Fostering collaborative inquiries by prospective and practicing elementary and middle school teachers

SCIENCE TEACHEREDUCATION

Deborah Trumbull, Section Editor

Fostering Collaborative Inquiriesby Prospective and PracticingElementary and MiddleSchool Teachers

EMILY VAN ZEEScience Teaching Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

DIANTHA LAYJudith L. Resnik Elementary School, 4301 Hadley Farm Drive,Gaithersburg, MD 20852, USA

DEBORAH ROBERTSSilver Spring International Middle School, Silver Spring, MD 20901, USA

Received 8 January 2001; revised 14 June 2002; accepted 5 August 2002

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to document the perspectives and experiences ofparticipants in a complex collaboration. Prospective teachers planned and conducted sciencelessons and small educational research projects with mentoring from teacher researcherswho are science enthusiasts. These group investigations seemed to be effective in modifyingthe self-perceptions of many of the prospective teachers enrolled in a course on methods ofteaching science in elementary school. According to responses on an informal evaluation atthe end of the Spring 2000 group investigation, for example, most of the prospective teachersindicated that they perceived themselves to be more confident and more competent to teachscience than at the beginning of the course; a few indicated they had already felt confidentand competent. Common themes in the prospective teachers’ responses indicated that theyhad learned about teaching science through inquiry, taking ownership of their own learning,

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, April 28, 2000.

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of theFoundation.

Correspondence to: Dr. Emily van Zee; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: Spencer Foundation Program for Practitioner Research.

C© 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

FOSTERING COLLABORATIVE INQUIRIES 589

researching while teaching, working in groups, and understanding themselves as learnersand teachers. The teacher researchers also perceived themselves as benefiting from thecollaborative process. Their responses to an e-mail questionnaire suggested that they foundworking with the prospective teachers to be stimulating and cheering. They enjoyed thediscussions, appreciated the help with demanding activities, grew in their own knowledgeabout teaching and learning, and valued the opportunities for reflection. However, organizingthe group investigation was complex, due to time issues, driving distances, school schedules,unexpected teacher responsibilities, and unpredictable weather. C© 2003 Wiley Periodicals,Inc. Sci Ed 87:588 –612, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI 10.1002/sce.10070

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to document the perspectives and experiences of par-ticipants in a complex collaboration. Prospective teachers planned and conducted sciencelessons and small research projects with mentoring from teacher researchers who are sci-ence enthusiasts. This collaborative process has evolved over the past 7 years in the contextof the first author’s course on methods of teaching science in elementary school. The secondand third authors are graduates of this course and founding members of the group of teacherresearchers who welcome the prospective teachers to do some teaching and researching intheir classrooms.

This study addresses the need to know more about ways to shift the self perceptionsof prospective elementary school teachers toward feelings of confidence and competenceas teachers of science. An assumption is that such shifts will be fostered by successfullyteaching science with support from peers and a suitable mentor. Unfortunately, prospectiveteachers sometimes are placed with mentor teachers who focus on reading and mathematicsrather than science. In addition, some mentor teachers use more traditional instructionthan the inquiry-based approaches advocated in the National Science Education Standards(National Research Council, 1996). A partial solution is to establish collaborative contextsfor interactions among prospective teachers and graduates, and other experienced teachers,who are putting into practice the ways of thinking, doing, and speaking advocated by reformdocuments. This study contributes to the literature an example of such a collaboration.

Three trends underlie the evolution of this collaboration: the emergence of teacher re-search as a legitimate enterprise, the increased emphasis on reflection in teacher educationprograms, and curriculum reformers’ growing advocacy for project-based learning. Eachof these has contributed to the ability of the first author to envision and to instantiate thecollaborative process described below.

Teacher Research

The American Educational Research Association officially acknowledged teachers aslegitimate researchers by approving formation of the Teacher as Researcher Special Inter-est Group in 1989. Teacher researchers have authored papers in journals (e.g., Minstrell,1982), written chapters for books (e.g., Reardon, 1993), and published extensive reports oftheir research (e.g., Doris, 1991; Gallas, 1995; Pearce, 1999). Texts now exist that discussappropriate methodology for conducting research in one’s own classroom (Cochran-Smith& Lytle, 1993; Hubbard & Power, 1993, 1999). In science, the National Science Educa-tion Standards call for providing opportunities for teachers “to learn and use the skills ofresearch to generate new knowledge about school science and the teaching and learningof science” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 68). Educational research projects arecommon in Master’s programs but still unusual as components of undergraduate teacher

590 VAN ZEE ET AL.

preparation curricula. This study provides an example of ways in which undergraduateelementary education majors can learn how to do research while they learn how to teach.

Emphasis on Reflection

Publication of Donald Schon’s The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think inAction was an early catalyst for the current emphasis on reflection (Schon, 1983). Schonlater encouraged teacher educators to coach reflective teaching, which he described as(Schon, 1988, p. 19):

listening to kids and responding to them, inventing and testing responses likely to help themget over their particular difficulties in understanding something, helping them build on whatthey already know, helping them discover what they already know but cannot say, helpingthem coordinate their own spontaneous knowing-in-action with the privileged knowledgeof the school.

Studies of the use of reflection in teacher education contexts have included interpreta-tion of videotaped dialogues between a mentor teacher and a student teacher (Erickson& MacKinnon, 1991), analyses of prospective elementary school teachers’ responses tovideo cases (Abell, Bryan, & Anderson, 1998), and enumeration of various tools for reflec-tion, such as portfolios, journals, classroom cases, learning maps, stories, metaphors, andproverbs (Nichols, Wieseman, & Tippins, 1997). Such tools for reflection can provide thebasis for a teacher preparation curriculum that includes explicit instruction on researchingas well as teaching.

Project-Based Learning

Curriculum reformers in many disciplines have recommended shifting toward project-based learning. A basic premise of this approach is that projects provide a sense of purposethat motivates students’ efforts (Wolk, 1994). Projects are more meaningful if they are devel-oped out of the interest of the children rather than the design of the teacher (Katz & Chard,1989). Project-based science instruction does not mean requiring science fair projects fordisplay during an annual event organized by adults; rather project-based learning in sci-ence means involving students on a daily basis in “exploring important and meaningfulquestions through a process of investigation and collaboration. Project-based science en-gages children in asking and refining questions; seeking background information; makingpredictions; designing investigations; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data; makingexplanations; and making products to share ideas” (Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999). Thefirst author perceives this process to be productive both for inquiries into science contentand into science pedagogy. She requires prospective teachers to conduct small educationalresearch projects in her courses on methods of teaching science in elementary schools (vanZee, 1998a, 1998b). She believes that prospective teachers need to experience project-basedlearning themselves if they are to facilitate such learning in their own classrooms.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study examines a collaborative process that has evolved from the first author’s useof “teacher as researcher” as the guiding metaphor in designing a course on methods ofteaching science in elementary school (van Zee, 1998a, 1998b). She based her vision ofteacher research upon the work of Jim Minstrell, a high school physics teacher who obtained


funding to work daily on his research while continuing to teach some of his classes. Hewelcomed his students, as well as school colleagues and university researchers, to participatein his research endeavors (Minstrell, 1992; van Zee & Minstrell, 1997a, 1997b). Throughsuch efforts he was able to document and articulate ways which he had found to be effectivein fostering his students’ learning.

