Exploring Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Understandingof the Essential Features of Inquiry-Based Science TeachingUsing Evidence-Based Reflection

Eulsun Seung & Soonhye Park & Jinhong Jung

Published online: 6 December 2013# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This study explored preservice elementary teachers' and their mentors'understanding of the essential features of inquiry-based teaching through the use ofevidence-based reflection. The web-based video analysis tool (VAT) system was used tosupport preservice teachers' and mentors' evidence-based reflection during field experiences.Major data sources included VAT reflections and individual interviews. Data analysisindicated that the preservice teachers had been involved in various activities designed tosupport their understanding of inquiry features in a science methods class; they did notimplement all of the features in their actual teaching. Both preservice teachers and mentorshad difficulty connecting appropriate inquiry features to each teaching episode, whichindicates their lack of understanding of inquiry. Both the preservice teachers and mentorshad different levels of understanding for each feature. That is, they tended to understandcertain features better than others. They interpreted each feature of inquiry-based scienceteaching too broadly. They also either had a teacher-centered view or tended to focus onissues unrelated to science teaching.

Keywords Essential features of inquiry.Video analysis tool . Preservice elementary teachers .

Inquiry . Evidence-based reflection

Introduction

Current science education reform efforts highlight the importance of encouraging students toconstruct their own knowledge through engaging in higher-level thinking and problem

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529DOI 10.1007/s11165-013-9390-x

E. Seung (*)Center for Science Education, Indiana State University, 600 Chestnut St, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USAe-mail: eulsun.seung@indstate.edu

S. ParkDepartment of Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USAe-mail: soonhye-park@uiowa.edu

J. JungDepartment of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USAe-mail: jjung@niu.edu

solving, and to appreciate the nature of science through engaging in opportunities toexperience how science is actually conducted (American Association for the Advancementof Science 1993; National Research Council 1996, 2000, 2012). In order to attain thesegoals, the recently released framework for K-12 science education in the U.S. (NationalResearch Council 2012) suggests that students engage in scientific practices critical toinquiry which is “extensively referred to in previous standards documents” (p. 19). TheNational Science Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council 1996) advocateinquiry as the central strategy for science teaching, with the goal of developing students intoscientifically literate citizens. In the midst of this reform movement, science teachers’responsibility to implement inquiry-based teaching has been emphasized, given thecentrality of teachers in educational processes and student learning (Duschl et al. 2006;National Research Council 1996). However, much research has reported that scienceteachers have not widely adopted inquiry-based teaching (Roehrig and Luft 2004; Welchet al. 1981).

Research indicates that teachers’ knowledge about inquiry-based science teaching is themost significant factor that determines their implementation levels of inquiry-basedinstruction (Rop 2002; van Driel et al. 2001). It is reported, however, that many scienceteachers have limited knowledge about inquiry-based teaching; this limited knowledgeprevents them from successfully implementing the approach (Crawford 2000; Kang et al.2008; Keys and Kennedy 1999; Wallace and Kang 2004; Windschitl 2004). This findingcalls for specific guidelines that enable teachers to better understand what inquiry-basedteaching is and how to implement it (Beerer and Bodzin 2004; Kang et al. 2008). In thisregard, the NSES delineated inquiry-based teaching in terms of its five essential features: (1)learner engages in scientifically oriented questions, (2) learner gives priority to evidence inresponding to questions, (3) learner formulates explanations from evidence, (4) learnerconnects explanations to scientific knowledge, and (5) learner communicates and justifiesexplanations (National Research Council 2000, p.29). Since then, these features have beenwidely used as a framework to help teachers understand and enact inquiry-based instructionin their classrooms (Asay and Orgill 2010; Crawford 2000; Crawford et al. 2005; Trumbullet al. 2005).

While the importance of inquiry is consistent throughout previous reform documents,inquiry is also still emphasized in the new framework for K-12 science education (NationalResearch Council 2012), which will serve as the foundation for new science educationstandards. Based on the assumption that current K-12 science education “does not providestudents with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually done” (NationalResearch Council 2012, p.1), the new framework identifies one of the main goals as “toensure that all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science”(National Research Council 2012, p.1). To this end, the new framework underscoresstudents’ engagement in scientific practices which are fundamentally compatible with theNSES’s five essential features of inquiry.

While a great number of studies have examined inquiry-based teaching and learning, fewstudies have directly focused on the five essential features (e.g., Asay and Orgill 2010; Beerer andBodzin 2004; Kang et al. 2008). Furthermore, most of those studies utilized distal data such asliterature and classroom scenarioswithout collecting data from actual teaching contexts (Asay andOrgill 2010; Kang et al. 2008; Rop 2002; van Driel et al. 2001). Consequently, little is knownabout the ways in which science teachers understand the essential features of inquiry instructionand how they implement these features in actual teaching contexts. By understanding how scienceteachers understand and use the features, science teacher educators can design better experiencesto improve science teachers’ capability of implementing the features.With this in mind, this study

508 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

explored how elementary preservice teachers understand and implement the essential features ofinquiry-based teaching during their field experiences.

Recently, evidence-based reflection has been proposed as an effective tool for preserviceteachers to close the gap between theory and practice during their field experiences throughself-reflection and collaborative reflection with their mentors (Bryan et al. 2008; Bryan andRecesso 2006). Evidence-based reflection requires mentors and preservice teachers to collectevidence from their teaching practice to support their accomplishment of various teachinggoals (Koballa et al. 2005). In this study, preservice teachers and their mentors were engagedin evidence-based reflections by using a web-based video analysis tool (VAT) to supportpreservice teachers’ understanding of inquiry. Although many researchers are in agreementabout the effectiveness of evidence-based reflection in mentoring, few studies haveexamined the nature of the evidence that teachers use to rationalize their instructionaldecisions while reflecting on their teaching practice. In this regard, this study explored bothpreservice elementary teachers’ and their mentors’ use of evidence while reflecting onteaching practice in terms of the essential features of inquiry instruction. The researchquestions that guided this study were:

1. What features of inquiry-based science teaching do preservice teachers select asevidence of their inquiry instruction when they reflect on their teaching practice?

2. How does the preservice teachers’ evidence selection differ from that of their mentors?3. What tendencies do the preservice teachers and mentors have in selecting the features of

inquiry-based teaching?

Literature Review

Inquiry and Five Essential Features

NSES defined inquiry in two ways: the processes scientists use to study the natural worldand propose explanations, and the activities students engage in to develop scientificknowledge and to model the processes that scientists use (National Research Council1996). Inquiry provides students with the opportunity to learn scientific practices, whichimproves their understanding about what science means and what scientists do, increasestheir motivation to learn science, and fosters positive attitudes towards science (Brown 2000;National Research Council 2001). By engaging in inquiry, they also develop science processskills and higher order thinking skills, as well as scientific content knowledge (Brown 2000;National Research Council 2000; Schneider et al. 2002).

Although science education communities agree upon the critical role of science teachers inimplementing inquiry-based approaches (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; Anderson 2002;Crawford 1997, 2000; Keys and Bryan 2001), much research has reported that scienceteachers—especially beginning teachers—experience difficulty in planning and implementinginquiry-based science lessons (Adams and Krockover 1997; Hashweh 2005). Teachersperceived a number of barriers while implementing inquiry in their classrooms; these barriersincluded management difficulties, lack of equipment, pressure to cover mandated curriculum,lack of confidence in their students’ ability to carry out inquiry, etc. (Crawford 1997; Cronin-Jones 1991; Keys and Bryan 2001; Keys and Kennedy 1999; Wallace and Kang 2004). Thesechallenges that teachers encounter in implementing inquiry decrease the amount and quality ofinquiry-based teaching far below desired levels (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; Crawford 2000;Lee and Songer 2003; Wallace and Kang 2004; Welch et al. 1981).

