Inquiry teaching in primary science: A phenomenographic study Joseph Ireland BSc(Psych), GrDipEd (Sec), MEd. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Learning Innovation Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology April 2011
226
Embed
Inquiry teaching in primary science: A phenomenographic study · 2.1 Constructivism and learning in science 13 2.2 Epistemology and the Nature of Science (NOS) 16 2.2.1 The uncertain
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Inquiry teaching in primary science:
A phenomenographic study
Joseph Ireland
BSc(Psych), GrDipEd (Sec), MEd.
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Open or Full … a student centred approach that begins with student questions, followed by the student (or groups of students) designing and conducting an investigation or experiment and communicating results.
Coupled … combines a guided-inquiry investigation with an open-inquiry investigation.
Guided … teacher helps students develop inquiry investigations in the classroom. Usually, the teacher chooses the question for investigation. Students … may then assist the teacher in deciding how to proceed with the investigation.
Structured … sometimes referred to as directed inquiry, is a guided inquiry mainly directed by the teacher. Typically, this results in a cookbook lesson in which students follow teacher directions to come up with a specific end point or product.
Some parallels may be drawn between the Martin-Hansen (2002)
types and the NRC definition given in Table 2.1 (pg. 31). Indeed, Table 2.2
may be seen as an attempt to label the columns of Table 2.1 from left to right
in that they represent less to more teacher direction. Both tables are
organised in terms of the teacher/student – centred dichotomy. However,
while the NRC definition of inquiry teaching is designed to focus on the
definition of inquiry, Martin-Hansen (2002) focuses on various teacher
approaches to inquiry teaching.
Other authors differ in their acceptance of the Martin-Hansen system.
Eastwell (2007), based on his definition given previously, strongly advocated
that students are either answering scientific questions by analysing raw data
for themselves, or they are not doing inquiry. Thus, whether the experience
counts as an inquiry or not had nothing to do with it being open, guided or
structured. However, the degree of teacher guidance may be termed
structured, guided, or open. This kind of thinking is supported by Settlage
(2007) who suggested teacher educators stop using terms such as open
inquiry altogether. However his position is not supported by others who argue
32
against Settlage’s position (Johnston, 2008). For this study the debate is left
open, yet it is highlighted here in order to give greater context to the results
section, and to illustrate the confusing situation for teachers regarding the
nature and role of inquiry teaching in schools.
5E’s model of inquiry instruction
The second popular model of inquiry teaching is the 5E’s Model
(Bybee, 2001), presented in Table 2.3. Unlike the two previous models,
inquiry teaching is not constructed along a continuum of more or less teacher
direction but is presented as an instructional sequence for teachers to follow
in order to make a teaching experience inquiry teaching. As such, it is not a
theory of inquiry teaching, but an example of an approach to inquiry teaching.
The 5E’s instructional model is based on the work of learning cycles
(Lawson, 2002), dating back to Atkin and Karplus (1962). The Learning cycle
was a three phase teaching strategy that began with students freely exploring
science content and materials, being exposed to new ideas during concept
introduction, and finally testing and consolidating their understanding during
concept application. Various other models of the learning cycles have
developed over time, with different phase names and various added phases
(Lindgren & Bleicher, 2005). The learning model presented here uses the
5E’s teaching strategy proposed by Bybee (2001) and others through their
work at the US Biological Science Curriculum Study authority.
Many contemporary teaching strategies and programs are based on or
inspired by the 5E’s model (Withee & Lindell, 2006), such as the Primary
Connections professional development program which is becoming more
prevalent and is flagged to be heavily influential in the Australian National
curriculum (Hackling, Peers, & Prain, 2007). The 5E’s model has the benefit
of pointing out the importance of the role of the teacher in exposing students
to the ideas and theories of the scientific community, which Lunetta, Hofstein
and Clough (2007) felt was not explicitly described in many studies.
However, the 5E’s model is not to be confused with inquiry itself. Eastwell
(2007) points out that only the explore, explain and elaborate phases can be
considered as inquiry.
33
Table 2.3
The 5E’s instructional model by Bybee, 2001.
Stage Description Engage In the stage Engage, the students first encounter and identify the
instructional task. Here they make connections between past and present learning experiences, lay the organizational ground work for the activities ahead and stimulate their involvement in the anticipation of these activities.
Explore In the Exploration stage the students have the opportunity to get directly involved with phenomena and materials. Involving themselves in these activities they develop a grounding of experience with the phenomenon. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and guiding the students' focus. The students' inquiry process drives the instruction during an exploration.
Explain The third stage, Explain, is the point at which the learner begins to put the abstract experience through which she/he has gone/into a communicable form. Language provides motivation for sequencing events into a logical format. … Explanations from the facilitator can provide names that correspond to historical and standard language, for student findings and events. Created works such as writing, drawing, video, or tape recordings are communications that provide recorded evidence of the learner's development, progress and growth.
Elaborate In stage four, Elaborate, the students expand on the concepts they have learned, make connections to other related concepts, and apply their understandings to the world around them. … These connections often lead to further inquiry and new understandings.
Evaluate Evaluate, the fifth "E", is an on-going diagnostic process that allows the teacher to determine if the learner has attained understanding of concepts and knowledge. Evaluation and assessment can occur at all points along the continuum of the instructional process. … if a teacher perceives clear evidence of misconception, then he/she can revisit the concept to enhance clearer understanding. If the students show profound interest in a branching direction of inquiry, the teacher can consider refocusing the investigation to take advantage of this high level of interest.
In conclusion, the theoretical models of inquiry teaching given as
examples here play an important role in education by attempting to scaffold
teachers’ understandings of a complex and at times novel addition to the
science curriculum. Both Bybee (2001) and Martin-Hansen (2002) advocated
the importance of student questions as being part of what it means to pursue
inquiry in the classroom, and place the teacher in a facilitator role rather than
transmitter of knowledge. Still, to others such attempts to define inquiry
teaching are unnecessarily complicated. For example, Yager (2007) argued
for simplifying the definition of inquiry teaching by stating that inquiry is
“…‘questioning in order to get information.’ I prefer to leave it at that!” (p.108).
34
This section has briefly overviewed a few of the most significant
publications with regards to theoretical models of inquiry teaching, which will
be revisited during the discussion section of this thesis. In order to situate
inquiry teaching within the area of contemporary models of education, the
issues that teachers and other stakeholders experience using inquiry
teaching in the primary science education classroom are now considered.
Category 1 Meaning 1 Theme and thematic field Context (Limited) Category 2 Meaning 2 Theme and thematic field Context Category 3 Meaning 3 Theme and thematic field Context (broadest)
Certain rigour must be adhered to in developing an outcome space.
As explained by Åkerlind (2005c), “Ideally, the outcomes represent the full
range of possible ways of experiencing the phenomenon in question, at this
74
particular point in time, for the population represented by the sample group
collectively” (p. 323). Marton and Booth (1997) presented three criteria for
judging the quality of the outcome space:
• that each category in the outcome space reveals something
distinctive about a way of understanding the phenomenon;
• that the categories are logically related, typically as a
hierarchy of structurally inclusive relationships; and
• that the outcomes are parsimonious – that the critical
variation in experience observed in the data be represented
by a set of as few categories as possible.
Richardson (1999) claimed that the categories of the outcome space
in phenomenographic analysis should be seen as constructions of the
researcher, and not as externally existing entities. Viewing the outcome
space as a researcher-developed construction was supported by Svensson
who argued that the “description developed will be dependent on the
perspective of the researcher and the empirical and theoretical context of the
research” (Svensson, 1997, p. 168). In support of the non-dualistic ontology
of phenomenography, the outcome space and categories of description are
not there waiting to be discovered by the researcher, but must be constructed
by the researcher from the evidence presented in the data (Walsh, 2000).
As noted, no studies have yet attempted to define the dimensions of
variation, or have made use of an outcome space, to describe the
relationships between primary school teachers’ conceptions of teaching
science through inquiry teaching (Section 2.4). This study intends to address
this gap in the literature.
3.1.6 The experience of teaching
The phenomenon under investigation in this study is teachers’
reflection on their experience of inquiry teaching. This study now draws on
the literature of phenomenography engaged in analysing the experience of
learning (Marton & Booth, 1997). Thus parallels are drawn between the
experience of learning and the experience of teaching. Marton and Booth
argued that the experience of learning can be described in three aspects,
75
and that variation (as explained in 3.1.4) can be found in each of these, as
Figure 3.3 shows.
Figure 3.3. An analysis of the experience of learning (Marton & Booth, 1997,
p.85)
Learning is seen to be composed of the how and what. The what of
learning includes the content material to be covered, such as information on
volcano formation or the life cycle of silk worms. This content is known as the
direct object of learning. How this learning takes place can be seen to be
comprised of two distinct qualities – the act of learning which includes
activities such as copying notes or performing experiments, and the indirect
object which is seen as the “type of capabilities the learning is trying to
master” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 84.) For example, attitudes towards
content material and teacher goals related to managing student behaviour.
However, this study is about the experience of teaching, rather than
the experience of learning. Parallels are now drawn for further use in this
study. Every experience of teaching is argued to be composed of the same
three primary aspects (McKenzie, 2003), which parallel the model frequently
employed in studies of learning – the act of teaching (the act), the indirect
object of teaching (I.O.), and the direct object of teaching (D.O.). Variation is
expected among conceptions regarding the act, I.O. and D.O. Figure 3.4
presents the experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study.
Learning
How What
The indirect object of learning
The act of learning
The direct object of learning
76
Figure 3.4. The experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study.
These three qualities, the act, indirect and direct objects will be used
in this study to elucidate the experiencing of teaching for teachers in this
study. This section has reviewed the methodology for this study,
phenomenography, and will now describe the specific research design that
was used to answer the research question: What are the qualitatively
different ways in which primary school teachers’ experience inquiry teaching
in science education?
3.2 Methods
The following section addresses the phenomenographic research
methods adopted including; selection of participants, data collection,
interview setting, contextualising statement, interview protocol, and
bracketing. Issues of data analysis, ethical clearance, and research rigour
are also dealt with.
In line with the recommendations of Giorgi (1998) for strengthening
the reliability of the research through a demonstrative procedure (see section
3.2.5) some personal characteristics of the researcher are presented here.
These revelations help to unpack the perspective of the researcher and
theoretical context of the research (Svensson, 1997). During work as a
supply teacher in primary schools, and having worked as a secondary
science teacher, I completed a Masters degree in science education with an
D.O. The direct object of teaching (content covered
and other curriculum objectives)
I.O. The indirect object of teaching (goals teachers
give for teaching in this manner)
Act The act of teaching (what teachers do)
How
What
Teaching
77
independent project on inquiry learning in science. This led to a curiosity
about what other practicing teachers thought of the teaching of science in
ways which fostered inquiry based learning in science. This question led to
the current research into categorising teachers conceptions of inquiry
teaching in science.
The research followed three main phases. Phase one was a pilot
study involving two participants. Phase two began the main study and
included ten participants. Phase three involved actively seeking individuals to
round out variation in the sample and included eight participants. Full details
of the transitions between phases are included in Section 3.2.3.
3.2.1 Participants
The goal of a phenomenographic study is to describe the variation in
ways of experiencing a phenomenon. Therefore, rather than seeking a
homogenous sample of participants, the participants were purposefully
selected to represent diversity within their experiences of the phenomenon
(Åkerlind et al., 2005; Bowden, 2005). Twenty practicing primary school
teachers participated in this study. Traditionally phenomenographic studies
use between 20 and 30 participants (Åkerlind et al., 2005), as fewer may fail
to express the variation in the data and many more may make the data set
difficult to manage (Bowden, 2005).
The acronym T# stands for a participant in the study (such as teacher
1, teacher 17 and so forth.) And the acronym “J” stands for myself as
researcher. As a phenomenographic study where the lines between
participants are drawn down and data are treated as a whole (Leveson,
2004), participant details such as gender or year level are not included with
quotes, however, full details of the participants are presented in Appendix A.
