disheartening are those who preface their re-marks with positive statements: “I like how we are involved in student-centered activities. I feelas though it makes the lesson or topic more interesting because we get multiple viewpoints. ButI do not feel that it has any effect on the learning about teaching.”

Implementing a course that does not deliver what students are expecting can be risky. Atthe end of my first semester as a new assistant professor, my formal student evaluations werelow. As indicated in the methodology section, I am fortunate to be building upon a strong foun-dation of experiences in schools and universities that have enabled me both to design such acourse and to weather the risks taken in teaching it. Colleagues at the university also were sup-portive, noting that student evaluations often are low in courses where the instructor asks thestudents to think. In addition, students who valued this approach were encouraging. At the endof my second semester, the formal students evaluations were higher. In one section of the course,student responses prompted a computer to declare that my teaching needed no further im-provement. For the other section, however, the computer pointed out many aspects of my teach-ing that need attention.

Fortunately, the students wrote self-assessments as part of their portfolios. Although suchstatements are suspect because of their rhetorical nature, many provide evidence that some stu-dents had at least understood my goals. I keep close at hand those that offered cheering com-ments such as:

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 805

I learned that when science is connected to real life, it carries a lot more personal mean-ing for the learner. We all have natural curiosity about the world around us and how itfunctions. When we’re given an opportunity to discover for ourselves—not given the an-swer first—but challenged to search for answers ourselves, the answers will mean a wholelot more for us. Science was never this interesting for me before. I’ve gained a lot morethan factual knowledge in this course, rather an attitude was changed. I have now a posi-tive attitude about teaching and taking part in learning myself about science in the class-room as well as for my personal life. This kind of attitude I hope to pass on to my futurestudents and colleagues. (Self-assessment, undergraduate elementary education major,Dec. 1995)

We need to know more about how such changes in attitude occur. Engaging prospective teach-ers in learning to do research as they learn to teach seems to be a promising venue for facili-tating such growth.

This study was supported by a research grant from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at theUniversity of Maryland. A grant from the Spencer Foundation supports research conducted by teachersparticipating in the Science Inquiry Group. The author acknowledges the influence of her collaborative re-search with experienced teachers through support from the National Science Foundation, under GrantMDR 91-55726. The opinions stated reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of thefunding agencies.

References

Abell, S.K., & Bryan, L.A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methodscourse using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education 8, 153–166.

Abell, S.K., & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: Makingsense of children’s understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Educa-tion 17, 59–74

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science lit-eracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R.D., & Mitchener, C.P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York:Macmillan.

Baumann, J.F. (1996). Conflict or compatibility in classroom inquiry? One teacher’s strug-gle to balance teaching and research. Educational Researcher 25, 29–36.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: Theissues that divide. Educational Researcher 19, 2–11.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.New York: Teachers College Press.

Cronin-Jones, L. (1991). Interpretive research methods as a tool for educating scienceteachers. In J. Gallagher (Ed.), Interpretive research in science education (NARST MonographNo. 4), pp. 217–234.

Duckworth, E. (1986). Teaching as research. Harvard Educational Review 56, 481–495.Duggan, S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). A critical point in investigative work: Defining

variables. Journal of Research on Science Teaching 33, 461–474.Elementary Science Study. (1968). Where is the moon? [Prepared by D. Ford]. New York:

Webster Division, McGraw-Hill.Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

806 VAN ZEE

Erickson, G., & MacKinnon, A.M. (1991). Seeing classrooms in new ways: On becominga science teacher. In D. A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on education-al practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the gen-eration and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 33, 512–540.

Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). The content of science: A constructivist ap-proach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press

Gallagher, J.J., & Tobin, K.G. (1991). Reporting interpretative research. In J.J. Gallagher(Ed.), Interpretative research in science education (NARST Monograph No. 4). Manhattan, KS:Kansas State University.

Gallas, (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories,responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grimmett, P.P., & Erickson, G.L. (Eds.) (1988). Reflection in teacher education. New York:Teachers College Press.

Hines, S.M., & Mussington, C.G. (1996). Preservice science teachers as researchers: Ex-tending field based learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education 7, 143–150.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introductionto school-based research. London: Routledge.

Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open Univer-sity Press.