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 509

Based on the assumption that teachers’ practices are closely related to their knowledgeand beliefs, many studies have examined how science teachers conceptualize inquiry andhow their conceptions of inquiry are translated into teaching practice (Crawford 2000; Kanget al. 2008; Keys and Kennedy 1999; Wallace and Kang 2004; Windschitl 2004). A greatnumber of studies have reported that many science teachers do not fully understand thenature of inquiry due to their lack of inquiry experience and understanding of the nature ofscience (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; Brickhouse 1990; Gallagher 1991; Kang and Wallace2005; Supovitz and Turner 2000; Trumbull et al. 2005; Windschitl 2002). Teachers also havedifferent levels of knowledge about classroom inquiry (Crawford 2000; Wallace and Kang2004).

In order to improve teachers’ understanding of inquiry and further support theirimplementation of inquiry instruction, researchers have suggested a need for “operationalmodels” (Crawford 1997, p. 16) that provide specific guidelines for modeling and evaluatinginquiry-based teaching (Beerer and Bodzin 2004; Kang et al. 2008). NSES, one of the mainreform documents, elaborated the definition of classroom inquiry by delineating fiveessential features.

The main ideas of the five essential features are mirrored in the newly establishedframework (National Research Council 2012). The new framework consists of threedimensions: Scientific and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and DisciplinaryCore Ideas. The term “practices” in the new framework is used to “better specify what ismeant by inquiry in science” (p.30) by emphasizing directly experiencing scientificpractices. The term “practices” includes both knowledge and skills which are required forstudents to engage in scientific inquiry (National Research Council 2012). Thus, “thelearning experiences provided for students should engage them with fundamental questionsabout the world and with how scientists have investigated and found answers to thosequestions” (National Research Council 2012, p.9). In order to accomplish this goal, the newframework suggests eight practices which are essential for learning K-12 science andengineering. The following table presents the matching nature of the five essential featuresand the eight practices (Table 1).

Table 1 Comparison of NSES features and new framework practices

NSES features Practices in the new framework

Learner engages in scientific orientedquestions

Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (forengineering)

Learner gives priority to evidence inresponding to questions

Developing and using models

Planning and carrying out investigations

Analyzing and interpreting data

Using mathematics and computational thinking

Learner formulates explanations fromevidence

Developing and using models

Using mathematics and computational thinking

Constructing explanations (for science) and designingsolutions (for engineering)

Learner connects explanations to scientificknowledge

Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Learner communicates and justifiesexplanations

Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Engaging in argument from evidence

510 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

While science educators have widely accepted NSES’ five features of inquiry as scaffoldingguidelines for teachers to understand and enact inquiry-oriented methods in their classroom (Asayand Orgill 2010; Crawford 2000; Crawford et al. 2005; Trumbull et al. 2005), only a few studieshave actually been conducted to explore science teachers’ understanding of these five inquiryfeatures. For example, Asay and Orgill (2010)) explored how the five essential features of inquiryinstruction emerged in articles from The Science Teacher published by the US National ScienceTeachers Association over a 10-year period. They concluded that the feature of “learner givespriority to evidence in responding to questions” was significantly more prominent in the articlesthan were the other four features. Kang et al. (2008) assessed secondary science teachers’conceptions of inquiry by using interviews, discussions, and written responses to teachingscenarios. It appeared that two features, “learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge”and “learner communicates and justifies explanations,” were rarely used when the teachersexpressed their ideas of classroom inquiry. In this regard, the study indicated that teachers needto extend their view of inquiry to include connecting student activities to developing scientificknowledge and communicating through argumentation. Although Kang et al.’s study is significantin that it is one of the few empirical studies on the five features, it does not provide a clear picture ofhow inquiry is being practiced in classroom contexts due to the lack of data sources collected fromactual classroom contexts, as the authors acknowledged. Meanwhile, Beerer and Bodzin (2004))developed a rubric called “Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR)” as an observational measure ofclassroom inquiry based on the NSES’ essential features of inquiry. They asserted that the STIRcan be an effective observation tool, but they did not conduct further empirical studies using thistool to evaluate teachers’ classroom inquiry.

Evidence-Based Reflection in the Mentoring Context

In their teacher preparation programs, preservice teachers have the opportunity to learn varioustheoretical foundations that underlie inquiry-based science teaching. However, due to lack ofexperience, they are often unable to implement these theories when they begin to teach in realschool settings (Bryan and Abell 1999; Calderhead 1988; Schmidt and Datnow 2005; Smith andSoutherland 2007). To reduce the gap between theory and practice, field experiences have beenemphasized as an important starting point for learning to teach in teacher education programs.Despite this emphasis, many reports on the effect of field experiences on teaching practice havenot presented optimistic results (Abell 2006; Calderhead 1988). Calderhead (1988) insisted thatstudent teachers feel like guests in the domain of their mentor teachers and have little opportunityto develop their own teaching styles. Merely imitating mentor teachers cannot give preserviceteachers the opportunity to develop their own professional knowledge for teaching. The search fora solution to these problems has resulted in a new paradigm for field experiences in whichreflective practice is the basic principle. Reflective practice, as a main component of the fieldexperience, aims for preservice teachers to reflect on their teaching as a means of directing theirown growth and development in the teaching profession (Handal and Lauvas 1987).

Evidence-based reflection has been suggested as an effective tool that preservice teacherscan use to identify progress towards expected outcomes and learn through reasoning withevidence of practice (Bryan et al. 2008). The selection of appropriate evidence and theexplanation of the relationship between the evidence and teaching practice are significantcomponents of evidence-based reflection. In this study, the web-based VAT system was usedto support preservice teachers’ evidence-based reflection in terms of inquiry-based scienceteaching during their field experiences. With the VAT system, lessons were recorded withvideo cameras and uploaded to a remote server (http://videoanalysistool.com). The storeddata were reviewed and analyzed by the preservice teachers and their mentors. Preservice

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 511

teachers and mentors defined and evaluated teaching practices through pre-determined“lenses” already set up in the VAT system. In this study, essential features of inquiry-based teaching were provided as lenses through which preservice teachers, and their mentorswere asked to reflect on preservice teachers’ teaching practice.

Although many researchers are in agreement about the importance of evidence-basedreflection (Bryan and Recesso 2006; Shepherd et al. 2007), few studies have exploredpreservice teachers’ use of evidence in the context of mentoring. Also, few studies havebeen conducted to explore preservice teachers’ reflective practice regarding the essentialfeatures of inquiry in the classroom context. In this regard, this study explored preserviceelementary teachers’ and their mentors’ use of evidence to reflect on teaching practice interms of the essential features of inquiry instruction.

Methods

Research Design and Context

This study employed a “basic qualitative study design” (Merriam 1998, p. 11) using qualitativedata as a primary data source. However, the data were analyzed using both qualitative andquantitative analysis approaches. The results from the quantitative analysis were used either toelaborate upon or triangulate with those from the qualitative analysis. This study was conductedin the context of an elementary science teaching methods course in a Midwestern university inthe United States. The purpose of the course was to discuss and explore current issues andunderstandings about the science education reform movement. Thus, the course content wasdesigned mainly to help preservice elementary teachers develop the knowledge, skills, anddispositions necessary to implement inquiry-based, developmentally appropriate sciencelessons in their future K-6 classrooms. In particular, NSES’ five features of inquiry wereintroduced and discussed in depth throughout the entire semester when appropriate andrelevant. When the preservice elementary teachers participated in group discussions on varioustopics regarding theories of inquiry and strategies for science teaching, they were asked todiscuss what essential features of inquiry are, and what the features mean based on their readingof the NSES’ five features of inquiry (National Research Council 2000). In addition, theessential features of inquiry were continuously covered throughout the semester whenappropriate. For example, when the instructor introduced the 5Es model (Bybee et al. 2006)to the class, the preservice teachers were asked to think about how the essential features ofinquiry could be included in each phase of the 5Es model. Moreover, they watched a video caseof an exemplary elementary science class and read case stories written by teachers or teachereducators based on dilemmas they experienced while teaching science at the elementary level.When the preservice teachers reflected on these cases, they were asked to find essential featuresof inquiry from the science classes in each case.