During phase one, pilot study, two participants were sought for the
study by accessing the social networks of the researcher. Both participants
(T1 and T2) were asked if they would like to participate in an interview based
on a recent science inquiry teaching experience, and both were practicing
primary school teachers.
During phase two the researcher asked several school principals in
the local area to invite their teachers to participate in the study, but also
78
approached teachers who had recently participated in professional
development initiatives on inquiry learning. Ten teachers responded
(participants three through ten, as well as participants T14 and T16) which
represented five schools in total. This approach managed to source a wide
variety of participants across several variables including years teaching, age,
gender, and the schools in which they taught. Teachers varied greatly in
qualities such as years teaching (2 to 28) and classes taught (preparatory
through primary school Year 7).
During phase three, at a meeting with the supervisory team, it was
decided that the data might be skewed towards those who were actively
using an inquiry approach. It was therefore felt that it would be beneficial to
the study to seek out and enlist those less inclined to use inquiry teaching.
Thus a second round of volunteers was sought in order to provide greater
variation. The researcher then sought out a local school and offered a free
educational science show in exchange for the chance to interview teachers
about their experience of inquiry teaching. Seven participants, T11, T12, T13,
T15, T17, T18, and T19 were from this second intake. Again, teachers varied
greatly in qualities such as years teaching (6 to 28) and classes taught
(preparatory to year 7).
Finally, to round out the analysis, it was decided that the research
lacked the perspective of a young, male teacher of upper primary school
students who was relatively new to teaching. A teacher explicitly fitting this
criterion, and one willing to participate in the research, was accessed from
the broader social networks of the researcher and enlisted into the study
(T20).
Of the participants, 25% were male, which is approximately
representative of the broader teaching population (Australian Bureau of
statistics, 2003; Cushman, 2007). Eight participants were under 35 years of
age and the remaining 12 were over 35 years of age. Although teachers had
been teaching for, on average, 12.2 years, the sample ranged from 2 to 30
years experience. Teachers taught in every primary year from the
preparatory year to grade seven.
79
3.2.2 Data collection
Data were collected via fairly typical data collection techniques for
phenomenography (Åkerlind, 2005b). This study made use of a semi
structured interview as the data collection tool. Interviews were audio
recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to analysis.
Interview setting
The interview setting was nominated by the participants in order to
maximise their sense of comfort during the research interview. In all cases
this meant the teacher’s classroom, usually after the students had left for the
day. Three of the interviews were conducted before school started (T12, T15,
T17) and one during a lunch break (T2). Participants were interviewed in situ
in order to assist them in recalling their teaching practices and experiences,
and in an attempt to empower them in the place of their familiar work space
to position the teacher as knower and the researcher as learner (Åkerlind et
al., 2005). The full interview schema is available in Appendix B.
Contextualising statement
After meeting the teacher, often for the first time, and engaging in
general conversation the interview would commence. The interview formally
began with a contextualising statement which explained the title and purpose
of the research, ethical issues and expectations, data handling issues as
expected by NHMRC, and gave the participant time to ask any questions
they may have had and the right to withdraw if they had changed their minds.
This contextualising statement was:
There is a lot of discussion in education and curriculum
documents about inquiry learning. I am doing a study to find out
about what perceptions teachers have of teaching in ways that
foster inquiry based learning in science. There are no wrong
answers here. I am predominantly interested in exploring your
ideas and experiences. I want you to feel that I am the learner
here and you the expert regarding your own practice, I will try to
be like a blank slate. I want you to do all the talking and I’ll do
the listening. I just want you to tell me about your experiences
with inquiry, and dig down into your understanding and practice
of the what and why of inquiry in your classroom! OK?
80
Do have any questions?
Interview
In order to get an open discussion started, the interview usually began
with gathering general information, predominantly as a form of icebreaker to
help relax the participant and make the data gathering environment more
natural:
Well, can you tell me a bit about yourself as a teacher? (Who do
you teach, how long have you been teaching, what experiences
led you to teaching, have you any past experience with science
as a profession?)
A fundamental aspect of the phenomenographic interview is that it
makes use of concrete examples embedded in the actual practice of
participants to expose variations in teachers’ conceptions of the
phenomenon. Conceptions of inquiry teaching are abstract considerations
that may prove difficult for many participants to immediately talk about. It was
therefore important that the discussion remained grounded in illustrative
examples of practice (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Other techniques used to help
participants explore their conceptions of the phenomenon included the use of
why questions, for example, “Why did you do it that way?” (Åkerlind et al.,
2005, p. 79). The phenomenographic data gathering began with the question:
Can you tell me about a recent teaching experience you have
had in which you feel you taught science through inquiry
particularly well?
The interview outline (see below) included advised prompts for
probing further into the practices and pedagogical reasoning of teachers.
However, the prompts were not necessarily given as exact or explicit
statements during the interview. As Åkerlind (2005a, p.113) pointed out, “any
resulting suggestion that as many questions as possible should be phrased
in precisely the same way comes from an objectivist paradigm, where one
can assume that if interviewees are presented with the same stimulus they
will then be responding to the same object or phenomenon.”
The following five areas were used as prompts to probe more deeply
into the rich expanse of teacher experience:
81
• Teacher role. How did you go about teaching? Where and
how did this take place?
• Student role. How did the students go about learning during
the teaching experience you just described?
• Assessment. How did you know that the students had learnt
something? What was the role of assessment in your
program?
• Goals. What were you trying to teach? What did you want
students to learn? Why did you choose to do it that way?
• Outcomes. How do you know if your approach is working?
What do you feel were the results of this approach? What did
inquiry offer?
The study also sought to explore some of the practical difficulties of
implementation by asking such questions as “What is easy about inquiry
science, what is difficult, what challenges you in implementing an inquiry
science program?”
Finally, three questions were used to help contextualise teacher
experiences. The first was used to contextualise the teacher experience of
inquiry teaching: “When did you first hear about teaching science through
inquiry?” The second question “Can you think of a time when you thought
differently about what it means to teach science through inquiry?” was used
to enable a better understanding of their current conception. Finally, in order
to clarify teacher understanding of the related concept of inquiry learning, and
to derive a single sentence through which to compare teacher
understandings of inquiry teaching and learning, each interview ended with
the phrase “Complete this sentence ‘Inquiry learning is…’?“.
Interview environment
The nature of the interviewer’s relationship with the interviewee is
considered a very important influence on the quality of the data gathered.
Establishing effective rapport was done carefully so that researcher’s ideas
did not contaminate the study (Candy, 1989). This included listening politely,
validating participant concerns, and making sure participants were aware of
their ethical rights (Section 3.2.4). Rather than presenting as a dispassionate
82
researcher, the interviewer attempted to present an attitude of gentle
enthusiasm (Ireland, Tambyah, Neofa, & Harding, 2008), which involved
active listening and open body language, to help participants feel safe to
discuss private concerns regarding the phenomenon. That participants felt
that they could explore their awareness in an environment of safe
professional acceptance was of vital importance to the research environment.
Ashworth and Lucas (2000, p. 303) explained that “thoughts such as
‘why doesn’t the student answer the question?’, ‘how can I prompt this
student on to a more relevant line of thought?’ or feelings of impatience
should be noted and taken as potential warning signals that standards of
empathy are not being met”. Marton (1986) explained “let the subjects
choose the aspects of the question they want to answer. The aspects they
choose are an important source of data because they reveal an aspect of the
individual’s relevance structure” (p. 42). Often clarifications of participant
comments were desired, whether due to a sense of misunderstanding on the
part of the researcher or as part of the perpetual search for understanding
between researcher and participant. Clarifications were sought using
comments such as “You said earlier…, would you like to elaborate on that?”
(2000, p. 65), “Can you explain what you mean by that” (Dall’Alba, 2000, p.
89) and finally ”Is there anything else you’d like to add?” (Bowden, Dall'Alba,
Laurillard, Marton, Masters, Ramsden et al., 1992, p. 263).
Bracketing
Another important attribute of the phenomenographic interview
involves setting aside the beliefs and preconceptions of the researcher in
order to focus on what the experience means to the participant. This process
is known as bracketing (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Bowden, 2005). However,
the researcher is not required to bracket all their preconceptions or they may
have nothing to talk about, as Ashworth and Lucas (2000) point out “It seems
that we cannot suspend our commitment to certain guiding notions. But we
must hold these tentatively lest they subvert the very aim of entering the life
world” (p.299). The aim was to bracket any presuppositions which might
inaccurately colour the researcher’s perceptions of the participants’
experience of the phenomenon. To, in a sense, get out of the way of the
83
participant’s attempts to express their relationship with the phenomenon.
Following the advice of Ashworth and Lucas (2000) a conscious attempt was
made to bracket the following during the interview: (a) mentioning the current
research findings, rather than allowing each participant to discuss their
experience personally and without comparison; (b) assuming pre-given
theoretical structures or particular interpretations, allowing participants the
chance to explain such themselves; (c) presupposing the participants’
personal knowledge and beliefs rather than seeking clarification of such; (d)
the researcher’s notions of what constitutes cause and effect in a situation,
rather than uncovering participants’ perceptions
Another aspect of bracketing was the need to bracket the inclination to
categorise different conceptions during the interviews rather than trying to
understand the individual participant’s conception. Although categorisation
was the objective of the research, it could have led to imposing responses
upon participants rather than allowing them to openly explore their
experiences in the phenomenographic interview.
One particular notion that the researcher was keen to bracket was the
inclination to see teacher-centred approaches as faulty in some way,
especially given the trends in curricular documents towards student-centred
and constructivist approaches. Terms such as constructivism, teacher- or
student-centred were not brought up until they were used by participants.
Likewise, it was considered important not to direct the interview by
mentioning aspects of the phenomenon participants did not mention, outside
the specific themes mentioned in the interview schema. Åkerlind (2005b)
suggested exploring further the terms and phrases that seem most significant
or meaning laden for participants by asking them to discuss those issues
further. In a sense the researcher tried to keep within the vocabulary of the
participant.
Bracketing also included suspending the expectations and
presuppositions of the researcher, including considerations of what
constitutes fact or truth. Indeed, it was taken as a given that the researcher’s
conception of inquiry teaching may have little or no meaning to the practicing
teacher. The goal of the research was, as much as possible, to understand
the particular and unique experience of the participant, to look for variation
84
between and among participants’ descriptions, and to construct categories of
description from that and not from the interviewer’s perception of the
experience.
3.2.3 Data analysis
The previous section dealt with issues of the phenomenographic
interview. This section will now explore how the data were analysed via a
phenomenographic approach in four sections: the pilot study, initial data
analysis, finalising data analysis, and ending with a focus on the derivation of
the structure of awareness and the How and What as the data analysis was
completed.
Pilot study
Initially a pilot study was undertaken to test the interview protocol and
hone the skills of the interviewer as recommended by Bowden (2005). Two
participants were recruited from the social networks of the researcher. In
general, the interview protocol followed the protocol of the main study with
some minor editorial changes in the latter. The same general topics were
covered, and most questions and the contextualising statement remained the
same in both.
During the pilot study, however, some difference occurred in the
phrasing of the questions of the interview schema. The pilot study organised
questions around three topics: “What concepts were you trying to teach?”;
“How did you and your students act during the inquiry activity?” and; “Why
did you choose to do it that way?” During the main study, questions were
organised around general themes instead, which provided the same data but
were more easily managed by the interviewer. They were teacher role,
student role, purpose of assessment, teacher goals, and teacher expected
outcomes for inquiry teaching.
The pilot study clearly indicated the efficacy of the questions in
eliciting qualitative variation among participants, revealing two distinctly
unique conceptions of inquiry, which were labelled developing children’s life
experiences and student ownership respectively. After the pilot study was
completed, the supervisory team and researcher agreed that the interviews
85
were of sufficient quality, and discussed the phenomenon sufficiently, to
include in the rest of the study becoming interviews one and two.