During the first-third of a course on methods of teaching science in elementary school,the first author invites prospective teachers to formulate and explore questions about sciencelearning and teaching. The prospective teachers work in small groups to design sciencelessons and small educational research projects to conduct in collaboration with practicingteacher researchers. During these group investigations, the prospective teachers collect datawhile they are teaching a lesson, develop interpretations of these data, and present theirfindings to one another and the collaborating teacher researchers. This complex processmakes possible a rich collaboration among prospective, beginning, and experienced teacherswho are researching their own science teaching practices. The following research questionsguided this study:

• What are the perspectives of the participants in the group investigation?• How has this extended collaboration affected the prospective teachers’ perception of

their confidence and competence in teaching science?• What did the prospective teachers learn from the group investigation?• How has this collaboration benefited the practicing teachers?• What have been the drawbacks to this collaborative process?

METHODOLOGY

This was an interpretative study using methods typical of teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hubbard & Power, 1993, 1999). Participants included the first au-thor, who is the university instructor of the course and facilitator of the teacher researchergroup, the second and third authors, who are graduates of the methods course and foundingmembers of the teacher researcher group, colleagues who are participating in the teacherresearcher group (n = 10), and undergraduates enrolled in a course on methods of teachingscience in elementary schools during the 1999–2000 academic year (n = 33, Fall 1999;n = 25, Spring 2000).

Data sources included videotapes and audiotapes of class sessions and joint meetings,informal written evaluations of our activities, the prospective teachers’ journals, posters, andgroup reports, taped research conversations among the authors, and e-mail questionnaires.The informal evaluations of collaborative activities included both open-ended questions andquestions asking for ratings on Likert scales with comments.

Each of the authors wrote a first-person narrative account from her own perspective(Clandinin & Connelly, 1996). The first author (Emily) summarized her beliefs and purposesin organizing this collaboration. The second author (Diantha) briefly described an aspect ofher teaching practices that differed from her colleagues, reflected upon ways participating inthe collaboration has supported her efforts, and discussed her experiences in mentoring theprospective teachers as they undertook teaching and researching in her classroom. The thirdauthor (Deborah) reflected upon some of the experiences she and the prospective teachershad in common, differences in what happened when two different groups of prospectiveteachers did their teaching and researching in similar contexts in her classroom, and herperception of benefits to her students and the prospective teachers.

The prospective teachers indicated their perspectives on anonymous evaluations dis-tributed at the close of the collaborative activities. The first author analyzed these written

592 VAN ZEE ET AL.

responses for common themes (Strauss, 1987). She also used Likert scales to document theprospective teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the group investigation process. Sheused t tests (p < 0.05, two-tailed) to test whether means were significantly different froma neutral rating of 3 for the prospective teachers’ ratings from 1 (a goal of the group investi-gation was not achieved) to 5 (a goal of the group investigation was achieved). In addition,she used a paired t test (p < 0.05, two-tailed) to test whether the means were significantlydifferent for the prospective teachers’ ratings from 1 (not confident) to 5 (confident) inteaching science before the course began and at the end of the group investigation process.She used a similar process for documenting changes in the prospective teachers’ percep-tions of their competence in teaching science from the beginning of the course to the endof the group investigation process. The first author also included data from the prospectiveteachers’ journals, projects, and finals in supporting claims about changes in the prospec-tive teachers’ perceptions of their confidence and competence in teaching science and ofwhat they learned. In addition, she identified common themes in e-mail responses writtenby the teacher researchers about the benefits to them in this collaboration. She drew from allof these data sources and her own experiences in writing a reflection about the difficultiesshe has had in mounting this collaboration.

Instructor bias is necessarily present in accounts of one’s own teaching practices. The firstauthor has attempted to address this issue by collecting different kinds of data and includingtwo of the participating teacher researchers as coauthors. The prospective teachers’ writtenjournals, reports, and self-assessments may not reflect accurately their perspectives as theseare turned in with names attached. The first author provided opportunities for more honestand perhaps negative expression through the anonymous questionnaires. By inviting twoof the teacher researchers to be coauthors, the first author assured that more than herown perspective would be presented in some detail. These coauthors and the other teacherresearchers also have had opportunities to examine the claims and interpretations by readingand discussing the manuscript.

OVERVIEW OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

The group investigation involves a collaboration among prospective teachers, who areenrolled in the first author’s course on methods of teaching science, and practicing teachers,who participate in the Science Inquiry Group (SING). This is a complex series of activitiesthat span one third of the course. An outline of the process is shown in Table 1. The discus-sion below begins with a description of the inquiry group and then summarizes what happensduring the initial research activity, first research festival, visits to SING classrooms to ob-serve, teach, and research, development of interpretations of data, and the second researchfestival.

Science Inquiry Group

The first author initiated the inquiry group in order to continue working with graduatesof her science-teaching-methods course as they begin their teaching careers. She wanted toknow what, if anything, they find useful from her course. She also wanted to provide supportas they put into practice the ways of teaching she has been advocating. Some experiencedteachers also have joined our enterprises. The seminar has been meeting monthly afterschool since Fall 1996 (van Zee, 1998a).

SING teachers formulate issues that they want to explore and then develop case stud-ies based on data they collect in their own classrooms (Lay, 2000a, 2000b; Roberts, 1999,


TABLE 1Outline of the Group Investigation Process

Day 1: University class: First day activityProspective teachers analyze factors that fostered their learning during positive

science learning experiences at any time in their lives in any placeDay 2: Research Festival No. 1 at local school

(Joint meeting of class and SING teachers)Prospective teachers present their findings to SING teachers.SING teachers discuss their studies with prospective teachers.Each small group of prospective teachers and a SING teacher begin planning

a lesson and small research project that the prospective teachers will conductin the SING classroom

Day 3: Field Trip: Prospective teachers visit SING classroomsEach small group of prospective teachers visits their SING teacher’s classroom

during a science lesson and continues their collaborative planningDay 4: University class: Prospective teachers practice with peers

Each small group of prospective teachers practices teaching their lessonand conducting their research with another small group of peers duringclass at the university

Day 5: Field Trip: Prospective teachers teach and research in SING classroomsEach small group of prospective teachers teaches and researches in their

SING classroomDay 6: University class: Prospective teachers interpret their data

Each small group of prospective teachers develops interpretations of their databy preparing a poster and group report of their findings

Day 7: Research Festival No. 2 at a local schoolProspective teachers present their findings to SING teachers and discuss

issues of interest

2000a, 2000b). The second author, for example, wrote the following abstract for aproject:

Engaging Fourth Grade Readers in ScienceBy Diantha Lay, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland

The goal of this project is to develop more fluent readers using a curricular area in whichthe students have an interest and academic strength. Historically African American andHispanic male fourth grade students have met the state standards in science only. I amincorporating science activities with reading to develop more fluent readers among studentsfrom these populations. In particular, I am designing reading assessments around the sciencecurriculum. Data sources for this case study include performance on the reading assessments,audio- and video-recordings of instruction, copies of student writings and drawings, andpersonal reflections. (Lay, Research Festival Flyer, Spring 2000)

Writing such abstracts is a way to get started, to articulate an issue of interest and a planfor collecting relevant data.