The methods course, combined with other content methods courses in social studies,mathematics, and reading education, was a part of a course block. Throughout the semester,the elementary preservice teachers were required to attend campus classes and fieldexperiences. During 5 weeks of the field experience, the preservice teachers were scheduledto teach science for a week (i.e., 5 days). Before the science teaching days, the preserviceteachers were asked to develop an inquiry-based unit consisting of five science lessons as anassignment for the science teaching methods course. After this course block, elementarypreservice teachers are required to do one semester of student teaching to complete theelementary education program.

512 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

Participants

The participants for this study were seven preservice teachers who were enrolled in theelementary science methods course and their mentors during field experiences. Ninepreservice teachers enrolled in the elementary science methods course during the semesterin which this study was conducted, and seven preservice teachers agreed to participate inthe study. Each preservice teacher who agreed to participate was assigned a differentmentor who had also agreed to participate, so that seven mentor–mentee pairsparticipated in the study. All seven preservice teachers were seniors (age 21–24 years).Among the seven preservice teachers, one was male while the other six were female. Allseven mentors were female, and each had between 7 and 23 years of teachingexperience.

Data Collection

Main data sources included the participants’ written reflections collected via a web-basedVAT and individual interviews. For the VAT reflection, the preservice teachers videotapedtheir teaching of science lessons using a hard disk drive camcorder, which was set up at theback of the classroom so as not to interrupt the class. Due to scheduling conflicts, twopreservice teachers taught only four lessons, while the other five taught five lessons. Thus,the total number of lessons used for the VAT reflection was 33.

After teaching, each preservice teacher’s videotaped classes were uploaded to his orher VAT account and his or her mentor’s account (http://videoanalysistool.com). Whilethe preservice teachers were watching the video of their lessons, they created videoclips by selecting start time and end times that included teaching episodes they wantedto reflect on. After creating the video clips, the preservice teachers recorded writtenreflections on each episode in the VAT system. Using their own accounts, the mentorsalso separately generated clips from their mentees’ videos and recorded comments foreach episode. The preservice teachers were allowed to read their mentors’ writtenreflections after they finished their own.

The preservice teachers and mentors were asked to select at least 25 clips from fivelessons that reflected any features of inquiry-based science teaching. The length of the clipsvaried from 28.0 s to 32.4 min depending on context or the type of inquiry feature thatparticipants wanted to present. To facilitate their evidence-based reflection, six features ofinquiry-based teaching were provided in the VAT system as scaffolding lenses on which theirreflections focused. The six features of inquiry are summarized in Table 2. The six features

Table 2 Features of inquiry-based science teaching

Inquiryfeatures

This episode represents that

F1(SQ) Learners are engaged by Scientifically oriented Questions.

F2(EP) Learners are encouraged to participate in their own ExPloration to collect/analyze evidence.

F3(EX) Learners formulate EXplanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions.

F4(SE) Learners evaluate their explanations in light of Scientific Explanations.

F5(CJ) Learners Communicate and Justify their proposed explanations.

F6(DA) Learners are evaluated by various Diagnostic Assessments throughout the lesson.

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 513

consisted of the NSES five essential features of inquiry-based science teaching (NationalResearch Council 2000) and an additional feature related to diagnostic assessment (i.e.,F6(DA)). For F2(EP), we elaborated upon the second feature of NSES (i.e., Learner givespriority to evidence in responding to questions) to “Learners are encouraged to participatein their own exploration to collect/analyze evidence.” We included the process of studentinvestigation from which they derive evidence to answer the scientifically orientedquestions, which must be a critical feature of inquiry. F6(DA), the additional feature,was included because the NSES features do not concern assessment, even though the roleand methods of assessment in an inquiry-based science lesson differ from those used intraditional teacher-centered classrooms (Llewellyn 2007). The purposes of the assessmentin inquiry-based lessons are more varied than the assessment methods used in teacher-centered lessons and include more diagnostic aspects for probing students’ priorknowledge, assessing student progress throughout the lesson, challenging studentthinking, etc. (Llewellyn 2007). Hence, in the inquiry science lessons, teachers arerequired to use various alternative methods and open-ended, thought-provoking questionsthroughout the lesson, not just objective multiple choice questions at the end of thelesson.

After selecting each episode, the participants were asked to choose which features ofinquiry were well reflected in the episode and to respond to two guiding questionsprovided in the VAT system: (1) Briefly describe what is happening in your selectedepisode, and (2) Explain why you chose this episode and features of inquiry. They wereallowed to choose more than one inquiry feature per episode. They were also allowed toreflect on any episode without choosing any inquiry features if they could not find anyfeatures directly related to the episode but still wanted to write about it in relation toissues other than inquiry.

Right after the semester ended, 1-h interviews were conducted with individual preserviceteachers and mentors; they were asked about their written reflections, which required moreclarification. The purpose of the interview was to explore participants’ tendencies whenconnecting features of inquiry to each episode. Thus, the main interview questions wereabout why they selected the specific features of inquiry for each episode. We focused moreon the episodes in which the participants did not connect appropriate features. All interviewswere audio-taped and transcribed.

Data Analysis

We first looked at individual preservice teachers’ VAT reflections and counted the number ofepisodes created and the number of each inquiry feature selected by the preservice teachersfor each lesson. Once the counting was done, the validity of each connection betweenepisode and inquiry feature(s)—whether a particular episode represented the selectedfeature(s)—was evaluated by two independent researchers using a pre-established set ofcriteria (for descriptions of and evaluation criteria for each feature, see Appendix). If aparticular episode exemplified the selected feature, the connection between the episode andthe feature was labeled as “well-connected”; if the episode did not exemplify the selectedfeature, it was labeled as “misconnected.” The same analysis procedures were applied tomentors’ reflections on their mentees’ teaching practices. Two researchers evaluated anentire set of the data separately, and any discrepancies were discussed until they reachedagreement. The initial inter-rater agreement was 81.8 %. When the evaluation of theconnections was completed, results from preservice teachers’ reflections were comparedwith those from mentors.

514 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

We analyzed the participants’ written VAT reflections and interviews to find thetendencies that emerged when they misconnected or did not connect features of inquiry tothe episodes.

The participants’ written VAT reflections and interview data were analyzed using theconstant comparative method (Strauss and Corbin 1990) to find differences and similaritiesin understanding of the inquiry features between preservice teachers and mentors. We alsoidentified the tendencies that emerged when the participants connected features of inquiry tothe episodes.

Findings

Evidence Selected for Reflection

The total number of episodes the preservice teachers and their mentors selected from the 33lessons was 162 and 147, respectively. Among these episodes, the preservice teachersconnected 130 (80.3 %) episodes to the features of inquiry, while their mentors connected92 episodes (62.6 %) to the features of inquiry; the preservice teachers tended to connectmore features of inquiry to their episodes than their mentors. The total number of the inquiryfeatures the preservice teachers and mentors selected for their episodes was 265 and 152,respectively. Since the participants were allowed to choose more than one feature perepisode, the number of features (i.e., 265, 152) was greater than the number of episodes(i.e., 162, 147) (see Table 3).

Table 4 shows the number of episodes to which the preservice teachers and their mentorsconnected each feature. For all features, the preservice teachers connected more episodesthan their mentors. For example, the preservice teachers connected F1(SQ) to 49 episodes(30.2 %) among 162 episodes, while their mentors connected F1(SQ) to 26 episodes(17.7 %) among 147 episodes. That is, the preservice teachers tended to find more episodesto connect with each feature than their mentors. Along with the results from Table 3, thistable indicates that the preservice teachers tended to perceive that their lessons were moreinquiry-based than their mentors did.

