At the Elbows of Scientists: Shaping Science Teachers’ Conceptions and Enactment of Inquiry-Based Instruction

Abstract

This study stemmed from concerns among researchers that reform efforts grounded in promoting inquiry as the basis for teaching science have not achieved the desired changes in American science classrooms. Many science teachers assume that they are employing inquirybased strategies when they use cookbook investigations with highly structured step-by-step instructions. Additionally, most science teachers equate hands-on activities with classroom inquiry and, as such, repeatedly use prepackaged, disconnected activities to break the monotony of direct instruction. Despite participation in numerous professional development activities, many science teachers continue to hold misconceptions about inquiry that influence the way they design and enact instruction. To date, there is very limited research exploring the role of inquiry-based professional development in facilitating desired changes in science teachers' conceptions of inquiry. This qualitative study of five high school science teachers explores the ways in which authentic inquiry experiences with a team of scientists in Panama shaped their conceptions and reported enactments of inquiry-based instruction. Our findings suggest that professional development experiences engaging science teachers in authentic research with scientists have the potential to change teachers' naïve conceptions of inquiry, provided that necessary supports are provided for reflection and lesson design.

Communities of practice as a framework to explain teachers' experiences within the community of science

“…Hence, a conceptual framework for STEM undergraduate and graduate students would have a thicker line around these two boxes than our current framework has for spectator novices. It would appear that teachers improved their understanding of STEM and the COSP as evidenced by our study and others, particularly the concept of Mutual Engagement within the COSP (Bahbah et al, ; Blanchard et al, ; Dresner & Worley, ; Faber et al, ; Hughes et al, ; McLaughlin & MacFadden, ; Miranda & Damico, ; Varelas et al, ).…”

“…This raises the question for mentors as to whether they should explicitly discuss the broader macropicture of Joint Enterprise with teachers or should they allow teachers to experience a certain level of cognitive struggle with concepts to make them stick. The previous studies have hinted at the role that mentor's choices (e.g., having teachers develop their own research questions or participate in ongoing research projects) can have on teachers' understanding of STEM (Blanchard et al, ; Buck, ; Dresner & Worley, ; Faber et al, ; Grove et al, ; McLaughlin & MacFadden, ). These studies all measured different outcomes (e.g., confidence in science teaching, science content knowledge) rather than specifically focusing on teachers' understanding of the COSP, making it difficult to assess the role of mentoring on specific outcomes.…”

“…By and large, RET programs typically address these five core features of PD (Desimone, ), albeit in differing ways depending on the mentoring philosophy of the lead scientist, the structure of the research group, and teachers' own sense of expertise/understanding of the COSP (Blanchard, Southerland, & Granger, ; Capps et al, ; Hughes et al, ; Sadler, Burgin, McKinney & Ponjuan, ). For example, some mentors allow teachers to develop their own questions and research methods (Blanchard et al, ; Buck, ; Dresner & Worley, ) with support from the research group, whereas others engage participants in ongoing research projects chosen by the mentor (Faber, Hardin, Klein‐Gardner, & Benson, ; Grove, Dixon, & Pop, ; McLaughlin & MacFadden, ). These decisions are often made by the mentor and based on their philosophy of mentoring and the constraints of their research group structure.…”

“…These decisions are often made by the mentor and based on their philosophy of mentoring and the constraints of their research group structure. Additionally, some but not all RET programs are structured to provide teachers with opportunities to explicitly connect and reflect on how their research can influence their pedagogy (Bahbah et al, ; Blanchard et al, ; Dresner & Worley, ; Faber et al, ; Hughes et al, ; McLaughlin & MacFadden, ; Miranda & Damico, ; Varelas, House & Wenzel, ). Teachers also enter RET programs with varying levels of understanding of the COSP as well as varying levels of confidence in their science content knowledge (Bahbah et al, ; Hughes et al, ; Pop, Dixon, & Grove, ).…”

Uniformity, diversity, harmony, and emotional energy in a Chinese STEM classroom

“…Similarly the robust discussion in episode 2 between Sun and Liu about how to hold the tweezers may also be considered minor and irrelevant to learning STEM. Our counter-argument to these views is that episode 2 shows the messiness of doing a STEM inquiry (McLaughlin and MacFadden, 2014), where students are exploring real STEM phenomena and their own methods for exploration through inquiry. The particularities of student-centered learning are also non-linear in that the topics of interaction across episode 2 appear to jump from idea to idea, often with more than one idea being discussed at the same time.…”