Day 1: Initial Research Activity to Identify FactorsThat Foster Science Learning

During the first session of class, the first author engages the prospective teachers imme-diately in a research project. She asks them to draw pictures of science learning experiences

594 VAN ZEE ET AL.

they enjoyed, to write captions for their pictures, and to identify factors that fostered sciencelearning in those instances (van Zee & Roberts, 2001). Each small group of four then tapestheir pictures to a poster and constructs a list of factors that fostered science learning for theirgroup. Members of each group introduce themselves to the class by discussing their positivescience learning experiences and their list. Then the whole group identifies common themesacross all of their experiences. The Spring 2000 class, for example, listed the following fac-tors that fostered their science learning: experiments, creativity, self discovery/surprise,predictions, visual, fun, end product, ownership, hands-on, curiosity, discovering, technol-ogy, imagination, interesting, active learning, challenging, positive teaching attitude, andintegrating disciplines.

During class, the prospective teachers also sign up for a group with whom to collaboratein teaching a lesson and conducting a small educational research project in an experiencedteacher researcher’s classroom. They receive handouts with a schedule of events for theGroup Investigation and the name, grade, phone number, e-mail address, and school ofthe teacher with whom they will be collaborating. They add their own names, telephones,e-mail address, and home addresses so that all members of the group can communicate withone another in arranging car pools and planning sessions. By the close of class, all havebecome members of a teacher researcher community.

Day 2: First Research Festival

The SING teachers discuss their projects as works-in-progress at a meeting, called a Re-search Festival, held jointly after school with the first author’s course on methods of teachingscience. Initially the first author scheduled the Research Festival as a one-time event at theend of the Fall 1996 semester, so that both the SING teachers and the prospective teachersin her class could display their research projects. Now, however, she schedules this as a fieldtrip at the beginning of a semester. The first research festival helps the prospective teachersunderstand what the first author is trying to accomplish in the course. Few, if any, have beenasked to formulate and explore a research question about learning and teaching. None arelikely to be expecting to learn how to do this in a course on methods of teaching science.

To give the prospective teachers an idea of what to expect, a flyer provides the SINGteachers’ abstracts as well as directions to the school where the event will be held. The thirdauthor, for example, described both her project and what she planned to do at the ResearchFestival:

On the Move: Using Micro-Computer-Based Laboratories with Students and TeachersBy Deborah Roberts, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland

When I was an undergraduate studying physics, I found working with motion detectors andmicro-computers challenging, fascinating, and motivating. I wanted my students to havethe same opportunity and brought them to the university to use the motion detectors withsmall groups of prospective teachers. My first graders were able to begin developing someunderstandings of the motion detectors and how they worked. The prospective teachers weresurprised at how much the first graders were able to do and understand. I also co-taught aprofessional development seminar in which teachers in my school were able to learn physicswith the motion detectors and then use them in their own classes. In this session, I plan toshare some students’ journals about their visit and teachers’ reflections. (Roberts, ResearchFestival Flyer, Spring 2000)

The flyer also serves as an invitation to teachers at the school, university personnel, andguests.


Both the prospective and practicing teachers participate as researchers in the first ResearchFestival. The prospective teachers present their findings from the first day of class whenthey had identified factors that had fostered their science learning. Then the SING teachersdescribe their studies by articulating their research questions and inviting the prospectiveteachers to think with them about examples of their students’ work, a videoclip of theirstudents in action, excerpts from their reflective journals, etc.

Next, each SING teacher meets with a small group of prospective teachers. They discussthe SING teacher’s research in more detail and then begin planning a science lesson andsmall educational research project that the prospective teachers can conduct in the SINGteacher’s classroom. The first author supplies a form for each member of each small groupon which she has listed dates, times, and contact information and questions to guide planningfor teaching: What will be the topic of the lesson? What are your goals for teaching? Whatactivities will you do? Who will do what? What materials do you need to bring? In addition,she provides questions to guide planning for researching; What is the research issue? Whatdata will you collect: copies of student writings? drawings? photos? audiotapes of conversa-tions? notes written in the classroom? reflections written immediately afterward? The formalso directs the prospective teachers to bring materials and handouts in order to practiceteaching and researching with peers at our next class. Near the end of the research festival,the first author distributes an informal evaluation to gather feedback about experiences so far.

Days 3 -- 5: Visits to Science Inquiry Group Classrooms to Observe,Teach, and Research

In the next few days after the Research Festival, each group of prospective teachersvisits their SING teacher’s classroom to observe this teacher in action and to continue theircollaborative planning for teaching and researching in this classroom. During the third weekof class, the prospective teachers practice their teaching and researching with each other inthe first author’s class on campus. During the fourth week of class, each group goes out totheir SING teacher’s classroom and conducts their teaching and researching with children.

The second author’s group during Fall 1999, for example, designed a lesson on solubility.Their research question involved comparing teacher-directed and student-centered learning.One of the prospective teachers wrote the following journal about this experience:

Last week, my science research group taught a lesson at Judith Resnik Elementary. Ourlesson was about solubility. Our research question was which kind of teaching allows forbetter learning: teacher-directed or hands-on. We split our research group into two groups: 3of us to work with the hands-on groups and 3 of us with the teacher-directed. I was involvedwith the [hands-on].

Our lesson began with a mini-lesson which discussed terms such as mixture, solution,solvent, solute, dissolve, and soluble. After the mini-lesson, the children were given 5 cupsof water, packets of salt and sugar, and portions of flour, sand, and Kool-Aid. Next, theywere given an observation sheet in table format to record their hypotheses about mixingthe different solutes with water and their observations about what actually happened. Theyreally enjoyed filling out the table. We taught them to make observations by looking atchanges in color, smell, consistency, etc.