An analysis of the 162 episodes chosen by the preservice teachers revealed that amongthe six features of inquiry-based science teaching, the three most frequently connectedfeatures were F1(SQ), F2(EP), and F6(DA), while F3(EX), F4(SE), and F5(CJ) wereselected more rarely. An analysis of the 147 episodes chosen by the mentors showed thesame tendency, even though the mentors connected fewer features to each episode. Thisresult indicates that even though the preservice teachers had opportunities to discuss thefeatures of inquiry-based science teaching in the science methods class, they did notimplement all of the features in their actual teaching (Table 4).

Table 3 Total number of episodesand features Preservice Mentors

No. of lessons 33 33

No. of episodes 162 147

No. of episodes with features 130 (80.3 %) 92 (62.6 %)

No. of episodes without features 32 (19.7 %) 55 (37.4 %)

No. of features 265 152

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 515

Evaluation of Evidence Selected for Reflection

Table 5 presents the results of evaluation for each connection between feature and episode.The researchers independently evaluated whether each feature of inquiry was reasonablyconnected to the coupled episode and categorized the connection into one of two levels:well-connected or misconnected. When the episode was evaluated as representing theconnected feature well, the connection between the feature and episode was assigned tothe “well-connected” group; other cases were assigned to the “misconnected” group.

Among 265 feature-episode connections made by preservice teachers, 170 (64.2 %)connections were categorized as “well-connected”; among 153 connections made by mentors,97 (63.4%)were categorized as “well-connected.”This result suggests that neither the preserviceteachers nor the mentor teachers fully understood the meaning of each feature of inquiry, so thatin many cases, they could not connect feature and episode appropriately. Among six features ofinquiry, both the preservice and mentor teachers most frequently misconnected F4(SE) (learners

Table 5 Evaluation of connection between feature and episode

Preservice Mentors

Inquiry features No. (%) ofconnections

No. (%) ofwell

No. (%) ofmis

No. (%) ofconnections

No. (%) ofwell

No. (5) ofmis

F1(SQ) 49(100) 39 (79.6) 10 (20.4) 26 (100) 17 (65.4) 9 (34.6)

F2(EP) 73 (100) 47 (64.4) 26 (35.6) 46 (100) 24 (52.2) 22 (47.8)

F3(EX) 28 (100) 16 (57.1) 12 (42.9) 11 (100) 6 (54.5) 5 (45.5)

F4(SE) 18 (100) 4 (22.2) 14 (77.8) 12 (100) 2 (16.7) 10 (83.3)

F5(CJ) 34 (100) 13 (38.2) 21 (61.8) 16 (100) 7 (43.8) 9 (56.3)

F6(DA) 63 (100) 51 (81.0) 12 (19.0) 41 (100) 41 (100) 0 (0)

Total no. ofconnections

265 (100) 170 (64.2) 95 (35.8) 153 (100) 97 (63.4) 55 (35.9)

well well-connected lens, mis misconnected lens

Table 4 Number (%) of episodes connected to each feature

Inquiry features No. of episodes connected to eachfeature

Preservice (total162 eps.)

Mentors (total147 eps.)

F1(SQ) Learners are engaged by Scientifically oriented Questions 49 (30.2 %) 26 (17.7 %)

F2(EP) Learners are encouraged to participate in their ownExPloration to collect/analyze evidence.

73 (45.1 %) 46 (31.3 %)

F3(EX) Learners formulate EXplanations from evidence to addressscientifically oriented questions.

28 (17.3 %) 11 (7.5 %)

F4(SE) Learners evaluate their explanations in light of ScientificExplanations

18 (11.1 %) 12 (8.2 %)

F5(CJ) Learners Communicate and Justify their proposedexplanations

34 (21.0 %) 16 (10.9 %)

F6(DA) Learners are evaluated by various Diagnostic Assessmentsthroughout the lesson.

63 (38.9 %) 41 (27.9 %)

516 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

evaluate their explanations in light of scientific explanations) and F5(CJ) (learners communicateand justify their proposed explanations). For preservice teachers, only 4 (22.2 %) among 18connections of F4(SE) and 13 (38.2 %) among 34 connections of F5(CJ) were categorized as“well-connected.” For mentors, only 2 (16.7 %) among 12 connections of F4(SE) and 7 (43.8 %)among 16 connections of F5(CJ) were categorized as “well-connected.” Both the preserviceteachers and mentors most frequently connected F1(SQ) (learners are engaged by scientificallyoriented questions) and F6(DA) (learners are evaluated by various diagnostic assessmentsthroughout the lesson) well (preservice teachers: 79.6 %, 81.0 %; mentors. 65.4 %, 100 %).This result shows that the preservice teachers and mentors had different levels of understandingfor each feature. That is, they tended to understand certain features better than others.

In conclusion, the seven preservice teachers rarely connected F3(EX), F4(SE), and F5(CJ) to the episodes (see Table 4). Even when they connected these features, most of theconnections were evaluated as misconnected. That is, among the six features of inquiry, thepreservice teachers had difficulty in understanding these three features and failed to practicethese three features in their lessons. Thus, these three features need to be discussed more inmethods courses in relation to specific teaching examples in order to improve preserviceteachers’ understanding. For the seven mentors, F3(EX), F4(SE), and F5(CJ) were rarelyconnected to the episodes, but F4(SE) and F5(CJ) were the most frequently misconnected.

For F1(SQ), F2(EP), F3(EX), and F4(SE), the percentage of misconnections made by thementors was higher than the percentage made by the preservice teachers. In addition, thementors tended to connect fewer inquiry features to the episodes than their mentees (seeTable 4), which could imply that the mentors lacked interest in and understanding of eachfeature of inquiry-based science teaching.

Tendencies Appearing when Participants Misconnected

We analyzed the participants’ written VAT reflections and interviews to find the tendenciesthat emerged when they misconnected or did not connect features of inquiry to the episodes.From analyzing qualitative data, we identified three tendencies: (1) participants tended tointerpret each feature of inquiry too broadly; (2) participants tended to have a teacher-centered view when they interpreted each feature; (3) participants tended to focus on thoseepisodes that were not directly related to science teaching but instead concerned classroommanagement and technical issues (e.g., computer use).

Interpreting Features Too Broadly

The analysis of the interviews and VAT reflections showed that both the preservice teachers andmentors tended to interpret each feature of inquiry-based teaching too broadly. One of Jessie’sepisodes in her first lesson (Grade 3, Lesson 1, Ep5, 34:15–48:48) exemplifies this tendency. Inthe episode, Jessie asked the students to complete a worksheet in the textbook. The worksheetcontained vocabulary words about the water cycle, and the students needed to match eachvocabulary word to a statement that described the water cycle, such as evaporation,condensation, etc. Jesse reflected that this episode represented F2(EP), “learners areencouraged to participate in their own exploration to collect/analyze evidence.” Since thisactivity was conducted at the end of the lesson, it seemed to encourage the students to applytheir acquired knowledge to solve the matching questions. For the feature F2(EP), students needto participate in exploratory activities to collect evidence to generate and evaluate their own

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 517

explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. The matching vocabulary activityseemed to be a simple student activity in which students tried to find answers by themselves.However, the activity was not an exploratory activity to collect and/or analyze evidence so thatstudents could develop their own explanations. It is also hard to argue that the activity of findinganswers on the worksheet was guided by scientifically oriented questions. In the VAT reflection,Jessie described this activity as follows:

This episode represents that learners are encouraged to participate in their own explorationor problem solving because they have to figure out which word belongs in which blank onthe workbook page. They had to look up the definitions in the back of the book and decidewhere the words went. They had to think about whether or not it made sense to put whichwords in the blanks. (VAT reflection, Jessie, Lesson 1, Ep5, 34:15–48:48).