Initial data analysis
Interviews one, three to seven, and 17 to 20 were transcribed by the
researcher. Interviews two, as well as eight to 16, were transcribed by a
professional transcription service. The following transcription protocols were
used; while interviews were transcribed verbatim, cursory or tangential
comments (such as “umm” and “like”) were deleted if they did not contribute
meaning when cited in the final thesis. Words and phrases that were
emphasised by participants were highlighted in italics in the transcription.
Finally, all transcriptions were checked for accuracy against the audio
recording by the researcher.
During transcription the researcher developed a personal profile for
each transcript, similar to the participant summary used by Lupton (2008).
Åkerlind (2005b) recommended that understanding each participant’s
perspectives must precede any attempts at arranging or structuring
perspectives within the study. At this point of data analysis the individual’s
conception was focused on so that it could be deeply understood, and the
question was asked “What is this person trying to tell me?” This reflective
question was used to in order to help develop an understanding of how the
individual participant understood inquiry teaching. Thus, the researcher drew
up individual profiles for each participant to help maintain fidelity to
participants’ experiences and comments (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). This
fidelity was particularly important as the research drew toward the process of
categorisation where the lines between individuals were drawn down and the
diverse categories of descriptions were created. Individual profiles also
helped maintain the internal validity (or credibility) of the study by, as
accurately as possible, preserving the meaning intended behind all quotes in
the context of their own interview. Profiles also assisted the researcher to
remain familiar with all participant conceptions during data analysis. An
example of a personal profile is available in appendix D for participant 3, an
experienced female teacher of early childhood (preparatory year), illustrating
major themes of the interview through actual participant quotes.
86
As data were being gathered and interviews transcribed, the
researcher attempted as far as possible to prevent inadvertently imposing
any emerging categorisation scheme on future interviews with participants
(Bowden, 2005; Walsh, 2000). Åkerlind (2005c) emphasised the requirement
for maintaining an open mind during the data analysis stage to allow the
categories of description to emerge as much as possible from the data,
making further use of the bracketing procedures discussed above.
After interview nine was completed, the researcher presented an
unpublished conceptual paper at a science education research conference
entitled “‘Inquiry learning is… difficult to define!’: Primary school teachers’
conceptions of teaching science through inquiry learning.” (Ireland, 2008).
The preparation of this paper involved a very general analysis of the data
obtained up to that point, based primarily on an intuitive familiarity with the
data obtained thus far. Three categories were presented: inquiry as
“Experiencing it themselves” (experience centred conception), inquiry as
“Don’t give the answer” (process centred conception) and inquiry as “What
do you want to know” (life skills centred conception). As will be seen, the first
category shares the same general title as the first category in the eventual
outcome space; however, the remaining two categories are far more
rigorously defined. Also, the categories were described only in terms of the
referential dimensions rather than the structural aspects. Even so, this
presentation provided valuable general feedback regarding the emerging
categories and reinforced the ability of phenomenography to develop a
parsimonious yet representative categorisation scheme of participants’
diverse experiences.
Finalising the data analysis
The researcher then returned to interviewing and transcribing, setting
aside the tentative categorisation scheme of the initial data analysis. After the
final interview was transcribed data gathering was complete, and the
researcher began to focus on the development of the phenomenographic
outcome space. This analysis developed through a search for the essential
aspects of the experience as revealed from the transcripts, and the
87
categorising of the limited number of qualitatively different experiences
initially in terms of their referential components.
In order to assist data analysis the computer program NVIVO was
initially used, though in the final analysis, NVIVO was not needed as either a
data analysis or data organising tool. Participant’s responses on a similar
topic were grouped together into nodes of meaning, which were initially
intended to be worked together into a few categories of meaning. This,
however, was unsuccessful as the analysis rose to over 100 nodes of
individual meanings derived from the interview transcripts, and data became
quite unworkable.
In response, an Excel spread sheet was created with the basic
qualitative data of the participants. An holistic approach to the generation of
the referential component (or global meaning) of the categories was then
initiated, looking specifically for variation in participants experiences of inquiry
teaching. Data were specifically examined for variation among the
dimensions of variation of student’s role, teacher’s role, the role of
assessment and teacher goals for inquiry teaching. Two items of data were
particularly important in keeping each participant’s interview in working
memory; the topics teachers discussed, and their answer to the question
“inquiry learning is…”. Personal profiles were referred to regularly, and whole
interview transcripts when necessary. The researcher attempted to
categorise each individual’s conception or conceptions numerically, that is,
when a unique conception of inquiry teaching appeared to be expressed it
was given a unique number. This was achieved by searching primarily for
qualitative differences in the referential aspect of teachers’ conceptions,
reading and rereading profiles and transcripts while comparing quotes for
accuracy in supporting an emerging categorisation scheme. The initial
categorisation scheme ran to 12 potential categories, but repeated iterations
with the data revealed that the categorisation schemes were not
parsimonious in terms of representing the data.
For example, an early preliminary categorisation scheme had three
tentative categories. In this categorisation scheme the referential component
of participants’ conceptions was compared. Participants talked about inquiry
teaching as meaning: (1) giving students’ experiences of content; (2) giving
88
student’s confidence through solving problems and (3) allowing student
ownership of content or topic. However, reviewing the personal profiles of
participants created some difficulties. For example, participant 3, while taking
about student ownership and students leading the class, was still enacting a
curriculum focused on the personal experiences of students rather than
student creation of knowledge, and on students understanding teacher driven
content. Thus this categorisation scheme was abandoned.
As another example, as data analysis progressed it was noted that in
any categorisation scheme that focused on teacher presentation of problems
(later becoming category 2), there were two distinct forms. One made use of
general knowledge and materials, for example teacher 14 using a box and
plank to create a lever. The other form made use of specific scientific
knowledge and materials, such as teacher 7 using stop watches, marbles
and various liquids to discover viscosity. It was hypothesised that there may
be four, not three ways of experiencing inquiry teaching. Repeated iterations
of reading the data then began to reveal that student led investigations could
also potentially be divided into scientific and general investigations, which
lead to further complexity in the emerging categorisation scheme. At length it
was determined that in either event; scientific or general, the teachers focus
was on the role of problems in learning or the role of student led
investigations, thus the four categories were merged into two which became
category 2 and 3 in later analysis.
At least five unsuccessful categorisations followed, failing to express
parsimoniously the variation in the data. Returning to the analysis, the main
researcher then encountered a “eureka!” moment (11:56am on 29th January
2009) primarily from trying to understand the qualitative differences in the act
of teaching. This understanding was that no matter what topic the teachers
were discussing, or how they talked about inquiry and inquiry teaching,
participants’ conceptions could be successfully and succinctly categorised
into one of three ways of experiencing: (a) giving students interesting sensory
experiences; (b) providing students with challenging problems or; (c) helping
students to ask and answer their own questions. These three general
guidelines directed the data analysis from that point on.
89
The categorisation at that time was as follows: Student-centred
experiences (SCE), Teacher-generated problems (TGP), and Class-
negotiated questions (CNQ). During this attempt, it was apparent that sub
categories might exist within each main category. These three main
categories contained six sub categories of inquiry teaching, which were
called Free inquiry, Illustrated inquiry, Solution inquiry, Process inquiry,
Topical inquiry and Guided inquiry. However, the sub categories tended to
describe only an act and indirect object of teaching, which closely describe a
teacher’s “approach to teaching” (McKenzie, 2003, p. 42 emphasis added),
and not actual teacher conceptions, and thus sub categories were excluded
from the analysis from that point on.
Analysis of the structure of awareness and the How and What
Data analysis then continued to establish the final outcome space.
The following report is somewhat artificial in that at all times during data
analysis the researcher needed to be conscious of the developing outcome
space, but for ease of comprehension it is presented in a linear fashion. At all
times an iterative process was employed, checking and rechecking
quotations with the outcome space. Also, justifications for quotations
belonging to certain categories included deliberate attempts to find counter
examples which might break down the categorisation scheme. In the end,
quotations that best described the categories were drawn from the data and
used to represent the various categories and dimensions of variation.
In terms of the development of the structure of awareness, as from the
recommendations of Ashworth and Lucas (2000), derivation of the referential
component preceded derivation of the structural component. The referential
components were the most immediately obvious qualities of the outcome
space to identify. Naming of categories evolved continually during data
analysis, almost to final printing, until the conceptualisations were clearly
defined. It was determined that the name of the category that was most
appropriate was what teachers were focused on during their experience of
inquiry teaching, and that what teachers were focused on could also be taken
90
as the global meaning (or referential component) of the experience for the
teacher.
In terms of the structural components, initially the dimensions of
variation were included as part of the internal horizon, as has been done in
some phenomenographic studies (for example, see Cope, 2004). However, it
was felt that the internal horizon should be parsimonious in terms of detail,
and represent only that which moved into and out of focus in the categories.
The internal horizon was then determined to be the focus and thematic field
of the current category.
The margin, or external horizon, helped define the context of the
category. Again, this was determined through repeated iterations with the
data and discussions with research supervisors. For a large part of the data
analysis teacher generated problems were considered outside the
awareness of teachers experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1.
However, further insight was gained answering questions at a second
science education conference (Ireland, 2010), where the main researcher
realised that teachers did use problems to focus student attention in
Category 1. The research team in discussion realised, however, that the
quality of teacher generated problems did differ between categories 1 and 2
in a manner discussed in detail in the results section (4.2.2). Thus, teacher
generated problems were removed from the margin of awareness and placed
in the thematic field of Category 1.
The dimensions of variation were determined through repeated
iterations with the data to uncover the qualities that differed between
categories, helping to define and clarify the kinds of things teachers were
talking about as they experienced inquiry teaching in a particular way. That
is, the question was specifically asked: “In what specific ways does each
category vary from the others?” Several dimensions of variation were
considered but eventually rejected as not varying sufficiently or at times at all
between categories. For example, breadth of benefit, issues of assessment,
and general beliefs of the nature of science are excluded from reporting,
though teachers did discuss them during their interviews. After final analysis
the suggestion was made that the level of student knowledge increases
between categories, that is, that students require a deeper level of
91
understanding to tackle a teacher’s use of Category 3. However, again it was
felt that this was not the case; indeed, the most frequent application of
Category 3 was in early childhood settings.
The What and How of teaching were developed at the same time
through repeated attempts to clarify variation in the teachers’ experience for
each category, returning to the transcripts to find supportive quotations. The
act of teaching was immediately apparent by comparing the referential
component with the kinds of teacher strategies necessary to bring it about.
Teachers were assigned a category in terms of their prevailing conception
and appropriate examples of their teaching drawn from the transcripts. These
were then compared and assessed to develop the general understanding
that is presented in the how and what.
An understanding of the direct object, or the learning outcomes
teachers were striving for, developed during this time as the examples of
teacher practice were compared for the kinds of outcomes teachers were
aiming to achieve. Teachers, it was discovered, talked about three kinds of
learning outcomes (skills, attitudes, concepts), but each outcome was in
focus at a different category. This discovery was tested by returning to the
transcripts with a deliberate attempt to find quotes that conflicted with this
understanding. However, it was found that teachers clearly focused on a
different kind of learning outcome in each category.
The indirect object, or the goal teachers were attempting to achieve
during the experience of each category, was uncovered in a similar way.
Greater difficulty was experienced in that the indirect objects are quite similar
in this study (see Section 4.5.1), but subtle qualitative differences are noted.
This understanding was uncovered through researcher familiarity with the
data set, and by reading and re-reading quotes related to the topic of what
teachers were trying to achieve though using inquiry in their classroom. This
information on teacher goals was predominantly gathered by the teacher
profiles, but also through supporting documentation in the interview
transcripts.
In order to maintain the integrity of the research process a conscious
process was adopted in order to search out disagreements and conflicts with
traditional approaches to organising conceptions of inquiry teaching, as
92
recommended by Ashworth and Lucas (2000), in particular the
teacher/student- centred continuum. Findings were also presented at
workshops for staff and postgraduate students at Queensland University of
Technology, including a group of postgraduate researchers, and numerous
meetings with doctoral supervisors. Analysis was also presented at two
science education conferences (mentioned above). These processes were
employed to assist in the establishment of communicative validity of the
study (Kvale, 1996) as detailed in Section 3.2.5 on research rigour.