After both lessons were completed, the two teacher groups and class groups were broughttogether for a “Trivia Challenge.” It seemed to me that the teacher-directed group had a betterhandle on what the vocabulary words were while they were unclear about the definitions. Thehands-on group was able to remember the meanings of the words once they could rememberthe word itself. I think the hands-on lesson did a better job of giving the children a chance toown their knowledge by connecting the learning to an actual experience. However, I think

596 VAN ZEE ET AL.

it would have been a better learning experience had there been more time to review thevocabulary and had we included in the mini-lesson some examples of soluble substances.(Prospective Teacher’s Journal, 9/28/99)

By working with peers to formulate a research question about science teaching, design aninvestigation, collect data, and develop interpretations, this student seems to have deep-ened her understanding of some of the issues involved in student-centered learning. Shecontemplated differences in children’s understanding, recognized the importance of bring-ing hands-on activities to closure with discussion, and experienced a common difficulty, timelimitations.

The third author’s group during Fall 1999 designed a lesson with the motion detectors thatthey (and she) had enjoyed using in their undergraduate physics course. A motion detectoris a device that measures one’s position with respect to the detector and sends a streamof data to a computer which displays a graph of one’s motion. The physics course usedsuch microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL) to prepare prospective elementary schoolteachers to teach science through inquiry (Krajcik & Layman, 1993; Layman, 1996).

The prospective teachers decided to explore how students react without direct instruction.One of them wrote the following journal about their experiences:

For this journal, I would like to reflect on my group’s teaching experience at SilverSpring International Middle School. My group and I used motion detectors that we werefamiliar with from Physics 117a. We decided to let seventh grade students discover what themotion detectors do through their own explorations. We guided them, but gave little directinstruction. The class was separated into groups and we observed and helped while they“played” with the detectors. I was really happy with how the lesson went. At first I thoughtthe students would never figure out what was going on, but by the end I was impressedby how much they learned. I think the lesson was more meaningful because the studentsdiscovered everything on their own.

This was a positive science experience for myself and the students. The students wereexcited to work with the computers. They were not seated at their desks, but walking aroundthe room experimenting. They had the opportunity to share with their classmates what theydiscovered. They also worked to make predictions before the lesson began. I enjoyed theexperience because it was an opportunity to share what I learned in Physics with otherstudents. It was also interesting to see how the students reacted without direct instruction.I also like that I was able to plan and deliver the lesson with my group members. As abeginning teacher, working with my peers makes everything less intimidating. I think thewhole experience helped to prepare us for science teaching in our field placements thissemester. (Prospective Teacher’s Journal, Fall 1999)

The prospective teachers share their journals via e-mail so that they can learn from oneanother. This student followed the recommended format, describing a science learningevent and then analyzing the factors that fostered that learning.

Day 6: Developing Interpretations of Data

During the fifth week of class, again on campus, the prospective teachers develop inter-pretations of their data and construct posters presenting their findings. Working in smallgroups, they examine copies of student work that they have collected, watch videoclips fromtapes they made of instruction, and consider the reflective journal each has written aboutwhat happened while they were teaching. From these data sources, they develop claims andassemble relevant data in support (or refutation) of their claims.


Members of each small group of prospective teachers use a laptop computer to prepare awritten report that presents their findings. The report has two parts: a summary of researching(see Figure 1) and a summary of teaching (see Figure 2). The first author provides an exampleresearch report, her write-up of their findings about factors that foster science learning onthe first day of class. As each small group of prospective teachers work collaboratively ontheir report, they also construct a poster to present their findings. Each group also developsa rubric by which they wish their poster and written report to be assessed.

Day 7: Second Research Festival

During the sixth week of class, the prospective teachers and experienced teacher re-searchers meet again during a second Research Festival after school. The prospectiveteachers discuss their teaching experiences and research findings with the SING teach-ers. Then they raise any issues they wish during a whole group conversation. These issueshave ranged from questions about applying for jobs to concerns about differentiating in-struction for students with special needs. At the end of the second research festival, the firstauthor distributes a questionnaire for an informal evaluation of the group investigation.

PARTICIPANTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF THE GROUP INVESTIGATION

The University Instructor’s Perspective (By Emily van Zee)

Several beliefs underlie my use of “teacher as researcher” as the guiding metaphor indesigning my course on methods of teaching science in elementary school (van Zee, 1998b).Teachers should conduct research in their own classrooms because they can generate knowl-edge about teaching and learning that is not accessible by any other means. Even beginning

Group Report: Summary of ResearchingEDCI 372BFall 1999

TitleAuthors’ Names

Collaborating Teacher’s NameSchool

I. Research QuestionII. Rationale

(why do you care about this issue?)III. Relevant Literature

(Are any of the textbooks or handouts relevant to this issue? other literature of which youare aware? what do they have to say about this issue?)

IV. MethodSetting (brief description of classroom, school yard, etc.)Population (number and grade of students?)Data sources (copies of student work? photos? audiotape? videotape? written reflections?)Method of analysis (how are you making sense of your data?)

V. InterpretationsClaim 1: What pattern do you see in your data?Evidence: What is the basis for your claim?Claim 2 and evidence that supports this and so forth

VI. Implications for Instruction(What do your interpretations suggest you should do when you are teaching?)

Figure 1. Directions for group report: Summary of researching.

598 VAN ZEE ET AL.

Group Report: Summary of TeachingEDCI 372BFall 1999

TitleAuthors’ Names

Collaborating Teacher’s NameSchool

I. Main Ideas(What are the main ideas you wanted the students to learn?)

II. Rationale(Why do you think children should learn this?)

III. Materials and EquipmentIV. Procedures

(Include questions you asked the children if you remember what these were)V. Description of What Happened

VI. Evidence of the Students’ LearningVII. References (if any) you consulted

Figure 2. Directions for group report: Summary of teaching.

teachers can contribute to the literature by documenting and articulating what they are doing,how, and why. Such case studies can inform other teachers and perhaps inspire them to adaptreform practices more readily than reports by university researchers or recommendationsby district or national authorities. I also believe that universities should provide on-goingsupport for beginning teachers, particularly those who may be willing to risk teaching inways that differ from the more traditional instructional approaches of their colleagues. Inaddition, I believe that I have a lot to learn from both beginning teachers and experiencedteachers about ways to teach effectively in schools whose students come primarily fromimmigrant and economically disadvantaged families.

The primary purpose of the group investigation was to provide an opportunity for mystudents to begin teaching science with mentoring from a teacher who is passionate aboutteaching science, with the support of peers, in a real-world setting. My belief has beenthat this should help them begin to see themselves as capable science teachers. A secondpurpose of the group investigation was to provide an opportunity for my students to explorean educational issue—to have an authentic context within which to think about studentconceptions, gender issues, group work, assessment, etc. A third purpose of the groupinvestigation was to model an approach to teaching that is currently being advocated, groupprojects, so that they experience themselves some of the advantages—and disadvantages. Afourth purpose of the group investigation was to provide a context for graduates of my courseand experienced teachers to share their growing expertise in teaching and researching.