During the interview, Jessie also explained why she connected F2(EP) to the episode:

[I picked F2] because they had to figure out… what the worksheet was, it was one thathad pictures they had to put what stage of the water cycle each picture was and whatwas happening. And so they had to look in their book and decide which one was whatstep of the water cycle so for some of them got confused…umm… so they had tofigure out which one best fit where and also made sense in the water cycle. (Interview,Jessie, Lesson 1, Ep5, 34:15–48:48).

As shown in her VAT reflection and interview, Jessie perceived that this matching activityinvolved student exploration because the students “had to figure out which word belongs in whichblank on the workbook page.” Before this episode, the students had already learned thevocabularies and content, and in this episode, they simply applied their knowledge whilecompleting the worksheet. For Jessie, any kind of activity in which students were doing somethingor thinking by themselves constituted student exploration. However, F2(EP) emphasizes not onlystudents’ ownership of their learning, but also being involved in their own exploration or problemsolving, which should include collecting/analyzing evidence and drawing conclusions orgenerating explanations based on the evidence. Jessie was not aware that, in order to genuinelyconnect F2(EP) to the episode, the student activity should encourage learners “to give priority toevidence” and “to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.”

Another example that shows that participants interpret each inquiry feature too broadly wasfound in Jessie’s mentor teacher’s reflection. Jessie’s mentor, Mrs. Coyne, connected F3(EX) toone of Jessie’s episodes (Grade 3, Lesson 1, Ep3, 24:45–34:06). In the episode, Jessie began anexperiment that would last the rest of the week.With two students’ help, Jessie put some ice in aplastic bag and sealed it. After putting the bag near the window, she asked students to makepredictions about what they thought would happen to the ice in the bag over time. She also led aclass discussion about why they thought their predictions were going to happen. Mrs. Coyneconnected this episode to F3(EX), “learners formulate explanations from evidence to addressscientifically oriented questions.” In her VAT reflection, Mrs. Coyne stated:

Jessie begins an experiment. She has students help her set up the experiment. Then shecalls on several students to make predictions and records them. (VAT reflection, Mrs.Coyne, Jessie’s lesson 1, Ep3, 24:45–34:06).

In the interview, she explained why she connected F3(EX) to the episode:

I looked again mainly at the fact that they were engaged um on number three [F3], if Iremember correctly she had them make predictions and I felt like that was, um, kind oflike drawing conclusions of what they thought might happen during the experiment so

518 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

I thought that the, uh, making predictions matched number 3[F3]. (Interview, Mrs.Coyne, Jessie’s Lesson 1, Ep3 , 24:45–34:06).

As shown in her VAT reflection and interview, Mrs. Coyne connected F3(EX) to theepisode because the students made their own predictions. F3(EX) can be accuratelyconnected to episodes in which students formulated explanations using evidence that theycollected by empirical investigation or engaged in any activity that aimed to collect and usedata to explain scientific phenomena. In the cited episode, however, the students generatedtheir explanations as Jessie’s mentor described, but the explanations were not supported bythe evidence or new understandings. In the interview, Mrs. Coyne conflated the terms“making predictions” and “drawing conclusions.” She perceived that making predictionswas a “kind of drawing conclusions of what they thought might happen during theexperiment.” By conflating these two terms, she erroneously connected F3(EX) to theepisode. For Mrs. Coyne, it seemed that any kind of explanation generated by studentscould be connected to F3(EX). She was not aware that for F3(EX), student explanationsshould be drawn from data or evidence from student investigations.

Having a Teacher-Centered View

The analysis of the qualitative data showed that both the preservice teachers and mentorstended to have a teacher-centered view rather than a student-centered view when theyconnected each feature to the episodes. For example, they focused more on their attemptsor efforts than what their students actually did. Kara’s episode 4 in her lesson 1 (Grade K)nicely captures this teacher-centered view. In her lesson 1, Kara wanted to teach thedifferences between living things and non-living things. In the episode, on the whiteboard,Kara drew two circles titled “living things” and “non-living things.” After showing severalpictures of living things and non-living things, she asked the students to give examples ofliving things and asked them to explain why they thought they were alive. She wrote eachexample down in the circle of living things. In her VAT reflection, Kara described thisepisode as follows:

I wanted the students to understand the differences between living and nonlivingthings. I gave them examples of each and then they were to pick out things that areliving and non living. I felt that this met my goals because I wanted to start withhaving them realize the difference between the two and understand why they are livingand non-living. (VAT reflection, Kara, Lesson 1, Ep4, 11:23–15:27).

Kara connected F5(CJ), learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations, tothis episode because she wanted the students to provide their explanations and justify them.However, in the episode, although the students identified things as living, they did not providethe reasons for their choices. After realizing this, Kara provided some criteria that the studentscould use to identify whether things were living or non-living, such as breathing, needing food,etc. In the interview, Kara explained why she connected F5(CJ) to the episode:

F5, um, I would ask them, you know, can you pick out a living, or if it was a non-living thing, and then I would go back and ask them why they thought that. So theyjust had to, you know, explain their reasoning for it….I don't know if I misunderstoodthis one or not too, I may have but, I took, um, then I just explained reasoning to, so ifthey, um, you whatever reason they had, like some of them were like, they had eyes orwhatever, but then I would go back and give them, you know,…So I just extended thereasoning. (VAT reflection, Kara, Lesson 1, Ep4, 11:23–15:27).

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 519

F5(CJ) can be connected to episodes in which students share their explanations with ateacher or peers as they justify their explanations with evidence, existing knowledge, orother sources. In this episode, the students did not justify their explanations. However, asshown in her interview, Kara connected F5(CJ) because she thought she had encouragedstudents to justify their explanations. That is, in connecting F5(CJ) to the episode, shefocused on what she wanted, not on what the students actually did. This tendency was foundmore often in preservice teachers’ data than in mentor teachers’ data. It seems that, when thepreservice teachers reflected on their teaching and connected each feature to the episodes,they were more aware of what they wanted in the episode than they were of the experience ofthe students involved in the activity.

Focusing on Issues Unrelated to Science Teaching

In many episodes, especially those episodes that the participants did not connect to anyfeature, the participants focused on contexts or issues that were not directly related toscience teaching, such as classroom management, technical issues (e.g., computer use),etc. One of Dana’s episodes that was connected to F5(CJ) serves as an example. Dana’slesson 5 (Grade 5) was conducted in a computer lab. The students played human bodygames as a review of the previous four lessons on the human body. Before allowing thestudents to log on to the computers to play human body games, Dana reviewed whatthe students had been learning about the human body that week. Next, she gavedirections to the students about how to navigate to the proper games and activities.While the students were involved in the computer games, Dana walked around tomonitor the students to make sure they stayed on the correct websites and to helpthem figure out how to solve the problem or move to the next level. In episode 4 of thelesson, one of computers froze, and Dana and the students in the group tried to figureout how to fix the problem. Dana connected F5(CJ) to this episode because sheperceived that the students communicated and justified their explanations about howto fix the frozen computer problem. In her VAT reflection, Dana described this incidentas follows:

This episode shows me helping Jordan. His computer froze. I almost had it, or at least Ithought I did, but it froze again. I ended up just having Jordan move to anothercomputer so we could shut that one off and get it working again. This episoderepresents that students communicate and justify their proposed conclusions becausewhen Jordan's computer froze, he, along with the students sitting next to him thoughtthey knew how to get it unfroze and they came up with their own ideas. (VATreflection, Dana, Lesson 5, Ep4, 27:08–32:18).

As shown in her VAT reflection, Dana connected a feature of inquiry to a context that wasnot directly related to science learning.