The outcome space was again thoroughly re-assessed during write-up
for its appropriateness in describing the complete set of data. Once the
outcome space was developed and validated, the data analysis phase was
complete.
3.2.4 Ethics
The primary concern with regards to ethics is the disclosure of
personal information during the research process. As per university
guidelines, participants were free to withdraw at any time, and interview
transcripts for all participants were strictly confidential. Numerical assignment
(in order of interview conducted) was used in this final report, and there is no
reasonable way individual teachers may be traced back to their quotes used
in this study.
Human ethics level 1 clearance was obtained from QUT ethics
committee prior to beginning phase two of the study (# 0700000841). In
accordance with official University and National guidelines (Australian
Government, 1999; Queensland University of Technology, n.d.), voluntary
and informed participant consent was gained via a written consent form.
Participants had access to all information regarding the project from the time
they elected to participate. Level 1 (low risk) ethical review was permitted as
the study involved interview data taken at participants’ place of work, and as
the answers to Section 2 of the guidelines are all negative (no use of human
tissue, no participation of minors). All research fully complied with the
publication “A national statement on ethical conduct in researching involving
humans” (Australian Government, 1999) in terms of protecting participants
rights and managing any risk in relation to the study.
93
3.2.5 Research rigour
This section discusses issues of research rigour, including the validity
and reliability of the research results.
In qualitative research many arguments have been made that the
concepts of validity and reliably do not apply as they belong to a positivist
(and dualist) mindset, which is incompatible with qualitative research, and
that terms such as credibility and trustworthiness are more appropriate
(Åkerlind, 2005c; Lincoln & Guba, 1991). However, recent calls have been
made to return to such terms as representing a high standing of scientific
knowledge creation, and not just a positivist world view (Kuzel & Engel, 2001;
Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). The argument is given that
validity and reliability are still important standards for even qualitative
scientists to apply (Cope, 2004). This study responds to such calls by dealing
with the validity and reliability of the study as follows.
Validity
Validity refers to the ability of the study to actually investigate what it
sets out to investigate (Giorgi, 1988). As a phenomenographic study, that is,
a study into the diverse ways of conceptualising an object by the participants,
issues of validity are expressed as an attempt by the researcher to reflect
and communicate actively as accurately as possible the thoughts of
participants. Furthermore the non-dualistic ontological position of
phenomenography expects that an objective reality is unknowable outside
the human experience of it. Therefore, positivist notions of a knowable and
describable reality outside our experience of it are rejected. However,
although validity is a term originally derived from a quantitative research
paradigm, it is just as much an important issue in the qualitative
phenomenographic approach employed in this study. A phenomenographic
study is considered valid in as much as it sufficiently “corresponds to the
human experience of the phenomenon” (Åkerlind, 2005c, p. 330). Issues of
validity are dealt with through three main processes: Communicative,
pragmatic and face validity.
Communicative validity is defined as providing a defensible
interpretation of the data as opposed to a right interpretation to the
94
appropriate community of interested readers (Kvale, 1996). Various
communities included in the research include supervisors, the participants,
and interested colleagues at various workshops and the science education
conferences. Each of these communities was given the opportunity to
respond to the outcome space during the data analysis stage, and this
strengthened the communicative validity of the study. For example, the
supervisors worked closely together to provide several perspectives on the
data analysis. Supervisors also played the role of provocateurs to challenge
the researcher’s interpretations and conclusions. Also, the developing
outcome space was presented on more than one occasion to staff and
educational research colleagues at QUT at various workshops, which
included several practicing teachers and teacher educators.
Pragmatic validity is used to refer to a measure of validity in terms of
the eventual usefulness of the research to the academic community (Kvale,
1996) and in the current context the meaningfulness of the outcome space to
the practicing teacher and teacher education. Again, this has been
established by direct questioning to peers and colleagues as outlined
previously, in particular the interest shown in the presentation at the
Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference (Ireland,
2008) as well as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in
Education Conference (Ireland, 2010), and in general the interest show in
inquiry teaching nationally and internationally.
Face validity is the ability of a study to describe what it intends to
describe. After careful consultation with the research supervisory team, it was
concluded that the research met this criteria. A major contribution to the face
validity of the study was granted due to the pilot study, where the interview
based on the interview schema managed to reveal two distinctly different
conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, the phrase inquiry teaching was
eventually adopted in the thesis title over the more syntactically precise
teaching in ways that foster inquiry learning in students in that the former was
sufficient in describing the phenomenon it represented. Finally, in order to
clarify teachers’ understanding of inquiry teaching, inquiry learning is also
discussed during the interviews. However, this thesis focuses on the
95
phenomenon of inquiry teaching and does not comment directly on the
separate yet related phenomenon of inquiry learning.
Reliability
Reliability is defined in this study as the use of thorough and
appropriate research methods to strengthen the interpretation of the data
(Cope, 2004). Two processes are generally used.
Coder reliability check is where, essentially, two researchers
independently analyse the data and then compare categorisations (Kvale,
1996). Since inter-rater reliability is not considered appropriate
philosophically (Sandburg, 1997), as the categories are at least in part
created, not discovered (Walsh, 2000), the study has not made use of a
coder reliability check. Coder reliability differs from the peer assessed
workshops (see Section 3.2.3) in that during the workshops educated
colleagues had the opportunity to critically respond to the categorisation
scheme of the researcher, rather than independently analysing the data for
themes from the beginning.
Dialogic reliability check occurs where separate researchers
categorise the data and discuss, alter and review their categorisations until
agreement is reached (Sandburg, 1997). Although many different
perspectives are sought for this study, dialogic reliability checks have not
played a major role in this research. However, since the final outcome space
has been discussed with peers and supervisors it does have a measure of
dialogic reliability.
Marton (1986), however, argued that reliability in phenomenography
may be measured by having researchers ask themselves the following
question after data analysis: Would different researchers allocate
conceptions to the categories of description in the same way as the original
researcher? It is expected that once the categories are established by the
researcher, other researchers would allocate the quotations to the categories
in a relatively reliable manner. The peer assessed workshops have played an
important role in helping determine the reliability of this research as quotes
representing the categories were presented on two occasions and tentative
agreement reached that they were indeed reliably representative of the
96
categories, though a full review of all 20 transcripts was only undertaken by
the researcher and supervisors.
Most importantly in terms of reliability, however, a demonstrative
procedure has been employed in this study to make the research method
transparent (Giorgi, 1988) in order to improve the reliability and validity of the
research study (Cope, 2004; Leveson, 2004). Demonstrative procedures are
further discussed by Åkerlind (2005c) as the researcher makes their
interpretive analysis methods clear through fully detailing the stages of the
research and presenting examples that illustrate them. Demonstrative
procedures also include a self reflective or critical stance towards their own
perspectives, and attempts to counteract or deal meaningfully with their
particular perspective on the research outcome. The values of demonstrative
procedure have been adhered to in this research, for example, through the
personal discloser of the researcher in Section 3.2 and the detail given in the
data analysis Section (3.2.3).
3.3 Conclusion
This chapter has argued the appropriateness of the
phenomenographic methodology to study variation in primary school
teachers’ ways of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education. With a
diverse sample of participants, adherence to strict ethical procedure, and
sensitivity to phenomenographic procedures and theoretical framework, a
thesis has resulted which makes a beneficial contribution to our
understanding of this important aspect of teacher knowledge in science
education.
.
97
Chapter 4 Results
The purpose of this study was to explore primary school teachers’
experiences of inquiry teaching in science education. Prior to this study
phenomenography as a research methodology had not yet been applied to
this problem, and was chosen to address this issue as it generated a limited
number of qualitatively different categories of experiences. This chapter will
now describe the results of this phenomenographic study into teachers’
conceptions. The outcome space comprises the three qualitatively different
categories arranged in terms of what was focal in teachers thinking during
their experience: Student Centred Experiences (Category 1); Teacher
Generated Problems (Category 2); and Student Generated Questions
(Category 3). However, it was noted that teachers did not make mention of
educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically with regards to
there being levels of inquiry (National Research Council of America, 2000) or
terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002).
An overview of the results is dealt with in Section 4.1. Sections 4.2
through 4.4 contain detailed descriptions of the main categories, including an
examination of the how and what of teaching (see Section 3.1.6), a
demographic comparison of category frequency among teachers, the
structures of awareness of the phenomenon, and a comparison of the
dimensions of variation. Section 4.5 contains a summary of the categories
and rich description of the outcome space. Section 4.6 then concludes the
chapter highlighting major research findings.
4.1 Overview of the Results
This section overviews the outcome space and dimensions of
variation.
4.1.1 The outcome space: an overview
As is customary in phenomenography, logical relationships within
categories are represented by an outcome space (Cope, 2004), see Table
4.1.
98
Table 4.1
Outcome space for the phenomenon of inquiry teaching.
The outcome space was created from the researchers’ analysis of the
data and not an analysis of the literature. The outcome space is presented as
an overview here, and will be fully explicated in Section 4.5. As a hierarchy,
Category 1 and 2 are seen as subsumed within Category 3. This means, for
instance, that teachers who based their teaching around helping students to
ask and answer questions would also occasionally make use of student
centred experiences and teacher generated problems within that context. In
contrast to the literature which typically aligns categories from teacher- to
student- centred, each of the categories in this study was found to take a
student-centred approach. Category 3 was the most student- centred and
Category 1 the least. Category 3 was used the least by teachers in this study,
while Category 1 was used at some time by every teacher.
Finally, it was noted that teachers themselves did not discuss different
levels of inquiry, or use terms such as open or guided in their description of
their conceptions of inquiry. As one teacher explained regarding their
Most inclusive definition. Also, students must be asking the questions to be answered, though teachers may direct them.
141
It is important to note that, as a hierarchical structure of awareness,
teachers who made use of the most inclusive Category 3 did at times provide
interesting experiences or challenging problems in order to teach. At the
other extreme, teachers who focused only on providing interesting
experiences (Category 1) did not focus on teacher problems or student
questions to guide their teaching. In Category 2, while teacher generated
problems were focal, student questions and student experiences were in the
thematic field of teacher awareness. Another way to visualise the
relationships among the categories is depicted schematically in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of the outcome space of teachers’ ways
of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education.
Figure 4.6 shows the three categories represented as three concentric
circles. In the centre, Category 1, Student Centred Experiences, is
represented as the most limited way of experiencing inquiry teaching, but it is
still a fundamental part contained within the teaching experiences of the other
two categories. At the other extreme, Category 3, Student Generated
Questions is seen as the broadest and most expansive way of experiencing,
and is represented by the largest circle. However, both categories 1 and 2
are subsumed within the circumference of Category 3, indicating that student
Category 3
Category 2
Category 1
142
centred experiences and teacher generated problems were both used within
Category 3.
4.5.4 Comparison of the Dimensions of variation
In this section I now compare the dimensions of variation that were
found across the three categories. Some dimensions of variation can be seen
to have logical progression among the categories, and are thus considered
themes of expanding awareness (see Chapter 3.1.4), as overviewed in Table
4.6.
Table 4.6
Summary of the dimensions of variation across categories
Student Centred Experiences (Category 1)
Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2)
Student Generated Questions (Category 3)
Role of the teacher
Knower, but not teller
Feigning ignorance Doesn’t know, willing to learn
Role of the student
Lowest agency– students did not choose content or activities (but were still very active participants)
Higher agency – students could now propose some content by suggesting solutions. (considered engaged participants)
Highest agency – students had a large say in content through selection of questions to be answered, and may have helped choose topic. Considered guided inquirers
Purpose of student experiences
Focal – directed learning and teaching experience
Supportive – one way teachers used to help students solve problems
Supportive – one way teachers used to help answer student questions
Purpose of teacher generated problems
Simple problems used to assist students to experience content.