An Elementary Teacher Researcher’s Perspective (By Diantha Lay)

With so many demands on the time in the classroom, one has to be creative and innovativein order to fulfill all the requirements of the curriculum in a given year. This year we havereading and math block. The time allocated for science becomes increasingly shorter. Alsoas a part of our curriculum in reading this year, we are to spend time reading and discussingexpository text. However, we are given no materials to teach this type of text. It seemed tome that a reasonable solution would be to read about science and the environment as a partof our reading. I located some unused science textbooks and that became the core of ourreading. Additionally, I was able to locate some grade-appropriate magazines with sciencerelated articles. The students look forward to reading the science books and they want


to explore every hands on activity that we read. They will go to the science books duringDEAR (Drop Everything and Read) and choose a science textbook to read. Our readingassessments indicate that reading scores are improving. The real test will come in thespring when standardized testing takes place.

Through the collaborative efforts of the research festival, I have come to understandthat what I am doing and the experience that I have gained has value not only to methodsstudents but to other experienced educators as well. The first time a methods student and apeer started taking notes as I was presenting, I was stunned. They wanted to remember whatI was saying!!! . . . At the first conference where I presented, I felt that I was over my head.I was intimidated by the group. I no longer am intimidated by any group at which I present.In the setting of the research festival, I have come to learn and believe that the things Iam doing in my class are extremely important and that all teachers do not necessarily dosome of the things that I do. The research festivals have given credibility to the things thatI consider important. This has encouraged me to broaden my own horizons and share whatI am doing with other groups as well.

I have been involved in many research festivals and as time goes on, they become moremeaningful. I enjoy sharing what I am doing in the classroom. As the students struggle (attimes) through the process, it makes me realize how much I have grown and how muchmore fine tuned I have become as a teacher. The students are given an opportunity to testtheory and practice. This is a wonderful opportunity for the students to grow as educators.They are given a first hand opportunity to do some research of their own.

My favorite part of the process is having the students visit my classroom. They put somuch time and energy into the lesson. Their inexperience is apparent as at times they don’tknow how to direct a discussion and lead the group to the next level. For me the hardestpart is to not intervene, and at times I do. They have been surprised at how far a discussioncan go if the teacher continues to probe as a part of the discussion. I enjoy sitting back andwatching my students learn and for them to experience another science teacher.

The methods students are usually overwhelmed with the assignment and really don’tknow how to begin setting up their research. A great deal of time and energy is spentdeveloping a question that they want answered. They need some guidance as they aren’treally sure how to do this. I have them go back and discuss things they have learned aboutteaching science in their class and based on that, decide what they would like to explore.Once they have established that, we then begin to develop a lesson that would work withthe research aspect of the project. They have good ideas and articulate what they want. Thegroup dynamics of this can be difficult at times. But generally, the groups are cooperativeand engaged in what they are doing.

The experience of working with the students had given me a desire to have a studentteacher in my classroom or to serve as a mentor to new teachers in my building. There isjust something so energizing about working with “fresh teachers.” They bring new skillsand a new perspective to the classroom, which I find extremely valuable. I would like tosee us be able to do more with these students in the classroom.

The students do an excellent job at presenting their findings. Frequently, they could havetaken the research another step. If there were problems, they omit that from their research.They usually are reflective and can make important statements as to why the results turnedout the way they did. For example, a group was trying to determine if a hands-on or adirect lesson was the best way to teach a particular concept. They had a Jeopardy game as afollow up activity. The direct lesson group won the game. However, that group spent mostof their time preparing for the Jeopardy game and not in actual direct instruction. If timehad allowed, one student commented, “It would be nice if we could test the kids two weekslater and see which group retained the most.” The students were surprised at how quickly

600 VAN ZEE ET AL.

the 40 min can go. A student said, “Time is so important. We ran out of time before weeven got to the main part of the lesson.” These teaching experiences are beneficial to thesestudents as they prepare to go into the classroom.

In one particular discussion at a festival, one male student said that the best way to teachstudents about performing a task is that the “girls could do cooking activities.” The groupbecame outraged at the idea and the issue of gender equity was hotly debated. The researchfestivals also gave opportunities for the students to ask questions to the experienced teachersregarding all kinds of important issues. At times, questions are raised that I had not thoughtabout in a long time. It has been a time of learning for all of us.

A Middle School Teacher Researcher’s Perspective(By Deborah Roberts)

The research-in-progress I discussed with both groups was about the use of MBL (Roberts,2000a, 2000b). I explained to them how this had been a very powerful experience for me,and then discussed taking my first graders (2 years in a row ) to the University to the samePhysics lab. I think at least one of them had been in the class when the first graders came touse the MBL equipment. Since all of the methods students with whom I was going to workhad taken the same physics course, we were soon talking about shared experiences. Nextwe focused on providing a similar experience for seventh graders with the Fall group, andfor sixth graders with the Spring group.

The research festivals provide a way for me to discuss ongoing research in a setting thatis non threatening and open to new ideas. The methods students are interested, curious,supportive and questioning. All of this is excellent practice for presenting research at aformal conference. The students are able to ask questions and be a part of a shared experiencethrough their teaching of a particular activity. They are also a valuable resource, in that theyprovide other sets of eyes, ears, and thinking about a particular topic.

The first research festival quite honestly, always makes me a little nervous. I want to beable to share my ideas with students in a way that makes them seem possible, plausible andworthwhile, without overwhelming them. I remember very clearly how I felt during thismethods semester. I want to be able to guide and help fine tune their ideas about a lessonthey want to teach without giving too much or too little direction. I also want them to feelcomfortable with me, with my setting, and with themselves as teachers.

Both of the groups this year were very comfortable when they came to visit the classroomprior to implementing their lesson and research question. They joined groups of kids andhelped them with the math they were doing. They were friendly, positive, a little nervous,but very excited.

When the Fall group came they seemed to be very prepared. They had their ideas clearlydelineated, and when straight to task. They broke the students up into four groups (therewere four MBL set ups) and a methods student went to each group, to observe, guide andquestion. They did an excellent job! Without ever telling the students what they expectedas an outcome, they were able to facilitate each group to an understanding of what a motiondetector was. They were ready for those students who grasped the concept quickly byproviding extension activities. They showed nurturing, high expectation, and confidencein the students’ ability to come through. They modeled the same kind of teaching I hadexperienced when I took the physics course.

The Spring group was just as impressive. They planned a different lesson, which incorpo-rated a portion that was almost direct instruction, but they worked well together. They alsobroke the students up into groups and had them spend some time trying to discover what thelittle box was (the motion detector). They had their time designated into certain segments,


so that the students went off to do a part of an activity, and then came back together, andthen went out again, and then came back together. Again the difficult piece for me here is toobserve, rather than to interfere, but also to be available to help direct or guide the students,if necessary.

