|
Correspondence to: Erin E. Peters; Email: epeters1@gmu.edu |
|
Goals · Improve understanding of management structures for inquiry science lessons · Find the process that students and teachers use to negotiate learning during inquiry lessons · Find tangible means for professional development of teachers seeking techniques for inquiry learning |
|
Conceptual Framework · Teacher delivery and student management has impact on how student views nature of science · Teachers have difficulty teaching through inquiry · Teachers view science as a collection of facts in their final form · Social construction of knowledge develops argumentation skills, a central piece in the development of scientific knowledge |
|
Research Questions · What factors lead to a teacher’s decision to conduct inquiry? · What classroom management structures must teachers create in the planning stages of an inquiry unit? · How will students react to the classroom management structures during an inquiry unit? |
|
Methods · Teacher interview prior to inquiry unit · Classroom observations · Teacher interview after inquiry unit · Student products · Student focus group after inquiry unit |
|
Validity · Transparent researcher perspective · Variety of data sources · Checks on perceptions and performance · Frequent member checks · Coding remained close to verbatim quotes · Control for “reactivity” through researcher memos · Consideration of alternative conclusions |
|
Teacher |
|
Students |
|
Prior experiences as a student |
|
Beliefs, values and knowledge about science |
|
Prior experiences as a teacher |
|
· Ideas from a collection of facts · Work ethic · Teamwork |
|
Shift away from teacher as sole authority |
|
Open environment with flexible guidelines |
|
Understanding science as a collection of facts from prior classes |
|
Attempt to revert back to didactic model |
|
scaffolding |
|
Unsure of what “right” is |
|
Understanding of importance of conceptual knowledge |
|
More comfort with inquiry learning |
|
Themes |
Supporting Ideas |
|
Roles and responsibilities in inquiry science |
Teacher had negative experiences in science class as a student and wanted to change the teacher as sole authority model (DeSautels & Larochelle, 2005). |
|
Freedom versus guidelines |
Too much freedom made students unsure of lesson goals, but students still believed step-by-step instructions were not valuable for their learning (Tobin, & McRobbie, 1997; Zeichner & Gore, 1990; Lemke, 1990). |
|
Teacher’s role in inquiry |
Teacher spent more time planning activities so students would be independently engaged and sought opportunities to scaffold student learning (Beeth & Hewson, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978) |
|
Mechanisms to cope with inquiry process |
Students and teachers valued teamwork, sharing ideas and work ethic (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Driver, 1989) |
|
Student outcomes |
Students reported that when learned independently idea hinged on concepts rather than details and were enduring rather than fleeting (Beeth, 1998; Chin & Brown, 2000; Duschl, 1990; Moje, 1997) |