Focal – Teaching structured around complex teacher generated problems
Supportive – one way teachers may have used to answer student questions
Role of student generated questions
Supportive-helped students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Supportive – help students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Focal – directed learning and teaching experience for students and teachers
Epistemological belief-Source of knowledge
The teacher (via student experiences)
The teacher (via student experiences)
An expert (usually teacher, but not always. Correctly performed experiments would yield expected results.)
143
Table 4.6 is a summary of the dimensions of variation for this study
which may be used to highlight logical relationships among the categories.
For instance, it can be seen that the role of the teacher and role of the
student both are themes of expanding awareness, complementing each other
as teachers progress from a somewhat teacher directed approach to the
more student directed Student Generated Questions category.
Epistemological beliefs in terms of the source of knowledge also progress
from categories 1 to 3 as teachers progress from being the holders of all
knowledge to being prepared to be co-learners with students. The
dimensions of variation and their relationships among categories will now be
discussed in greater detail.
Role of the teacher: All teachers saw themselves as facilitators during
inquiry teaching. However, it was noted that what it meant to be a facilitator
differed in each of the three main categories of inquiry teaching in a pattern
supportive of the hierarchical arrangement. The Student Centred
Experiences category was somewhat teacher directed: The teacher’s role
was to decide what the students were to learn, how to learn, to gather
equipment and manage student behaviour. They were to know the content
material and express it to students in an engaging and hands on manner.
The Teacher Generated Problems category was slightly less teacher
directed. During the Teacher Generated Problems category the teacher had
the same role, but now added feigning ignorance to their role of drawing out
student understandings. Teachers needed to know the best ways to
challenge students to think about and interpret their experiences.
The Student Generated Questions category was the least teacher
directed, but to call it entirely student directed may be inaccurate as teachers
still directed many aspects of the learning as with the previous categories.
During the Student Generated Questions category however, teachers now
allowed students some say in the direction the learning took. In particular,
students contributed to the decision of what content was important as they
negotiated the questions to be answered with the teacher. The teacher’s role
was to support students in answering their own questions rather than support
them in learning the teacher-driven content material of previous categories.
144
Thus, the role of the teacher can be seen as a theme of expanding
awareness among the three main categories.
Role of the student: In all forms of inquiry teaching, teachers
considered their practice student-centred. Teachers were concerned with
how students learnt, that learning was engaging, and that students were
learning things that were important and that would benefit them in the future
and the community as a whole. However, it was noted that the students’ role
differed in each of the three main categories of inquiry teaching in a pattern
supportive of the hierarchical arrangement.
During the Student Centred Experiences category, students were
active learners, getting in and having the experiences the teacher had
chosen for them. Students were expected to do such things as ask
questions, make observations, take notes, play with the equipment, share
ideas, listen respectfully, take turns, and talk to their peers about their
experiences.
During the Teacher Generated Problems category students built on
their role during Student Centred Experiences category to become what may
be considered an engaged learner. Students were not only paying attention
and participating, they were now proposing and testing solutions to the
problem. Students therefore experience a greater level of self directedness of
their learning during the Teacher Generated Problems category.
However, students experienced the highest level of self directedness
during the Student Generated Questions category. They were not only active
participants as per the Student Centred Experiences category, and engaged
participants as per the Teacher Generated Problems category, but they now
were able to negotiate content to be covered, and may perhaps be
considered guided inquirers. This role does not mean students were free to
come to any conclusion, or to pursue any question they liked. Teachers still
placed many subtle and overt restrictions on students’ knowledge creation,
the questions that were appropriate to ask, and the answers that were most
congruent with teacher understanding. There was still an expectation that the
teacher was in control of the overall learning experience. However, in
Category 3, students experienced the greatest level of student autonomy with
regards to their work as compared with previous categories.
145
Purpose of student experiences: A focus on student’s sensory
experiences, as based on their engagement with science materials, is the
focus of the Student Centred Experiences category and thus is also a part of
all other categories of inquiry. For example, in Category 3 teachers would
strive to give students meaningful experiences with science materials in order
to answer their own questions (for example, teacher 8 bringing in a fish for
students to touch during the “under the sea” unit). Also, student experiences
were used to help solve teacher generated problems (for example, teacher
14 allowing them to play with the plank and heavy box to help solve a
problem).
This quality of a focus on sensory experiences with materials appears
to be a secondary attribute that can be used to separate inquiry from other
learning experiences such as “chalk and talk” (T1). The first attribute is that
someone is asking a question, even if it’s not the teacher (see ‘role of student
questions’). Indeed, even in subjects other than science, students are
inquiring not so much when they are asking questions, but when they are
playing with materials. Inquiry might occur as maths inquiries with blocks or
technology inquiries (e.g., T10.) The importance teachers place on student
engagement with materials as a necessary quality of inquiry teaching is
discussed further in Chapter 5.
Purpose of teacher generated problems: Teacher generated problems
form a hierarchical arrangement among categories. In Category 1, teacher
generated problems are relatively simple, and are used to help students to
notice events or features of a system and express explanations, store up
experiences, propose causal links, and show interest. In Category 2, where
teacher generated problems are focal in teacher awareness, the kinds of
problems presented to students become more complex. Category 2 problems
require a definable, feasible and researchable question which usually
emerges from observations of a natural phenomenon and to which students
must apply some strategy. Finally, in Category 3, both kinds of problems are
used by teachers in the service of helping students to ask and answer their
own questions. As part of a Student Generated Questions category, for
example, a complex problem may involve challenging students to light a light
during a unit on energy (T4), while a simple challenge might involve having
146
students research and arrange ocean animals on a poster indicating
preferred depth (T6) as part of answering their own questions regarding sea
animals.
Purpose of student generated questions: In all categories, someone is
asking questions. This seems to be the defining attribute that qualifies a
teaching experience as inquiry in the minds of teachers, even if it is the
teacher who is asking most of the questions. In categories 1 and 2, questions
are predominantly asked by the teacher, who used them to guide learning,
focus student attention, and draw out student understanding. It appears that
teachers encouraged students to ask questions for at least two reasons, (a)
to help teachers assess student understanding and (b) to help students learn
by benefiting from engagement.
However, during the Student Generated Questions category, student
generated questions became the focus of the learning, and answering those
questions directed the learning experiences that teachers chose for their
students; whether it was experiencing content materials, solving a problem,
or conducting an experiment. In this way, the role of student questions is also
a theme of expanding awareness for this study. Questions start in a
supportive role by helping teachers assess student understanding and
increasing student engagement, and then become the purpose of the
learning experience and the focus of teacher awareness.
Epistemological beliefs: This thesis found qualitative variation in one
kind of epistemological belief, the source of knowledge. During categories 1
and 2 the ultimate source of knowledge was the teacher. During the Student
Generated Questions category the teacher was no longer the holder of all
scientifically acceptable answers, and thus the scope for understanding went
beyond the teacher to other experts, such as books or the internet.
However, teacher beliefs regarding the nature of student
understanding of scientific knowledge did not differ among categories. In all
categories, knowledge is gathered rather than created, though the process of
gathering that knowledge did differ between categories; from watching
demonstrations or experiencing materials in the Student Centred
Experiences category, through solving a problem during the Teacher
Generated Problems category, to concluding (correctly) on the results of their
147
own investigations during the Student Generated Questions category. This
effect of teacher beliefs of student understanding of scientific knowledge, as
well as teacher beliefs of the source of knowledge is explored further in
Chapter 5.
This section completes the discussion of the outcome space in terms
of the structure of awareness, qualitative comparison of categories, the how
and what of teaching, and dimensions of variation found in the study. A full
tabulated comparison of all categories can be found in Appendix C.
4.6 Conclusion
In summary, the three main categories in which teachers experience
inquiry teaching in science are the Student Centred Experiences category
(Category 1), the Teacher Generated Problems category (Category 2) and
the Student Generated Questions category (Category 3). These three form a
hierarchy with the most inclusive way of experiencing inquiry teaching being
the Student Generated Questions category. Teachers did not make use of
the language of educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically
with regards to there being levels of inquiry (National Research Council of
America, 2000), or terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-
Hansen, 2002). Teachers displayed limited epistemological beliefs of the
source of knowledge in science. The implications of these findings and their
relationship to established theoretical perspectives of science education will
be discussed in the next chapter.
148
149
Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendations
This study investigated the qualitatively different ways in which
primary school teachers experience inquiry teaching, and presented three
categories of description which were: Student Centred Experiences
(Category 1), where teachers focused on engaging students through
providing them with interesting sensory experiences; Teacher Generated
Problems (Category 2), where teachers focused on encouraging students
through helping them overcome challenging problems; and Student
Generated Questions (Category 3), where teachers focused on engaging
students through helping them to ask and answer their own questions. These
three categories form a hierarchy with the Student Generated Questions
category being the most inclusive way of experiencing or conceptualising
inquiry teaching. In the following chapter, general findings are discussed
emerging from the research results (Section 5.1). The findings are then
analysed in relation to the inquiry teaching literature (5.2), such as the US
National Standards (National Research Council of America, 2000; National
Science Board, 2007) and various models of inquiry teaching (Bybee, 2001;
Martin-Hansen, 2002). Issues of epistemology are highlighted with regards to
the results of this study (5.3), in particular regarding the Nature of Science
(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000) and the authentic science debate (Chinn
& Hmelo-Silver, 2002).
Research limitations and related areas of potential research are then
Most similar to level 4 teacher directed, however, students may have been encouraged to gather own evidence and conclude on it from their own experiences (albeit pending teacher approval)
Structured inquiry relates strongly to Category 1, however, Student Centred Experiences inquiry is more student centred than the “following recipes” description of structured inquiry in the Martin-Hansen text.
Both Category 1 and 2 fit very well within the 5E’s model.
Teacher Generated Problems
Category 2 relates to Level 2 (and somewhat 3), though they may have been told how to analyse data.
Guided inquiry matches well with Category 2 – both focus on having the teacher select topic and challenge students to answer teacher generated questions.
Both Category 1 and 2 fit very well within the 5E’s model.
Student Generated Questions
Category 3 of this study corresponds well with Level 1 in terms of students identify and posing questions, however students may not have been given data and told how to analyse when teachers are acting as knowers, but not tellers.
Open or Full inquiry (also, the open inquiry section of Coupled inquiry) match reasonably well with Category 3 – however the Martin-Hansen paper does not explicitly allow for material-less inquiry such as library search
However, Category 3 is not at all like the 5E’s model in that at all times a challenge or experience as designated by the teacher guides the teaching, and not student questions at all.
Many points of congruency may be found between the current study
and the studies cited, for instance, some similarity exists between Category 2
and each of the studies cited (Bybee, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002; National
Research Council of America, 2000). In other ways, there are clear
mismatches between the studies. The Martin-Hansen (2002) model is fairly
similar, with each category from this study matching on to a level of the
155
Martin-Hansen model. However, the Martin-Hansen model does not explicitly
allow for inquiry that does not require science equipment and materials, such
as library search, as this study does.
The theoretical model of the NRC (2000) is found to present a
mismatch in terms of teacher understanding and terminology. When teachers
are experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1 as per this study, the role of
the question may be level 4 teacher directed as per the NRC definition.
However, at the same time the role of evidence and attending explanations is
found to be more appropriate to level 2 in the NRC – teachers are striving to
help students decide or discover content material from their own
experiences. Knowing teacher understanding in terms of these qualities is
one of the great advantages of this study over theoretically derived
definitions.
The 5E’s model (Bybee 2001) was found to be lacking in that while
student questions are valued and encouraged, at no point does the model
explicitly consider that such questions could guide and structure the inquiry
teaching experience. While students may often select a problem during the
elaborate phase, questions are not guiding the teaching experience. In this
manner, Category 3 ways of experiencing inquiry teaching are potentially
absent from the 5E’s model of inquiry teaching. This absence leads us to ask
if the 5E’s model is limited in the following way – if authentic inquiry is taken
as structuring teaching around student generated questions, as in Category 3
of this study, is the 5E’s model, while engaging, failing to emulate authentic
inquiry if it does not explicitly solicit and explore student questions during the
teaching experience?