Classroom management issues were mentioned mostly in the episodes to which theparticipants did not connect any inquiry feature. This tendency was more predominant inmentors’ data. The mentors’ VAT reflection data showed that, among 55 episodes that werenot connected to any feature, classroom management-related statements were found in 20episodes. The preservice teachers mentioned classroom management issues in 7 episodesamong 32 episodes that were not connected to any inquiry lens. In a further example, Heidi’smentor Mrs. Farrell’s VAT reflection and interview data regarding Heidi’s episode 4 inlesson 4 (Grade 4) exemplify classroom management-related statements:

520 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

Great classroom management. She is making sure that all students are following alongand know where they are in the reading of the lesson. (VAT reflection, Mrs. Farrell,Heidi’s Lesson 4, Ep4, 17:09 – 17:57).

She does a wonderful job of monitoring for behavioral problems, keeping them backon track. She does an excellent job of not letting conversations go too long. Forinstance, when they do have questions she would say, “Okay, we have time for onemore question, this is the last question.” (Interview, Mrs. Farrell, Heidi’s Lesson 4,Ep4, 17:09 – 17:57).

In summary, we identified three tendencies that appeared when participants misconnectedor did not connect features of inquiry to the episodes. The participants tended to interpreteach feature of inquiry-based science teaching too broadly. They also either had a teacher-centered view or tended to focus on issues unrelated to science teaching. This findingprovides insights for teacher educators about how to improve preservice teachers’understanding of the features of inquiry-based science teaching.

Discussion and Implications

This study explored preservice elementary teachers’ and their mentors’ understanding of thefeatures of inquiry-based science teaching through their use of evidence-based reflection. Byhaving the participants reflect on teaching practice in terms of six inquiry features, wewere able toidentify which features they have difficulty understanding and implementing. One of the findingsis that both preservice teachers and mentors selected F1(SQ), F2(EP), and F6(DA) much morefrequently than F3(EX), F4(SE), and F5(CJ). This result implies that the latter three features werenot much evident in the preservice teachers’ lessons. In other words, F3(EX), F4(SE), and F5(CJ)were more difficult for the participants to understand and/or implement than the others.

We interpret the preservice teachers’ difficulty in understanding or implementing thethree features as an indication of their lack of practical knowledge. For example, thepreservice teachers in this study were asked to use the 5Es model for their lessons. Whilethey discussed the 5Es model and how essential features of inquiry can be included in eachphase of the 5Es model, the preservice teachers learned that the data and conclusions fromthe exploratory activities needed to be connected to scientific explanations (Llewellyn 2007;National Research Council 2000). However, it was often observed that the preserviceteachers did not encourage their students to generate their own explanations after collectingdata, which seemed to cause the low frequency of F3(EX). Also, in many cases, in theexplanation phase, the preservice teachers did not ask their students to connect the data orconclusions from the exploration phase to the scientific explanation. This tendency seemedto cause the low frequency of F4(SE). Regarding F5(CJ), when their students did not justifytheir explanations, in many cases, the preservice teachers did not succeed in helping thestudents do so. Even though the participants in this study had a chance to discuss how eachfeature of inquiry could be included in the 5Es model in general, they did not specificallyplan how to implement each feature of inquiry when they developed their own lesson plans.Thus, we suggest that preservice teachers need to have a chance to discuss in depth eachfeature of inquiry—specifically F3(EX), F4(SE), and F5(CJ)— along with methods forimplementing each feature in real classroom contexts.

Simply learning various features of inquiry-based science teaching in the science methodscourse does not guarantee that preservice teachers can include them in their teaching.Methods course instructors need to develop more specific strategies to teach each feature

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 521

of inquiry-based science teaching. Specific examples and teaching cases could be usefulcontexts for preservice teachers, allowing them to discuss how to implement each feature ofinquiry instruction in specific science lessons. The participants in this study have had a chanceto find essential features of inquiry in video and written cases of science classes. However, theydid not have sufficient time to divide the science class cases into segments that could beconnected to each feature of inquiry. Thus, we suggest that case reflection be used prior to fieldexperiences for preservice teachers to connect inquiry features to each episode of the cases anddiscuss whether their connections are appropriate. After field experiences, preservice teachers’evidence-based reflection on their teaching may be used to improve their knowledge of inquiry-based science teaching by discussing whether and how selected episodes indicate the presenceof the features of inquiry-based science teaching.

Another finding is that both preservice teachers and mentors had difficulty connectingappropriate inquiry features to each episode, which indicates their lack of understanding ofinquiry. In particular, both preservice teachers and mentors most frequently misconnectedF4(SE) and F5(CJ). This finding is consistent with Kang et al.’s (2008) finding that secondaryteachers rarely included F4(SE) and F5(CJ) when they conceptualized inquiry. It seems thatthese two features are equally challenging for both elementary and secondary teachers tounderstand. Research suggests that the rare use of F4(SE) and F5(CJ) was due to the scienceteachers’ traditional view of inquiry, which focuses more on data collection and drawingconclusions than critique and negotiation of ideas (Asay and Orgill 2010; Kang et al. 2008).

As shown in Tables 3 and 4, preservice teachers connected more inquiry features to theirepisodes than their mentors. This tendency appeared in all six features. That is, preserviceteachers tended to perceive that their classes were more inquiry-based than their mentors did.On the one hand, this tendency indicates that preservice teachers tended to defend theirteaching and wanted to show how their lessons were inquiry-based, while the mentors, asevaluators for their mentees, were stricter in connecting inquiry features. On the other hand,this result implies that the preservice teachers might be more aware of inquiry, which causedthem to put forth more effort to find episodes that could be connected to the features ofinquiry. A great number of the mentors’ episodes that were not connected to any inquiryfeature tended to focus on classroom management skills rather than science teaching itself.This tendency shows that the main concerns of preservice teachers and their mentors seemedto be different from each other even though the mentors were given the features of inquiry asscaffolding lenses for reflecting on the preservice teachers’ teaching practice.

Although the seven mentors were experienced teachers, they showed a lack ofunderstanding about each feature of inquiry. Many elementary teachers, including thementors in this study, do not teach science regularly in their classrooms since science is notincluded in state or national student achievement tests (Beerer and Bodzin 2004). In addition,it has been reported that many science teachers do not have sufficient experience with inquiryand have difficulty preparing and implementing inquiry-based science lessons (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; Crawford 2000; Lee and Songer 2003; Supovitz and Turner 2000;Windschitl 2002). It has also been reported that there was a significant negative correlationbetween scores on a questionnaire assessing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge for teachinghigher-order thinking and teaching experience (Zohar and Schwartzer (2005)). Thus, theinstructor of a science methods course should not assume that mentors (i.e., experiencedelementary teachers) have sufficient knowledge for inquiry-based science teaching. In orderto provide preservice teachers with effective reflective mentoring that encourages inquiry-based science teaching, teacher education programs should provide mentors withprofessional development opportunities to increase their interest in and improve theirunderstanding of inquiry-based science teaching. In addition, prior to field experiences, the

522 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

university faculty and mentors need to discuss how to support preservice teachers inpreparing inquiry-based science lessons.

One of the reasons that the participants misconnected or failed to connect inquiry features toa particular episode accurately was that they tended to interpret each feature of inquiry teachingtoo broadly. Furthermore, this tendency was more dominant in the preservice teachers’ VATreflection than it was in mentors’ reflections. For preservice teachers, the tendency to interpreteach feature too broadly seems to relate to their tendency to connect more inquiry features totheir episodes. They tended to interpret too broadly because they were trying to defend theirteaching and wanted to show how their lessons were inquiry-based. Another possibleinterpretation for this tendency is that the preservice teachers’ knowledge of inquiry featureswas not context-specific. They discussed the features of inquiry instruction in the sciencemethods course but had difficulty applying this knowledge to actual teaching contexts. Thisgap between theory and practice has been reported in many previous studies (Calderhead 1988;Schmidt and Datnow 2005; Smith and Southerland 2007). For both preservice teachers andmentors, this tendency implies their lack of knowledge about inquiry features.