It is so exciting to me to have the methods students come. They are full of energy andideas, and are clearly excited about teaching. This is conveyed to my students, who pushthemselves to reach the expectations that are set for them. It is nice to see the methodsstudents discovering things through careful observation and data collection. They trulyseem to grasp the value of being reflective when they give their final reports. They becomevery aware through the shared experiences of the groups at the second research festivalof similarities in their learning through research. As the evaluations show, they view thisexperience as one that is useful and valuable to them.

The Prospective Teachers’ Perspectives

One of the difficulties the first author encounters in teaching her course is that most of theprospective teachers never have experienced a student-centered class, with the exceptionof the few who have taken the inquiry-based physics course. Initially they expect her topresent information in lectures and to tell them what to do in well defined assignments.One of the graduates of her course told her that she had been described as being “fromouter space” by a student in the first semester she offered the course (Fall 1995). The firstauthor’s impression is that the prospective teachers’ initial bewilderment is now assuagedby meeting during the first weeks of the course with graduates who can both explain andattest to the usefulness of her instructional approach.

The prospective teachers’ indicated their perceptions on anonymous evaluation question-naires at the close of each research festival. The first question on the evaluation for the firstresearch festival on February 10, 2000, for example, was whether this had been a good useof their time, given that this was an extra meeting outside of class hours and off campusat a school to which they had to drive and find. The original date had been snowed outand everyone had had to remake any alternative arrangements for childcare, etc., so therehad been some complaints about exceeding the regular schedule for the class. The firstauthor analyzed the responses to the questionnaire and sent a summary to the prospectiveteachers via the class listserv. By reporting her interpretations back to her students, she wasmodeling conducting research in one’s own classroom. She also wanted to demonstrate toany students who were feeling unsure or negative about the experience that many of theirclassmates had found this valuable:

E-mail message from Emily to the prospective teachers via the course listserv:

There were 22 student responses to the questionnaire. On a scale from 1 (not a good useof my time) to 5 (good use of my time), most people felt the Research Festival was a gooduse of time. The mode was 5 (number most often marked), the median was 5 (more thanhalf of the responses were 5’s), and the mean was 4.6. The range, however, was 2 to 5.About a third of the responses were 4’s. No one was neutral and marked 3. One person didnot view this experience as a good use of time and marked 2. There were no 1’s.

My interpretation of these data: I feel rewarded for living through the logistics nightmarethat organizing this enterprise entails. More than half of you gave this the highest rating.Most of the rest of you were tolerably pleased. One of you is unhappy. So now I need todo some thinking: How can I better meet the needs of this person? Much of this courseinvolves open-ended group work. If you prefer an alternative way of learning, please discussthis with me during office hours so that we can design an approach that works better foryou.

602 VAN ZEE ET AL.

Many of you wrote comments. I have grouped similar comments together and writtenstatements that summarize the common themes:

a. You enjoyed meeting with the teachers and hearing about their insights, questions, andstruggles:

I enjoyed hearing from teachers about what they are looking for in education and whatthey are struggling with.

It was very good and necessary to have the classroom teacher help us with possiblequestions based on the make up of her class.

It was helpful to talk to the teachers and get their insights

(we) were able to meet and communicate with our cooperating teacher

The cooperating teacher made me feel very comfortable

Our cooperating teacher was very helpful

It was good to be able to talk to our teacher ahead of the observation

The teachers were nice.

b. You made progress on planning your project:

We got a great start on our project

We were able to brainstorm excellent ideas for the presentation we would be making

It was nice to have time to be able to meet with the group and the teacher to plan theproject

We took advantage of the opportunity to brainstorm ideas about our lesson plan andresearch question.

Though our question to research is general it is good to know we are still working onspecifics.

c. The experience helped you understand what to do for this class:

I now feel like I understand what we are doing and where we as a group are going

The process of walking through what is expected of us was helpful.

It helped me to realize exactly what was entailed in the class.

It gave me a chance to talk to a former student who went through the same programas me. It also helped me figure out what we were supposed to do for the project.

d. You valued working in groups:

As a group, we came up with great ideas that we could not achieve on our own.

Good group work

The group established rapport with each other and the S.I.G. teacher

There were many thought provoking questions.

e. There were both positive and negative responses to this process:

This was fun

My time was very well spent. I feel confident about going into the classroom

The program was good

The time went by quickly

I wasn’t very excited


f. You learned about conducting research

I learned how to narrow down a research question in order to properly observe it inthe classroom setting and also that it needs to be more stressed.

The general basis of the program (SING) and idea behind it. Learned ways of comingup with better research questions to utilize and try to figure out within the classroom.

Brainstorming and input of all members is critical for coming up with a question.With all of our cooperation, a question is agreed upon and the lesson becomes moretangible. I learned more about what I’m going to be doing in a science classroomas a visiting teacher and of the value and importance of researching while teaching.(excerpts from Emily’s e-mail message to class, February 11, 2000)

The ratings and comments suggest that most of the prospective teachers perceived the firstresearch festival to be useful in spite of their initial uneasiness and the inconvenience of itstiming and location. One, however, did not.

At the close of the second research festival on March 2, 2000, the prospective teachersrated the extent to which they perceived the goals of the Group Investigation to have beenachieved from 1 (not achieved) to 5 (achieved) for three goals: a) to begin teaching sciencewith mentoring from a teacher who is passionate about teaching science, with the supportof peers, in a real world setting, b) to have an authentic context within which to exploreand think about educational issues such as student conceptions, gender effects, assessment,and group work, and c) to model an approach to teaching that is currently being advocated,working in groups, so that they experienced some of its advantages—and disadvantages.The first author reported the results to the prospective teachers on the class listserv as before.The findings are summarized in Table 2.

All of the means were greater than 4 and significantly different from a neutral mean of 3(t test, two-tailed, p < 0.05). These results indicate that the prospective teachers perceivedthat the goals of the group investigation had been achieved. These responses confirm theapparent buoyant mood of the second research festival, that both groups seemed to find theevent very satisfying. An informal questionnaire at the end of the second research festival

TABLE 2Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Achievement of Goals

Goal Mean SD Mode Median Range

To begin teaching science with mentoring froma teacher who is passionate about teachingscience, with the support of peers, in areal-world setting

4.80∗∗∗ 0.41 5 5 4–5

To have an authentic context within which toexplore and think about educational issuessuch as student conceptions, gendereffects, group work, assessment, etc.

4.45∗ 0.60 5 4.5 3–5

To model an approach to teaching that iscurrently being advocated, working ingroups, so that you experience yourselvessome of its advantages—anddisadvantages

4.70∗∗ 0.57 5 5 3–5

n = 20; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

604 VAN ZEE ET AL.

documented additional perceptions of the collaboration. These responses are reported inthe next section.

Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Confidence and Competencein Teaching Science

The prospective teachers indicated their perceptions of changes in their confidence andcompetence in teaching science on the informal evaluation at the end of the second researchfestival on March 2, 2000. The first author reported the results to them via the class listservin a manner similar to that indicated above. The results are summarized here in Table 3.The prospective teachers marked a Likert scale from 1 (not confident) to 5 (confident) toindicate their level of confidence in teaching science before the course began and “now” (atthe close of Research Festival No. 2).