This continues to illustrate that curriculum documents and educational
theory are somewhat at odds with the actual teacher conceptions of inquiry
teaching as found in this study. Perhaps this disparity is made most clear by
the fact that teachers did not make use of educational theorist terminology in
reference to their actual work. Terms such as open, guided and free inquiry
(Martin-Hansen, 2002) were not part of teacher vocabulary when discussing
their practice of inquiry teaching in the classroom. Also, teachers’
understanding was not influenced by the idea of different kinds or levels of
inquiry teaching (for example, simple or authentic) – teachers spoke about
156
their work as being inquiry teaching or not: there were no levels in teacher
language. These points indicate that, at least with every teacher in this study,
such models of inquiry have not yet had a lasting effect on the meaning and
language teachers used to describe their conceptions of inquiry teaching.
The purpose of this study has been to find out what language and ideas are
being used by teachers, as part of their conceptions of inquiry teaching.
This section has compared the findings of this study with definitions of
inquiry teaching and theoretical models as presented in the literature, finding
that teachers hold several alterative beliefs compared to the literature. These
comparisons will now continue to be explored though a focus on teachers’
epistemological beliefs as uncovered by this study.
5.3 Epistemology and the nature of science
Similar to other studies performed in this area, this research found that
teachers’ scientific epistemologies, or beliefs about the Nature of Science
(NOS), were incongruent with the formal account of science presented in the
literature review (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Fazio, 2005; Seroussi, 2005).
To illustrate, the five characteristics given by Perla and Carifio (2008) on the
nature of science as distilled from the literature and national science
curriculum documents are compared here with the general results of this
thesis in Table 5.2.
Although these general findings are congruent with findings in the
NOS literature, some specific points need to be mentioned. In particular
teachers seemed to hold alternative beliefs rather than beliefs informed by
social constructivist learning theories. Teachers acted as though a correct
answer was waiting to be found in science (Section 4.5.3 teachers role,
epistemological beliefs), rather than being created and tested through
scientific processes of knowing (Prosser et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain,
1992). This may well be due to misunderstandings on the part of teachers in
regards to the nature of a constructivist viewpoint. For example, teacher 18
indicated that a constructivist viewpoint meant that the children “rule the
room”. However, constructivism as a referent for learning does not
necessarily mean this at all. Constructivism can be used to inform inquiry
157
teaching as teachers find ways to connect with student understandings and
student desires for learning, rather than simply making absorbing knowledge
more fun by bringing in interesting things to see and touch (Abruscato, 2001;
Hodson & Hodson, 1998).
Table 5.2
Comparison of Perla and Carifio (2008) and the current study
Perla and Carifio definition of NOS
Current study
Science is empirical
While scientific knowledge was experienced experientially, it was not created by forming and testing hypothesis.
Science is a human enterprise
These results do not comment on this quality. It is expected that individual teachers differed in their approach.
Science involves creativity and human imagination
Students were generally encouraged to involve creativity in terms of finding ways to experience and explore content, at times students were encouraged to simply play with materials. However, creativity in terms of the generation and testing of hypothesis was only observed, and then only briefly, in Category 3.
Scientific knowledge is subjective and theory laden
Scientific knowledge was not treated as subjective or theory laden.
Scientific knowledge is stable yet tentative.
Either scientific knowledge was treated as stable, or there was something considered at fault with the teaching process or learners themselves.
It was noted that teachers held limited conceptions with regards to the
epistemology of science in other important ways. For example there was an
idea, present in all categories, that experiments can go “wrong” (T3 and T10
mentioned this in particular), meaning that a scientific demonstration did not
go as planned and that, therefore, the students’ or teacher’s knowledge must
be faulty in some way. This idea is contrasted to the thinking, absent in this
study, that the experiment had performed exactly as it should as an
expression of the laws of nature. Teacher thinking along these former lines
also implies that experiments are used to prove a point, not to answer
questions and test hypotheses which is more congruent with the modern
account of the epistemology of science (Windschitl, 2004).
158
Teacher epistemological beliefs around the source of knowledge,
being from expert opinion or student’s analysis of evidence, has been
mentioned as one of the more significant findings of this study. From the
definition of Eastwell (2008); “An inquiry activity is one that requires students
to answer a scientific question by analysing raw, empirical data themselves”
(p. 31), it can be seen that all categories in this study involve answering a
question (student or teachers’) and all involve students interpreting data.
Thus, according to this definition, all forms of inquiry represented in this
thesis are potentially inquiry. The difficulty lies in teacher epistemological
beliefs – students were concluding what teachers expected, even incorrectly,
rather than using evidence and logic as the source of knowledge as this
definition seems to imply. This failure to meet the epistemological standards
of the literature is the motivation behind the NOS movement, especially with
regards to evidence as opposed to authority based decision making
(Osborne & Collins, 2003). Several studies strive to place evidence highly as
an epistemological standard in science, for example, “Students using
evidence to defend their conclusions.” (Harwood et al., 2006, p. 72) and
“Learner gives priority to evidence” (National Research Council of America,
2000, p. 42). Even certain definitions of scientific literacy require students to
be able to “draw evidence-based conclusions” (Goodrum et al., 2001, p. ix).
Teachers appear to be looking for a fun, hands on activity that
engages students and potentially helps make them better people. Teacher
educators are looking to train a scientifically literate generation (Goodrum et
al., 2001), through student experiences that are more closely aligned with
authentic science (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002) and require students to
create knowledge rather than absorb it in new and entertaining ways
(Colburn, 2000). Part of the reason for this difference in aims could be the
differences in epistemological beliefs of teachers and teacher educators.
Teachers appear to have limited epistemological beliefs with regards to
science: using it to prove a point rather than test an idea, using creativity to
explore content but not to create or test hypothesis. Section 5.5,
recommendations, continues the discussion regarding this gap and potential
ways to bridge teacher and teacher educators’ expectations for inquiry
teaching.
159
This section has discussed the role of several epistemological beliefs
held by teachers and their effects on their experience of inquiry teaching in
the science classroom. Before a discussion of the recommendations can be
enjoined, potential limitations of the study should be discussed in order to
explore the limitations of the current study, including discussions of potential
ways to address said limitations.
5.4 Limitations
Based on the findings and observations made during the study,
limitations and related areas of potential research include: (a) student
outcomes; (b) congruency between reported and actual teacher practice; (c)
experiences of individual teachers; (d) influence of issues of context; (e)
inquiry teaching in other curriculum areas; and (f) use of equipment.
It is important to note that this study does not compare teacher
experiences with student outcomes. That is, this phenomenographic study
cannot say what effect each category has in terms of outcomes for students.
This limitation is the first area of potentially fertile future research; that is, if
teachers are striving to engage students by giving them experiences that
empower students while helping them answer questions, what are the
outcomes for students? Such an experimental study could conceivably take
place by first interviewing teachers to assess their dominant conception of
inquiry teaching, then comparing their students’ results with national
averages, taking care to control for local factors such as socioeconomic
status of the school intake population. Other measures of data gathering
should also include viewing the teacher in practice to assess the teachers’
general style of teaching, such as may be achieved through video data.
Information about teacher views of science (such as the VNOS-C, Lederman,
Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) and science education in general
should also be gathered.
The purpose of such a study would be to uncover if teacher
implementation of Category 3 results in the highest outcomes for students. It
is expected that other qualities such as teacher experience with teaching,
160
views of the nature of science, or teacher engagement with the community of
science educators will be greater predictors of student achievement than the
categorisation scheme from this study. However, student ability to perform in
inquiry based situations is expected to be positively correlated.
Second, the study is limited in that it was not able to compare reports
of teacher practice with video/audio recordings of actual practice. Further
research should be conducted to compare observations of teacher practice
with their interview data (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Such research would
have the benefit of comparing the espoused categories of conceptions to
teacher practice. A measure of incongruence might be evident, though this
incongruence will have been minimalised by the use of practical examples in
the interview data and the use of a very specific, rather than general,
phenomenon under investigation (Ajzen, 2005, see also section 2.4.3).
Third, as a phenomenographic study data are analysed in such a way
as to categorise individual conceptions, blurring the line between individuals
and potentially diluting the richness of individual experiences for the purpose
of developing the outcome space. That is, the findings of this study do not
provide a detailed description of all the possible ways of experiencing, nor do
they describe individual differences in experiencing (Prosser, Martin, Trigwell,
Ramsden, & Lueckenhausen, 2005). Having grouped the individual teacher’s
conceptions of inquiry teaching, further research could therefore be
undertaken to compare individual teachers’ execution of inquiry teaching in
light of the research findings herein. Such research could serve to highlight
the individual differences in the expression of each category which could help
to unpack the underlying beliefs of teaching, learning and assessment that
inform a teacher’s decision to use a particular category.
Such a study would also help answer how some teachers come to
believe in allowing students to answer questions, rather than just providing
students with challenges or experiences. Adding to our understanding of the
influences in teacher belief in science education, such as helping students to
ask and answer their own questions, would be a valuable contribution to the
literature and a potential outcome of such research.
Fourth, an accepted limitation of phenomenography is that it is a
“snapshot” (Åkerlind et al., 2005, p. 81), commenting on only a small number
161
of people and only over the time of data gathering. Potential research should
be undertaken to explore whether the categories here uncovered are
represented in: (a) the primary school teacher population at large; (b) primary
school teachers in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts; and (c)
teachers at institutions such as early childhood and tertiary settings. It would
be valuable to explore teachers at different times to explore possible
variables that influence variations in understanding over time.
A fifth possible limitation is that the study was designed to uncover
conceptions in the science curriculum only. Potential research may include
other curriculum areas. As an inclusive yet parsimonious categorisation
scheme it may be that the three categories will be expressed in some form
even in other curriculum areas such as English, Mathematics, and Religious
Education. That is, for example, do Religious education teachers make use
of inquiry teaching to focus on: (a) providing interesting experiences to
students; (b) giving them problems to solve; or (c) helping students to ask
and answer their own questions. A phenomenographic study such as the one
undertaken here would suffice to answer this research question, and it is
predicted that similar results will be uncovered, given the unique
characterisations of each curriculum context.
Sixth, another finding of the study was the apparent perception among
teachers that science education is intrinsically tied up with the use of
equipment (see Section 4.5.3). This study was limited in that it could not
devote sufficient time to exploring this perception. This emphasis on
equipment included objects such as thermometers, special chemicals, and so
on, as well as more mundane equipment such as string, cups, and plastic
bags for the purpose of conducting class activities. Science education was
sometimes seen as hard not because of the content required, but the time
and expense it incurred on teachers to gather the necessary equipment. This
is an interesting perception which may be holding teachers back, and the
attending beliefs should be further explored. Questions should be asked such
as: (a) Do teachers’ perceptions of inquiry go beyond materials?; (b) Does
this idea contribute to a misunderstanding on the part of teachers that
science education is about demonstrating ideas rather than constructing and
challenging ideas?; (c) Does this idea indicate that science is seen as a
162
distinct curriculum area, and not a way of knowing that can inform many
curriculum areas?
Conclusion to section
This study has explored several limitations and proposed several
potential research agendas. It has been a major contention of this study that
one important cause of the inability of many professional development
programs to change teacher conceptions of teaching science though inquiry
might be a misunderstanding of their conceptions in the first place (Sandoval,
2005). The effect of developing and implementing a professional
development program based on the findings of this study, including sharing
the outcome space and discussing and comparing the conceptions therein, is
certainly an area of potential research, and is one of the topics discussed in
the next section.
5.5 Recommendations
This section will now discuss the recommendations ensuing from this
thesis. This will be dealt with in two sections; first, six specific
recommendations are made to help teachers implement Category 3 inquiry
(5.4.1). Next, two recommendations are made regarding the potential of this
study to contribute to further research and teacher education programs
(5.4.2).