Both preservice teachers and mentors tended to misconnect inquiry features to episodesbecause they had a teacher-centered view rather than a student-centered view. The six inquiryfeatures focus on what students actually learn or experience in terms of inquiry. However, theparticipants tended to identify episodes in which the teacher attempted to implement inquiryfeatures rather than focusing on what the learners actually experienced. For preservice teachersespecially, it may be natural to focus on themselves instead of on students learning due to theirlack of experience. Researchers have reported that, even when beginning teachers attemptinquiry instruction, their instructions are different from reform-based inquiry because theirbeliefs and practices are not aligned (Crawford 2007; Luft et al. 2003). Thus, in sciencemethodscourses, science teacher educators need to encourage preservice teachers to shift their focusfrom teacher to students in reflecting on their teaching practice. This idea is consistent with thephilosophy of inquiry in which students construct their own knowledge rather than acceptingknowledge transferred from the teacher (Driver et al. 1994; Llewellyn 2007).

Considering that learning to teach is a long-term endeavor, the findings of this study alsoimply the need for a continuous professional development program to support beginningteachers in moving towards more student-centered inquiry-based teaching in their earlycareers. A science-specific induction program (Luft et al. 2011) and a collaborativementoring program (Nam et al. 2013) have been suggested as effective ways to developbeginning teachers’ beliefs and practice in keeping with the philosophy of inquiry.

The analysis of qualitative data showed that in many cases the participants misconnected orfailed to connect inquiry features by focusing on issues that were not directly related to scienceteaching, such as classroommanagement and technical issues (e.g., computer use). The purposeof our VAT reflection was to improve preservice teachers’ understanding of inquiry-basedteaching through the experience of connecting appropriate evidence from their teachingpractice. Thus, we would like to encourage preservice teachers to focus more on scienceteaching-related issues rather than general educational issues such as classroom managementskills. Focusing on classroom management skills was more dominant in the mentors’ VATreflection than in preservice teachers’ reflections. This result is consistent with the finding thatthe mentors were less focused on locating inquiry-related episodes than their mentees.

In this study, preservice elementary teachers and their mentors were encouraged to useevidence while reflecting on teaching practice in terms of the essential features of inquiryinstruction. By selecting appropriate evidence and explaining the relationship between theevidence and teaching practice, evidence-based reflection supports teachers in analyzing theirown practices purposefully and systematically (Bryan et al. 2008). Nevertheless, although we

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 523

did not present these specific data in the manuscript, the preservice teachers’ and mentors’perceptions about evidence-based reflection showed that evidence-based reflection using VATmay offer benefits that other reflection tools do not. For other discipline methods courses, thepreservice teachers would write a reflection paper and attend a supervisory meeting with theirmentors after teaching. The VAT reflection provided preservice teachers and mentors withdifferent perspectives and allowed them to pay more attention to detail; therefore, bothpreservice teachers and mentors gained more information and insights regarding how toimprove their science lessons. They believed that the VAT reflection was a good self-reflection and cooperative reflection tool to use in the context of mentoring. By connectinginquiry features to each episode and rationalizing why it entails a particular inquiry feature, thepreservice teachers became involved in critical analysis and reflection on their teaching practice.This experience might encourage the preservice teachers to develop a professional vision ofscience teaching by improving their understanding of the nature of inquiry. This understandingincludes what inquiry-based science teaching truly is and specific ideas and strategies of how toimplement each inquiry feature in their science classroom.

For this study, preservice teachers’ and mentors’ VAT reflections were collected in separateaccounts. The preservice teachers could read their mentors’ VAT reflections only after theycompleted their own reflections. This method might enable preservice teachers to benefit frommore ideas or insights in reflecting on their teaching and in improving their future lessons. Auniversity faculty member can be also involved in the collaborative reflection process. Futurestudies might address how collaborative reflection among preservice teachers, mentors, anduniversity faculty influences preservice teachers’ growth in knowledge and practice.

Appendix

Descriptions of and evaluation criteria for each feature

F1(SQ): learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions

Descriptions In an inquiry lesson, scientifically oriented questions provide the foundation for other inquiryfeatures such as collection, analysis, and explanation of data (Asay and Orgill 2010). For thisfeature, scientifically oriented questions can be developed by both the teacher and thestudents. The teacher can generate questions or adopt the questions from instructionalmaterials or other sources.

Criteria This feature can be connected to the episodes in which the scientifically oriented questionsguide the students to engage in empirical investigation, or any activity that aims to collectand analyze data to explain scientific phenomena (National Research Council 2000).

This feature can be connected to the episodes in which questions are answered by students’observations and scientific knowledge they obtain from reliable sources. Thus, any activityin which the questions guide students to engage in a class discussion, problem solving,student research, or an individual or group project can be connected to this feature.

The episode that encourages students to develop their own questions to investigate can beconnected to this feature. However, the episodes in which a teacher uses questions to probestudent understanding, or a student asks questions to seek an answer from a teacher, cannotbe connected to this feature.

Example In one episode (Ep4, 23:27–27:25) of Matthew’s Lesson 1 (Grade 2), the students engaged in anactivity designed to find an answer to a scientifically oriented teacher question. In theepisode, Matthew prepared different group activities. He asked the members of each group tofind the differences between two fruits. To answer this question, the students in the groupused different tools and measured the weight and length of the fruits.

524 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

F2(EP): learners are encouraged to participate in their own exploration to collect and/or analyze evidence.

Descriptions This feature requires students to give priority to evidence. Evidence plays a critical role inscientific investigation and it provides the foundation on which students construct scientificconcepts (Asay and Orgill 2010; Chinn and Brewer 1998, 2001).

Criteria During inquiry, students need to participate in exploratory activities to collect and/or analyzeevidence in order to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically orientedquestions (American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993; National ResearchCouncil 2006). Exploratory activities may include group hands-on activities, whole classactivities and discussions, student research, individual or group projects, problem solving, etc.

Data collection or analysis can be guided by a teacher, but explorative activities require studentsto develop their own explanations based on data analysis.

Explorative activities require students to use various science process skills such as observing,classifying, predicting, collecting data, inferring, etc.

Students are required to use evidence when they generate explanations for scientific phenomenain exploratory activities.

Only activities that include the process of collecting or analyzing evidence are able to beconnected to this feature. For example, an activity that involves simply finding answers forworksheet questions in a textbook does not require the students to collect or analyzeevidence to generate explanations.

Example In Heidi’s lesson 2 (Grade 4) on conduction, she encouraged the students to participate in theirown exploration using various science process skills. In the episode of her lesson 2, Heidishowed a pot with a metal fork and wooden spoon and asked the students to predict whichone would be a better conductor. Then, the class discussed how to design an experiment andcollect data to test their prediction. The students also drew their own conclusions based onthe data they collected and recorded.

F3(EX): learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions.

Descriptions Students’ explanations should go beyond current knowledge and propose some newunderstanding based on evidence and reason (National Research Council 2000). Whenstudents generate their own explanations, students clarify or reorganize information in newways, recognize and resolve inconsistencies in understanding, and develop more elaborateconceptions (Chi 2000).

Criteria This feature can be connected to the episodes in which students formulate explanations usingevidence they collect by empirical investigation and analyze or any activity that aims tocollect and use data to explain scientific phenomena. The activity may include experiments,discussions, problem solving, student research, and individual or group projects. Theevidence includes empirical evidence gained through science processes.