The difference between the means (2.55 and 4.30 respectively) was statistically signif-icant (paired t test, two-tailed, p < 0.05). No one indicated a loss of confidence. Threewho already felt confident (a rating of 4 or 5) at the beginning of the course main-tained that confidence. All indicated confidence (a rating of 4 or 5) at the end of thegroup investigation. Seventeen indicated a gain from not confident (a rating of 1 or 2)or neutral (a rating of 3) to confident (a rating of 4 or 5). The mean gain indicated was1.75 units.

The prospective teachers also marked a Likert scale from 1 (not competent) to 5 (compe-tent) to indicate their perception of their level of competence in teaching science before thecourse began and “now” (at the close of Research Festival No. 2). The difference betweenthe means (2.65 and 4.20 respectively) was statistically significant (paired t test, two-tailed,p < 0.05). No one indicated a loss in feeling of competence. Two who already felt com-petent at the beginning of the course maintained that sense of competence. Three who hadfelt not competent (a rating of 2) moved to a neutral stance (a rating of 3). Fifteen whoinitially had felt not competent (a rating of 2) or neutral (a rating of 3) indicated a senseof competence (a rating of 4 or 5) at the end of the group investigation. The mean gain infeeling of competence was 1.55 units.

The first author also sent over the listserv a summary of the prospective teachers’ re-sponses to the question “To what do you attribute this change or lack of change in your

TABLE 3Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Confidence and Competence inTeaching Science

Prospective Teachers’ Perception Mean SD Mode Median Range

Confidence in teaching science beforethis course began

2.55 1.00 2 2 1–5

Confidence in teaching science now (at theclose of Research Festival No. 2).

4.30∗ 0.47 4 4 4–5

Perceived level of competence in teachingscience before this course began

2.65 0.93 2 2 2–5

Perceived level of competence in teachingscience now (at the close of ResearchFestival No. 2)

4.20∗ 0.69 4 4 3–5

n = 20; ∗ p < 0.001.


confidence and competence in teaching science?” Common themes among the responsesincluded:

a. Some felt more confident and competent because they now had had some experiencein teaching science.

Example comment: I think that our experience created growth within many ofus. We went into an unfamiliar classroom and conducted an inquiry-based lessonwhich many of us were not familiar with. After leaving we had more confidence inthis form of teaching and our own performance.

b. Some felt more confident and competent in teaching science because they had goodmentoring.

Example comment: Working with a group of peers along with a mentor teacherI feel much more confident and competent since I was able to actually do a sciencelesson in an actual class with such guidance.

c. Some felt more confident and competent in teaching science because they had learneda new method of teaching

Example comment: I think that I am now able to see new ways and types ofscience teaching. By discussing with peers and professionals you are able to seewhat things do and don’t work.

d. Some felt more confident and competent in teaching science because of the inquiry-based approach

Example comment: To practice in a classroom and model inquiry-basedinstruction.

Perspectives expressed by individual students included appreciation of seeing scienceintegrated with other subjects, of having fun teaching science, of understanding morescience, and of gaining a more nuanced understanding of gender issues. Although indicat-ing an increase in confidence and competence, one student articulated the still threateningissue of knowledge of science content (“My competence didn’t increase as much as confi-dence because I still don’t feel that I’m that knowledgeable about science in general”). Twostudents indicated that they already felt confident and competent to teach science.

Sometimes the prospective teachers commented on positive changes in their perceptionsin their reflective journals during the semester and self-assessments of progress at the endof the semester:

Hi Everyone. Science has never been my strong subject, but this semester I am definitelylearning to like it more. I was a little nervous for the lesson we taught last week on dissolving[in a SING teacher’s classroom], but it went great! The kids really enjoyed themselves and inthe review game at the end, we could tell that they really learned something. This experiencemade me feel more comfortable with the idea of teaching science. (Prospective Teacher’sJournal, 28 Sept 1999)

I felt that the science lesson my group taught at [SING teacher’s Elementary School] wasa big help to me. Towards the beginning of the semester, I was still a little nervous aboutteaching in front of the classroom. The teacher that we worked with was a great help and thefact that I was working with my peers made me feel so much more comfortable. (ProspectiveTeacher’s Assessment of Progress, Dec 1999)

When I first began this course, I was rather nervous because I knew that I never reallyenjoyed science and I was not sure I was going to learn how to teach it in the proper mannerbecause of my biased feelings. Right off the bat, our class established a very welcoming andcomfortable learning community . . . I immediately began to feel more at ease and believed

606 VAN ZEE ET AL.

this class would truly be beneficial in my developing teaching career. (Prospective Teacher’sAssessment of Progress, Dec 1999).

These comments suggest that at least some of the prospective teachers experienced positivechanges in their perceptions of themselves as science teachers and that these changes wereinitiated during the collaboration with the SING teachers. Such interpretations must betempered by noting the source of the data, journals sent to group members and the instructor,and self-assessments turned in with the students’ finals. Students who experienced negativeoutcomes would be unlikely to comment upon them in these contexts.

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ LEARNING

On the informal evaluation at the end of Research Festival No. 2 on March 2, 2000, theprospective teachers commented upon what they had learned from the group investigationprocess. Their responses indicated that they had gained knowledge in a wide variety ofarenas. The first author identified common themes in the e-mail message she sent to theclass listserv in the manner indicated above.

One student’s assessment was

I have learned more in this class than I have in any other class at (this university) except for(another professor’s) class.

Common themes among the responses and example comments:

Knowledge about teaching: Learned that putting together an inquiry-based instructionlesson is not as difficult and weird as initially thought of (to us this is difficult and hardbecause we are used to be told to do everything)

Knowledge about learning: I learned that the actual learning process is much more mean-ingful when we take ownership and direct our own ideas and teaching instead of beingspoon-fed

Knowledge about research: What questions can be looked at while teaching

Knowledge about working in groups: How to work more cooperatively with my group.Everyone had excellent points to make, which in time allowed the other group membersto realize something they may not have realized if fellow group members had notoffered their thoughts.

That it can be difficult to work in groups.

Knowledge about self: I can understand, predict, (?) and become totally involved inteaching science—I feel extremely capable!

Practical knowledge: Learned to make sure someone else takes pictures of you as well

One of the SING teachers wrote, “This is an important piece of extended learning foreven an experienced teacher.”

The prospective teachers’ new knowledge about teaching included an increased under-standing and acceptance of teaching science through inquiry. Their new knowledge aboutlearning included experiencing the meaningfulness of pursuing one’s own ideas. Severalcommented upon their new knowledge about research such as recognizing that one canexplore questions while teaching. Many learned about working in groups, both positiveand negative aspects. Several gained some knowledge about themselves, such as their ownstrengths and weaknesses.