5.5.1 Recommendations for implementing Category 3 inquiry
Having considered that Category 3, Student Generated Questions, is
the most inclusive and broadest way of experiencing inquiry teaching, I now
turn to a discussion of potential ways in which teachers may begin to
experience this category more often in their daily practice. As a second
generational developmental phenomenographic study (Section 3.1.3),
recommendations for assisting participants to implement the highest and
most inclusive category is seen as appropriate.
As a hierarchy, Category 3 is inclusive of activities typically connected
with the Teacher Generated Problems or Student Centred Experiences
categories. Examples include the teacher generated challenge to light a light
as part of an introduction into a student generated questions inquiry into
163
energy (T4), or structured library searches about insects as students strive to
answer their own questions about bugs (T6). The primary difference is that in
Category 3, questions generated by the students themselves play a far
greater role in the teachers’ thinking, planning and enactment of inquiry
teaching, rather than the supportive role students’ questions play when
categories 1 and 2 are the limit of teacher’s experience. By bringing Student
Generated Questions into the forefront of teacher thinking and planning it is
expected that teacher practice will draw nearer to emulating the best practice
advocated by expert teachers and teacher educators (National Curriculum
Board, 2009; National Research Council of America, 2000; Osborne &
Collins, 2003). For example, encouraging teachers to use Category 3 may be
seen as an important step towards students to develop the kinds of scientific
literacy advocated by in the literature where students are able to “identify
questions and draw evidence-based conclusions” (Goodrum et al., 2001, p.
ix).
Six specific recommendations are here proposed which could assist
teachers to implement Category 3. They are: (a) Making teachers aware of
the categories of conceptions uncovered in this study; (b) Making use of the
KWL technique in science education; (c) Challenging teacher epistemological
beliefs to allow the source of knowledge in science education to be evidence
and not just expert opinion, thus allowing students to be creators and not just
consumers of knowledge; (d) Using more appropriate terminology in the
classroom; (e) During inquiry units based on the 5E’s method, making special
effort to validate and explore student generated questions during the explore
and elaborate phases; (f) helping teachers see how Category 3 can be
successfully applied at all year levels.
The first way in which teachers could experience Category 3 inquiry
teaching more often is to make them aware of the outcome space as
presented in this study, highlighted with illustrative examples of teacher
practice and thinking. Making teachers aware of their own and other
teachers’ thinking can help them challenge their long term practices and
attending epistemological beliefs regarding science and inquiry teaching
(Porlán & Pozo, 2004). In a sense, by helping them experience variation in
ways to conceptualise the phenomenon, it is hoped they can begin to
164
challenge their own expectations and experience learning in this regard.
Naturally, research should be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of such
a claim.
Second, teachers should allow student questions to move more into
the focus of their curriculum and planning, which will also empower teachers
by improving student engagement in the science lessons (Windschitl, 2004).
One way this may hypothetically be achieved is to use the KWL technique
advocated by Primary Connections (Hackling et al., 2007) and other
professional development programs, and further research needs to be
undertaken to validate this claim. There appears to be a relation between
teacher experience of Category 3 and use of the KWL technique: Teachers
4,8,17 and 18 all mentioned the KWL technique in this study, all but teacher
17 expressing a Category 3 conception at least once.
During KWL technique, students answer the following question at the
beginning of a unit of work: “What do I know?”, then during the unit “What do
I want to know?”, then during and at the end of the unit “What have I learnt?”
One indication of this study is that good science teaching does make use of
student experiences and of teacher generated problems, but does so in the
context of helping students to ask and answer their own questions. The KWL
is one way in which more teachers may potentially experience Category 3
inquiry teaching.
Third, in line with many other studies of teacher epistemological
beliefs, teachers’ conceptions uncovered in this study do not match with the
literature regarding what is termed the source of knowledge in science in this
study. There appears among teachers in this study an underlying belief that
scientific knowledge is fixed, that science exists primarily as a body of
knowledge to be memorised. One implication from this study that may help
teachers to experience inquiry teaching as student generated questions
would be to help teachers understand science as a way of knowing as well
as a body of knowledge. Compared with previous categories, teachers in
Category 3 were beginning to relinquish the need to be all knowing and were
prepared to be co-learners with students. However, it was found that at no
point did student interpretation of data become the source of knowledge for
students or teachers.
165
This understanding would be achieved if students were encouraged
though inquiry teaching to be creators and not just consumers of knowledge.
For example, teachers could be encouraged to allow students to conclude on
the interpretation of data even if it contradicts formal understandings, and
present the formal interpretations as educated reasoning rather than divinely
appointed truth. This will have the result of making the correction of student
misconceptions a matter of evidence and discussion, rather than subjugation
and memorisation. By owning their own conclusions students are brought
into discussion (rather than compliance) with the ideas and conclusions of
scientists throughout history. Teachers should encourage student creation of
knowledge though analysis of the interpretation of data as it supports the
development of authentic scientific literacy in students.
Also, as teachers adopt Category 3 they allow themselves to become
co-learners with students, seeing their role no longer as the exclusive holder
of answers (see Section 4.4.2 ‘teachers role’ under dimensions of variation).
This will help teachers to bring student generated questions more into the
focus of their teaching as facilitators of student understanding. The message
of teacher educators is that science education is not just more exciting
experiments or making absorbing knowledge more fun (Hodson & Hodson,
1998). Science education is the creation of knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick &
Lederman, 2000). It is expected that teachers will be empowered as they
strive to teach students the strengths, limitations and actual processes
scientists use in the creation of knowledge – to convince students through
their own experiences that they too can be creators of scientific knowledge
and active participants in the scientific debates in society (Chinn & Malhotra,
2002).
Related to this point of helping students become creators of
knowledge, a fourth important recommendation from this study is that
teachers could make more appropriate use of scientific terminology in their
teaching. This recommendation may be implemented with the formal
understanding and therefore use of such teaching terms as open and
confirmation inquiries. Also, it may be helpful for teachers to begin to
discriminate scientific demonstrations of a concept from experiments where
the goal is to test an idea. This understanding may also be reflected in their
166
language use as they avoid calling every activity in science an experiment.
Teachers were found to hold alterative conceptions of the definition of the
word ‘experiment’ (see Section 5.3) in this study. The epistemological belief
inherent in the informal use of the word experiment to mean activity portrays
science in the classroom as an activity where scientific knowledge is
demonstrated and absorbed not where scientific knowledge is constructed
and rigorously tested.
Fifth, it was noted that the 5E’s approach, while engaging, might not
be sufficiently representative of authentic inquiry as it is practiced by some
teachers. This is especially pertinent in the Australian context as the
emerging National Curriculum intends to make extensive use of Primary
Connections, a professional development program that relies heavily on the
5E’s method (Hackling et al., 2007). One way in which the 5E’s method may
be improved towards more Category 3 inquiry might be if during the
Elaborate phase, students have the opportunity to ask and then later
research answers to their own questions, perhaps using such techniques as
the KWL mentioned previously. As is advised during the 5E’s method,
students should be encouraged to apply their knowledge to a problem that
might be of personal interest, and be allowed to play with equipment before
and afterwards, in order to help them express and explore the personal
questions they have regarding the content material. Asking and seeking
answers to student questions, even if no answer is immediately forthcoming,
should be seen as a more desirable outcome of science education than pure
content knowledge memorisation.
Finally, an important finding of this study was that teachers’
conceptions of inquiry teaching act somewhat independently of year level or
level of student understanding (4.1.5). In encountering professional
development and inservice training, some teachers may see Category 1 as
belonging to early childhood settings where students possess less
knowledge, and Category 3 as only possibly in settings where students have
greater knowledge such as upper year levels or even tertiary settings.
However, the ability to ask and answer one’s own questions should be
emphasised as possible at all year levels, indeed, even more so in the early
childhood setting where the majority of Category 3 examples from this study
167
are found. Category 3 does require greater scaffolding in order to help
students ask and answer their own questions than Category 1, yet even
preparatory aged children (4 to 6 year olds) engaged in the processes the
teacher employed. Certain kinds of Category 3 inquiries, such as testing for
viscosity or measuring the effectiveness of bubble gum, might be best left to
upper year levels after sufficient scaffolding in terms of necessary knowledge
has been applied. But it is strongly advocated that the general principal of
engaging children though asking and answering their own questions guide
teachers at any year level.
Conclusion to section
In conclusion, one significant finding in regards to the unity of the
indirect objects. Teachers are looking for students to have positive and
motivating experiences with science (engaged, encouraged, empowered).
With this aim in mind, it may be that teachers have less time and inclination
to focus on the content outcomes of science education during inquiry
teaching. Perhaps the Student Generated Question category can assist. If in
Category 3 students are answering their own questions and teachers really
are prepared to be co-learners with students; if expert sources are treated
more as evidence and not the final word on truth, then teachers may
experience a more inclusive conception of inquiry teaching. Seen this way,
even library research may potentially be a form of constructivist informed
inquiry, and not the gathering, memorisation and regurgitation of facts.
Perhaps by encouraging teachers to experience Category 3 more often, and
continuing the struggle to help teachers connect with the actual
epistemological understandings of modern science, the gap between the
teacher understanding of inquiry teaching and theoretically derived definitions
may be narrowed.
5.5.2 Recommendations for general education
The previous section dealt with suggestions for scaffolding teachers’
experience of Student Generated Questions inquiry. The following two
recommendations apply the findings of this study to general education in
regards to: (a) dimensions of variation in educational research; and (b) the
categories of description.
168
First, previous studies have mentioned the importance of using
dimensions of variation to understanding the nature of conceptions (Åkerlind,
2004), and that such dimensions may be more enduring than the
categorisation schemes of which they are a part (Samuelowicz & Bain,
1992). For example, the role of the teacher as a dimension of variation in
many studies has clearly outlived any individual categorisation scheme these
studies have presented. From this study, the role of student, role of teacher,
and the epistemological beliefs regarding source of knowledge are
dimensions of variation that are all mentioned in other studies. However, the
three main dimensions that make up the themes of the categories
themselves – purpose of student experiences, purpose of teacher generated
problems, and purpose of student generated experiences – are all new
dimensions in the literature, and are therefore worthy of further research to
uncover their relationship to other dimensions and influence on teacher
conceptions. The derivation of these new dimensions may be one of the most
important and unique contributions of this study. A recommendation is made
that these three new dimensions of variation be given far more attention in
future studies seeking to explore teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching,
even in non-science curricula.
Second, the primary aim of this study was to add to our theoretical
understanding of teacher knowledge by mapping teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching. One use of this understanding may be to inform preservice
and inservice instruction. Prosser et al. (1994) found that professional
development programs that focused on teaching strategies without regard to
the conceptions underlying those strategies were unlikely to be successful. A
major contribution of this study is to inform teacher educators with regards to
teachers’ potential responses to professional development, especially as new
innovations in education are contrasted against pre-existing conceptions
(Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Sandoval, 2005).
For example, if a teacher’s conception of inquiry teaching is that it is
about engaging students through interesting sensory experiences, efforts to
change teacher practice through professional development programs to more
student-centred authentic inquiry may fail. To such a teacher, inquiry
169
teaching is about interesting experiences, and all new activities promoted as
inquiry are seen in light of that conception. Thus new activities are judged
valuable if they promote student engagement, and not because they help
students learn how to ask and answer their own questions. Epistemologically,
such teachers may be expected to see the source of knowledge in science
education as themselves, and not students’ conclusions on their own
experiences. Another potential error of perception may include that if a
teacher is expecting that inquiry teaching is about providing student centred
experiences (Category 1), then they may be expected to use student
questions to highlight and engage students, rather than as an important tool
to guiding the entire teaching experience (Category 3).
Likewise, if a teacher conceives of inquiry teaching as essentially
giving students challenging problems, it may be expected that most teachers
will mould professional development initiatives to fit this conception rather
than actively confronting their perceptions and altering their conception of
inquiry teaching itself. For example, they may see a program of soliciting
student questions for exploring circuit work as part of a process that engages
students, rather than the focus that can guide their teaching. In Category 2,
the role of student questions is downgraded to indicating student
engagement rather than fulfilling the potential of directing student learning.