The evidence also includes new knowledge or information from reliable sources. Thus, theepisode in which students generate their own explanations or answers for scientific questionsthrough their research or problem solving can be connected to this feature.

This feature cannot be connected to the episodes in which students try to generate theirown explanations, but the explanations are not supported by evidence or newunderstanding.

Example In Kathryn’s lesson 2 (Grade 2), students drew their own conclusions based on data they collectthrough experiments. The students were asked to explore three different types of soil. Theywere able to look at, feel, and smell the soils and were allowed to do anything they wanted todraw their own conclusions regarding the similarities and differences among the three typesof soil they observed.

F4(SE): learners evaluate their explanations in light of scientific explanations.

Descriptions By connecting their explanations to accepted scientific principles, students build theirown conceptual framework, which allows them to chunk information efficiently (Asayand Orgill 2010). Students may also ask if there are any biases or flaws in thereasoning or if other reasonable explanations can be derived from the evidence(National Research Council 2000).

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 525

Criteria This feature can be connected to the episodes in which students evaluate or revise their ownexplanations in connection with new scientific knowledge gained through the lesson.

The episode in which students compare their results or explanations to those proposed by theteacher or instructional materials can be connected to this feature.

The episode in which students evaluate whether their explanations are supported by evidence oradequately answer the questions can be connected to this feature.

Example In an episode in Heidi’s lesson 4 (Grade 4), Heidi asked the students to define conduction.When a student answered that conduction is transferring energy, Heidi reminded the studentsof the experiment in which they compared which object conducted heat faster—the metalspoon or wooden spoon. The student realized that his answer was insufficient and added thatobjects need to be touching in order for conduction to occur. The student evaluated andmodified his explanation because he remembered that they had touched the metal spoon andwooden spoon and concluded that the metal spoon was the better conductor. In the episode,the student revised his explanation, connecting it to new knowledge he had learned in theprevious lesson.

F5(CJ): learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.

Descriptions By communicating and justifying their explanations, students can provide others theopportunity to “ask questions, examine evidence, and suggest alternative explanations for thesame observations” (National Research Council 2000, p.27). By communicating andjustifying their proposed explanations, students can also resolve contradictions and solidifyan empirically based argument.

Criteria This feature can be connected to the episodes in which students share their explanations with ateacher or peers as they justify the explanations with the evidence, existing knowledge, andother sources.

The episodes in which students try to communicate their explanations—but not justifythem—cannot be connected to this feature.

The episodes in which a teacher encourages students to justify their explanations, but studentsprovide only explanations without justification, likewise cannot be connected to this feature.

Example For example, in her lesson 1 (Grade 3), Jessie put some ice in a plastic bag and sealed it. Afterputting the bag near the window, she asked the students to make predictions about what theythought was going to happen in the bag over time. As the students made predictions, theyexplained why they made that prediction. In lesson 2, which was conducted on the next day,after observing the bag, the students confirmed whether their predictions were correct andexplained what happened in the bag and why it happened. In the episodes, the studentscommunicated and justified their explanations and had a chance to resolve contradictions orsolidify their explanations based on empirical data.

F6(DA): learners are evaluated by various diagnostic assessments throughout the lesson.

Descriptions We added this feature to NSES’ five essential features of inquiry teaching. An appropriatemindset for implementing inquiry is constructivism. According to constructivism, learnersconstruct their own knowledge based on their prior experiences and previously heldunderstandings (Driver et al. 1994; Llewellyn 2007). Thus, diagnostic assessments that probestudents’ preconceptions or misconceptions can be an important feature of inquiry teachingand learning (Llewellyn 2007). In the inquiry lessons, teachers also assess student progressthroughout the lesson.

Criteria This feature is connected to the episodes in which a teacher starts the lesson by probing what thestudents already know.

This feature can be connected to the episodes in which a teacher assesses what students knowabout the target concept during the lesson. The assessment includes both formal and informalassessment.

Inquiry-based learning can be assessed using various alternative assessments throughout thelesson. Thus, this feature can be connected to any episodes in which a teacher assessesstudent learning by using various alternative assessment methods such as questioning,drawing, concept maps, journal writing, etc.

526 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

Example Drake asked the students (Grade 3) to turn in a journal entry describing what they did or learnedthat day. She used this journal to assess whether students had accomplished the instructionalgoals of the lesson.

Jessie showed vocabulary cards regarding the water cycle to the students (Grade 3) and askedwhat they knew about the words or what they thought the meaning of each word was. Sheused the cards to get a better understanding of what they already knew, so that she couldcorrect any misconceptions they might have had during the lesson.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlock-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al.(2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.

Abell, S. K. (2006). Challenges and opportunities for field experiences in elementary science teacherpreparation. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives oncontemporary issues and practice (pp. 7–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary science andmathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29–50.

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

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 13, 1–12.

Asay, L., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in TheScience Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 57–79.

Beerer, K., & Bodzin, A. M. (2004). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of thescience teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Nashville, TN: Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAssociation for the Education of Teachers of Science.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroompractice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53–62.

Brown, F. (2000). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science course on preservice elementaryteachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12, 1–6.

Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementaryscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.

Bryan, L. A., & Recesso, A. (2006). Promoting reflection among science student teachers using a web-basedvideo analysis tool. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23, 31–39.

Bryan, L., Recesso, A., & Seung, E. (2008). An evidential reasoning approach to analysis of scienceteaching practices using a web-based video analysis tool. In L. Yew-Jin & T. Aik-Ling (Eds.),Science education at the nexus of theory and practice (pp. 159–180). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:Sense.

Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). TheBSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Calderhead, J. (1988). Introduction. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 1–11).London: Falmer Press.

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairingmental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Educational design andcognitive science, Vol. 5, pp. 151–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data inscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition andInstruction, 19, 323–393.

Crawford, B. A. (1997). A community of inquiry: Changing roles for teachers and students. Paper presentedat the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. IL: Oak Brook.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 44, 613–642.

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 527

Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 42, 613–637.

Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Twocase studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235–250.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in theclassroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2006). Taking science to school: Learning andteaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ beliefs about thephilosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121–133.

Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching: Supervision in action. Milton Keynes:Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.

Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical contentknowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, 273–292.

Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linkingepistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140–165.

Kang, N. H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of classroom inquirywith a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 337–354.

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential researchfor lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.

Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of anelementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315–333.

Koballa, T., Upson, L., Minchew, C., Parlo, A., & Inyega, J. (2005). Using technology to support evidence-based science teaching and mentoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for theEducation of Teachers of Science. CO: Colorado Springs.

Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal ofScience Education, 25, 923–948.

Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3–8. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact ofdifferent induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77–97.

Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondaryscience teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48,1199–1224.

Merriam, S. (1998).Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Sage.Nam, J., Seung, E., & Go, M. (2013). The effect of a collaborative mentoring program on beginning science

teachers’ inquiry-based teaching practice. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 815–836.National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting

Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K‐12 Science EducationStandards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2001). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in theclassroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers inimplementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3–24.

Rop, C. J. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: A teacher’s beliefs and responses. InternationalJournal for Learning Technologies, 26, 915–934.

Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: Theinfluence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 949–965.

Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based scienceclassrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39,410–422.

528 Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529

Shepherd, C., Rich, P., West, R., Hannafin, M. J., & Recesso, A. (2007). Facilitating mentoring experienceswith video-based portfolios. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch. Chicago: Association.

Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers’response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 396–423.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practicesand classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.

Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessonslearned. Science Education, 89, 879–900.

van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in scienceeducation: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38,137–158.

Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs aboutinquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936–960.

Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in scienceeducation: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33–50.

Windschitl, M. (2002). The reproduction of cultural models of “inquiry” by preservice science teachers: Anexamination of thought and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association. LA: New Orleans.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse andpractices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the context of teachinghigher-order thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595–1620.

Res Sci Educ (2014) 44:507–529 529