Iwasyk, M. (1997). Kids questioning kids. Science & Children 35(1), 42–46.Jones, B.L., Lynch, P.P., & Reesink, C. (1987). Children’s conceptions of the earth, sun and

moon. International Journal of Science Education 9, 43–53.Klein, C.A. (1982). Children’s concepts of the earth and the sun: A cross cultural study. Sci-

ence Education 65, 95–107.Kwan, R. (1996, March). Constructing maps. Presented at the spring meeting of the Mary-

land Association for Science Teachers, Baltimore, MD.Kyle, W.C., Linn, M.C., Bitner, B.L., Mitchner, C.P., & Perry, B. (1991). The role of re-

search in science teaching: An NSTA theme paper. Science Education 75, 413–418.Layman, J.W., & Knight, G. (1996). Conceptual Framework for the Maryland Collabora-

tive in Teacher Preparation Project. Frostburg, MD: MCTP.Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Lightman, A.P., & Sadler, P. (1993). Teacher predictions versus actual student gains. The

Physics Teacher 31, 162–167.Lowery, L, Schoenfeld, A., & White, B. (1990). Master’s and credential in science and

mathematics education (MACSME) program. National Science Foundation Grant No. TPE9150028. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.

Maryland State Performance Assessment Program. (1994). Salinity: Grade 5 science lan-guage usage. Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, MD.

McDermott, L.C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: Wiley.McDermott, L.C., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E.H. (1983). Strategies to improve the per-

formance of minority students in the sciences. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 16,59–72.

McDermott, L.C., Rosenquist, M. & van Zee, E.H. (1987). Student difficulties in con-necting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55,503–513.

Minstrell, J. (1982). Conceptual development research in the natural setting of a secondary

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 807

school science classroom. In M.B. Rowe and W.S. Higuchi (Eds.), Education in the 80’s: Sci-ence. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L.B. Resnick and L.E. Klopfer(Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. 1989 Yearbook of the As-sociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and em-pirical studies. Kiel, Germany: IPN (Institute for Science Education).

Minstrell, J., & Hunt, E. (1990). The development of a classroom based teaching systemrepresenting students’ knowledge structures and their processing of instruction. Mercer IslandSchool District and University of Washington report to James S. McDonnell Foundation.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Nussbaum, J. (1985). The earth as a cosmic body. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien(Eds.) Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Patterson, L., Stansell, J.C., & Lee, S. (1990). Teacher research: From promise to power.Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Pekarek, R., Krockover, G.H., & Shepardson, D.P. (1996). The research-practice gap in sci-ence education. Journal of Research on Science Teaching 33, 111–114.

Posner, G.J. (1985). Field experience: A guide to reflective teaching. New York: Longman.Ramadhan, E. (1996, March). Flexible structures. Presented at the spring meeting of the

Maryland Association for Science Teachers, Baltimore, MD.Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher 23,

5–10.Rutherford, J., Holton, G., & Watson, J. (1970). Project physics. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston.Sadler, P.M. (1987). Misconceptions in astronomy. In Proceedings of the Second Interna-

tional seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (pp.422–425). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Schön, D.A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P.P. Grimmett & G.L. Erickson (Eds.),Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sharp, J.G. (1996). Children’s astronomical beliefs: A preliminary study of Year 6 childrenin south-west England. International Journal of Science Education 18, 685–712.

Simpson, D. (1997). Collaborative conversations: Strategies for engaging students in pro-ductive dialogues. The Science Teacher, 64(8), 40–43.

van Zee, E.H. (1998). Fostering elementary teachers’ research on their science teachingpractices. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 1–10.

van Zee, E.H. & Bush, K. (1984, November). Teaching and researching in a program forstudent teachers at the University of California at Berkeley. Invited paper presented at the Qual-ity Education for Minorities Conference, San Francisco.

van Zee, E.H., Iwasyk, I., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (1996). Case studies by agroup of collaborating educators: How do students and teacher questions facilitate learning? InP.A. Rubba, P.F. Keig, & J.A. Rye (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1996 Annual International Con-ference of the Association for Educators of Teachers of Science (pp. 118–129). ERIC Document398060.

van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared under-standings in a high school physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19,209–228.

808 VAN ZEE

van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. TheJournal of Learning Sciences, 6, 229–271.

van Zee, E.H., Roberts, D., & Layman, J. (1996, August). Analysis of science learning inprogress. Paper presented at the American Association for Physics Teachers summer meeting,College Park, MD.

Williams, S. (1996, March). Recyling and reusing. Presented at the spring meeting of theMaryland Association for Science Teachers, Baltimore, MD

Wilson, S.M. (1995). Not tension but intention: A response to Wong’s analysis of the re-searcher/teacher. Educational Researcher, 24, 19–22.

Wong, E.D. (1995) Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher: Conflicts of purpose andconduct. Educational Researcher 24, 22–28.

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER 809