Also, epistemological beliefs regarding the source of knowledge may be
expected to be as found in this study, and not as envisioned by program
developers. While solving problems, teachers are expecting students to find
the correct answer, rather than helping students to make informed decisions
based on evidence. Knowledge is treated as coming from the teacher as
illustrated by the experiment, not from students concluding on the data, as
Hackling (2005) envisioned.
These difficulties are distinctly different to the challenges of
implementing inquiry teaching outlined in Section 2.3.5. With the situation of
non-implementation of inquiry teaching in schools, studies must look
elsewhere to explore reasons why the best educative methods are not being
used. This study has found that one potential area is that many teachers’
conceptions are not congruent with the most expansive way of experiencing
inquiry teaching. That is – they perceive inquiry teaching as being about
170
providing interesting experiences or challenging problems, not as a chance to
help students to ask and answer their own questions. While these
conceptions still have their place, this study indicates that inquiry teaching is
more than helping students to solve problems as is the focus during problem
based learning (Kanter, 2010), and more than helping students experience
science as per the discovery learning movement (Kowalczyk, 2003).
Pedagogical practices that hope to achieve the greatest outcomes for
students through inquiry teaching should look beyond motivating students
through interesting experiences, and beyond challenging them with teacher
generated problems, to actually scaffolding students in asking and answering
their own questions.
Conclusion to section
Having teachers experience the qualitatively different ways of
experiencing inquiry teaching uncovered in this study is expected to help
teachers to move towards a more student-centred, authentic inquiry outcome
for their students and themselves. Going beyond this to challenge teacher
epistemological beliefs regarding the source of knowledge may also assist
them in developing more informed notions of the nature of science and of
scientific inquiry during professional development opportunities. The
development of scientific literacy in students, a high priority for governments
worldwide, will only to benefit from these initiatives.
171
Chapter 6 Conclusion
In spite of having a long history in education, inquiry teaching in
science education is still a highly problematic issue in education today (Abd-
El-Khalick et al., 2004; Goodrum et al., 2001), notwithstanding its potential to
benefit student learning (Wynne et al., 2003). When teachers attempt to
develop and implement science lessons they are influenced by their own
conceptions or understandings of science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) and the
nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2009). This study has revealed
insights into the range of teacher conceptions by identifying three
approaches adopted by teachers in this context. These approaches
represent the ways teachers say they see their approach to teaching science
so as to engage students in inquiry. These were categorised using
There is a lot of discussion in education and curriculum documents
about inquiry learning. I am doing a study to find out about what perceptions
teachers have of teaching in ways that foster inquiry based learning in
science. There are no wrong answers here. I am predominantly interested in
exploring your ideas and experiences. I want you to feel that I am the learner
here and you the expert regarding your own practice, I will try to be like a
blank slate. I want you to do all the talking and I’ll do the listening. I just want
you to tell me about your experiences with inquiry, and dig down into your
understanding and practice of the what and why of inquiry in your classroom!
OK?
Do have any questions?
Well, can you tell me a bit about yourself as a teacher? (Who do you
teach, how long have you been teaching, what experiences led you to
teaching, have you any past experience with science as a profession?)
“Can you tell me about a recent teaching experience you have had in
which you feel you taught science through inquiry particularly well?”
Regarding a specific teaching experience:
Teacher role
Student role
Assessment
Goal
Outcomes
Cues
Teacher role: How did you go about teaching? Where and how did this
take place?
Student role: How did the students go about learning during the
teaching experience you just described?
Assessment: How did you know that the students had learnt
something? What was the role of assessment in your program?
176
Goals: What were you trying to teach? What did you want students to
learn? Why did you choose to do it that way?
Outcomes: How do you know if your approach is working? What do
you feel were the results of this approach? What did inquiry offer?
What is easy about inquiry science, what is difficult, what challenges
you in implementing an inquiry science program?
Cues:
When did you first hear about teaching science through inquiry?
What does it mean to teach science through inquiry?
Can you think of a time when you thought differently about what it
means to teaching science through inquiry?
Regarding inquiry learning: What is inquiry learning?
Complete this sentence “Inquiry learning is…”
Before we conclude, is there anything else you’d like to add?
177
Appendix C: Comparison of categories
Student Centred Experiences
Teacher Generated Problems
Student Generated Questions
Illustrative quote
T19 “…they’re finding things out for themselves and it’s more meaningful to them, I think. Like if we try and tell them something they may not remember it. But if they have done it themselves that learning is more valuable.” (Italics added).
T17: … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this problem. … “Well what are you going to do about it?”
T18 I mean to me inquiry learning is giving children the opportunities to find out new things, and to ask the right questions to learn about new things in a collaborative way, … where the children find out what it is that they want to know, and we give them the tools to be able to do that.
The how and what
How Provide experiences Provide Problems Provide guidance What – Direct object
Concepts, attitudes (skills)
Attitudes, Skills (concepts)
Skills (attitudes, concepts)
What – Indirect object
To engage students To encourage students
To empower students
Structure of awareness
Referential aspect (meaning)
Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students
Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems for students
Meaning 3: Inquiry teaching is experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions
Inquiry must move beyond simply experiencing content outcomes. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context a teachers provide a challenging problem.
Most inclusive definition. Also, students must be asking the questions to be answered, though teachers may direct them.
178
Experience centred category
Problem centred category
Question centred category
Dimensions of variation
Role of the teacher
Knower, but not teller Feigning ignorance Not knowing, willing to learn
Role of the student
Lowest – students did not choose content or activities, but were still very active participants.
Higher – students could now propose some content by suggesting solutions. Considered engaged participants.
Highest – students had a large say in content through selection of questions to be answers, and may have helped choose topic. Considered guided inquirers
Purpose of student experiences
Focal - directed learning and teaching experience
Supportive - one way teachers used to help students solve problems
Supportive - one way teachers used to help answer student questions
Purpose of Teacher generated problems
Supportive - were one way teachers may have used to help students experience content
Focal - Teacher Generated Problems used to structure teaching
Supportive - were one way teachers may have used to answer student questions
Role of Student generated questions
Supportive - helped students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Supportive - help students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Focal - directed learning and teaching experience for students and teachers
Epistemological belief - Source of Knowledge
The teacher (via student experiences)
The teacher (via student experiences)
An expert (usually teacher, but not always. Correctly performed experiments would yield expected results.)
179
Appendix D: Sample personal profile
Personal profile – Lux bubbles, bad apples, peas, mysterious
insects, smarties, snakes, garden worms, volanco’s and sunflowers.
Experienced teachers of preparatory year.
Highlights (quotes are representative of general themes carried on throughout the interview. Interviewer thoughts are included in parenthesis. This is not the official analysis, but more of a ‘personal profile’.) Inquiry is Engaging (fun) “If you can’t engage a child and make something fun and interesting, I don’t feel like I’m doing my job. So every activity, whatever we do, it has to be engaging. And I suppose that’s the main word – you’ve got to be able to engage this age group.” Hands on “And it’s exciting, just to see the children engage in those sorts of things, because it is hands on. In prep, how we look at inquiry based science teaching is hands on, and that’s what we do with them. (time mark11:59)” Student selection of topic (somewhat) – but note it was frequently employed! “So you’ve got all these things, and when you’ve got a class of 28 children which I have this year, all wanting to do something different, you are taking all those things/ they are all on individual pathways, they’re all doing something different. But also you’ve got to bring them back into “ok, we all as a group want to learn about something”. So we put all those sort of ideas up on the board and then we go through it with them, saying “ok, well, which would be the best area for us to learn as a whole class?” “ Science ‘doesn’t always work’ (tried to make craft materials out of apples but instead of dry and wrinkly, they ended up wet, swollen, and very very smelly. Used it to teach the children that ‘things don’t always work out’) “It’s either going to work or its not. And they’re going to learn through life not everything happens the way you might predict it might happen. And that’s, I think, where science sort of fits in, because, yeah, there might be lots of activities that when you do this, and you do this [thumps table] and you add this chemical and that chemical and you get the perfect result, but I think you don’t always get a perfect result in life anyway. So if they might add too much water or too much lux flakes or whatever they’re not going to get that result, so then they have to go back and work out ‘ok, why didn’t it work, what can we do?” and those children, even though they’re prep children can see that. They can / they don’t just walk away from it. If they find it interesting enough they will go “ohhh.” And not everything works and that’s how I teach them, because I lot of things that I’ve done don’t.”
180
Which also indicates that science is perceived as a set of activities, not as ideas to be tested and explored, or as a ‘way of knowing’. J Can you give me an example of when you’ve explored a students interest… T3 Example of that and this is, hmm, it’s probably not science based J That’s ok T3 Yeah, but I’ll just show you. For example, these were some of our children, um, this amazing insect flew onto our building one day. Now I have never seen it before, I don’t even know what it is. (They went on to explore it, take pictures, ask experts, and even check on the internet. The bug was not identified, but it is even more fascinating that the whole event was not perceived as ‘science’ – though I suspect she would have noticed if I’d mentioned it to her.) Teaching tactic – uses music “And then with all those songs you then bring in all those songs ‘feather, fur and fins’ and you jump off into another tangent.” Students are at different levels “So they don’t all move together. “ One goal of inquiry is to teach them to organise equipment, and to be able to set up some self directed activities independently. “We tried to get the preschool children last year by the end of the year, we had a whole heap of this sort of stuff “we want to do the pea activity.” So we’d have all these things ready for them, and then they’d come over and say “We’ll we want to do this activity or we want to do a different one” (Isn’t that interesting! I’ve never had a teacher mention this as a goal. She allowed students to return to the experiment to re-experience it at any time) Solving problems (answering questions) is inquiry based learning “So those sorts of things to me are inquiry based learning. Because they had to learn “OK, who is going to get the weeds out of the garden, who is going to look after it, who is going to water it?” This year, and even last year, “OK, we’re going into a drought. We can’t just go and get the hose, so we need to bucket it down there. We need to only use so much a day. And do we need to water everyday.” So all those sorts of questions the children then have to work out what they’re gonna do” (sounds more like solving problems, which is only a part of inquiry learning to me.) It’s all inquiry “So, um, on that topic, can you think of a time when you thought differently about what it means to teach science through inquiry? As in, has your opinion changed? T3 No, I don’t think it has. Whether I knew what it was called before, to what I’m doing, to me, especially in early childhood what we’re teaching is inquiry based because the children are engaging either through their own ideas, or through what we think might fit in to their unit of learning.”
181
What isn’t inquiry? J So what’s not inquiry? T3 That’s a really good one! When they sit there and they don’t want to engage?! [laughter] When I don’t want to do a science lesson! [laughs] “Mothering” the children (uses the terms ‘my kids’) “Because I’m like mother hen to everyone of them. I’m actually, y’know, they come in and call me mum [laughter].“ (representative of a high level of personal attachment to the students?) In summary Teacher has a very high emphasis on student selection of topic. However, there is much more direction in terms of content and outcomes expected. Perhaps the content was adaptable to any topic? For example; use of materials, safety (not explicitly), science ‘not everything works’, difference between (shapes, textures, kinds of animals), learning to set up an experiment independently. These ‘content’ areas are general enough for most any topic. “J So just to finish off, what do you like about inquiry based learning in science? T3 I think it just makes the children more responsible, it gives them a direction of their own learning, so they might decide what they’re going to do. It gives them direction, makes them a little bit more responsible. And then how they tackle it, and what they understand, and what they learn out of it. It could be fantastic or it couldn’t be.”
182
183
References
AAAS. (2009). Science, a process approach (Publication. Retrieved 5th
March 2010: http://archives.aaas.org/about/index.php?c_id=5)
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive
training on preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of
science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-
2184.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Baujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-
Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004).
Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science
Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers'
conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
Abruscato, J. (2001). Teaching children science: A discovery approach. (5th
ed.). USA: Allan and Bacon.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour (2nd ed.). Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Åkerlind, G. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching.
Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363-375.
Åkerlind, G. (2005a). Academic growth and development – how do university