BENEFITS FOR THE SCIENCE INQUIRY GROUP TEACHERS

SING teachers responded to an e-mail questionnaire about their experiences participatingin this collaborative process. Common themes in their responses included the following:

a. The SING teachers found the collaborative process to be stimulating

I participated in the fall and spring research festivals with methods students andcollaborated with the students as they planned and conducted lessons and groupinvestigations in my classroom. I have found the contact with the students stimulatingas we collaborate to improve the science instruction for my current students and theirfuture ones. (SING teacher, e-mail message, March 2000)

I find that the contact with the methods students is particularly beneficial, becausethey come to meetings eager to plan for their assignments and to speak to teacherswho are trying to improve their science teaching through research and observation.The SING itself is enthusiastic about improving science education for all childrenand is supportive of the projects that group members are doing. (SING teacher,e-mail message, March 2000)

b. The SING teachers enjoyed the discussions about learning and teaching

I enjoy the discussions that the whole group (working teachers and prospectiveteachers) has; those discussions often go missing in the day-to-day talk that teachersin my school engage in: how we cannot meet the demands being presented to us;how children’s behavior or lack of achievement makes the expectations made of usdifficult to accomplish. (SING teacher, e-mail message, March 2000)

c. The SING teachers were cheered by the interactions

Work with the students brings, of course, an idealism about teaching that can bebroken down as one works in the classroom. Reading over the list of what thestudents perceive as “excellent science teaching” both re-invigorates my interestin attempting to achieve those lofty goals (hands-on; real-life; etc.) and makes methink about how hard it is to create that kind of a climate in my own classroom.The students bring an extremely positive attitude to a place where I find behaviorproblems wearing. (SING teacher, e-mail message, March 2000)

I love to have the methods students come to my class for a variety of reasons. It isexciting to see individuals who are really interested in teaching and are full of ideas.They are not yet tainted by any particular situation, and so tend to be positive andupbeat about what they are doing. (SING teacher, e-mail message, March 2000)

d. The SING teachers appreciated the assistance of the prospective teachers in theirclassrooms in undertaking demanding activities

Of particular benefit to me is the semi-annual trip to the creek. Methods studentswork in small groups with 4th-graders and provide valuable observations about thoseyounger students and about the process of using the creek as an important tool inthe study of science, water and rocks, particularly. (SING teacher, e-mail message,March 2000)

It gives my students a day of youthful excitement and activities different from theones I use in my teaching. (SING teacher, e-mail message, March 2000)

608 VAN ZEE ET AL.

e. The SING teachers both taught and learned about teaching and learning

They (the prospective teachers) also are interested in learning, so they are genuinelyinterested in what the experienced teacher may have to offer. I love being exposedto their new ideas, and understandings, which may be very different than my own,but offer me an opportunity to see new perspectives. (SING teacher, e-mail message,March 2000)

f. The process provides opportunities for the SING teachers to be reflective

It is also a chance for me to be introspective and reflective. What information ofvalue can I offer? How much do I share? When do I give advice and when do I askquestions? How do I help them to see another perspective, without telling them whatit is, or allowing them to fall on their faces? What can I learn from them and frominteracting with them. What feedback can I provide that is both honest, and helpful?How can I be critical and constructive throughout the entire process? It makes methink about things that have now become second nature to me. Why do I do thethings that I do, and better yet—why don’t I do some other things? It is a wonderfulway to keep in touch with what is new and exciting in education. (SING teacher,e-mail message, March 2000)

The SING teachers seemed to enjoy the collaboration because they found working with theprospective teachers to be stimulating, informative, cheering, helpful, and challenging.

DRAWBACKS TO THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

The major drawback to this collaborative process is its complexity. Before the beginningof the semester, the first author wrote the prospective teachers to warn them of the sessionsthey would need to schedule outside of the regular class hours. At the first class session, sheattempted to group the prospective teachers by home addresses so that those living near eachother could car pool and those living nearer the more distant schools would be the ones to gothere. She also had to ascertain when each SING teacher could welcome visitors and to findmatches for times when the prospective teachers were free to come first to observe and thento teach. School schedules often were complicated by specials, assemblies, and field trips.

The SING teachers needed to figure out where they would be in their science curriculum atthe time the prospective teachers would be coming so that they could suggest an appropriatecontext for the prospective teachers to plan a lesson. Computer equipment had to be gathered,delivered, and made to work in one setting. Although we held the research festivals in thelate afternoon at a school with a somewhat central location, the SING teachers sometimesarrived late because of traffic or contingencies that had to be resolved before they couldleave their own schools. When the first research festival was snowed out on February 2,2000, all of the arrangements had to be remade. When one of the teachers could not cometo the new date, the prospective teachers in her group had to be dispersed among the others.

Another drawback, as well as strength, was the independence of the groups from the in-structor. The first author could not go to all of the schools to assist and observe; most of thegroups functioned on their own with assistance only from their SING teacher. When therewas friction among group members from previous courses and current incompatibilities, itwas difficult for the first author to be aware of the emerging difficulties or to step in to helpresolve them.

One of the SING teachers expressed the following: “For me the biggest drawback is time.I wish it could be a longer experience with more planning time at the beginning and more


reflection time at the end. It is also a drawback if it rains on the day of your stream visit. Ifeel that the benefits so far outweigh the drawbacks that they are basically inconsequential.”

DISCUSSION

During the collaborative process described here, prospective teachers planned and con-ducted science lessons and small research projects with mentoring from teacher researcherswho were science enthusiasts. Called the group investigation, this collaborative process ex-tended over the first third of a course on methods of teaching science in elementary school.

The prospective teachers first met the teacher researchers at a research festival duringthe second week of class. After hearing about the teacher researchers’ projects, each smallgroup of prospective teachers formulated a question about science teaching and learningand began designing ways to explore this question while teaching a science lesson intheir collaborating teacher researcher’s classroom. After visiting the teacher researchers’classrooms and refining their plans, the prospective teachers practiced their teaching andresearching with one another on campus before teaching and researching with childrenin schools. They collected data such as examples of student work, audio- or video-tapesof instruction, and their own written reflections. They made sense of these data throughdeveloping claims and assembling evidence in support of claims and presenting these inwritten reports of their findings and on posters that they presented at a second researchfestival. We concluded this collaborative process with a wide-ranging discussion of issuesof concern to the prospective teachers and with an informal questionnaire to reflect uponwhat had happened.

The group investigation seemed to be effective in modifying the self-perceptions of manyof the prospective teachers. According to responses on an informal evaluation at the endof the Spring 2000 group investigation, for example, most of the prospective teachersindicated that they perceived themselves to be more confident and more competent toteach science than at the beginning of the course; a few indicated that they had alreadyfelt confident and competent and this did not change. Common themes in the prospectiveteachers’ responses indicated that they had learned about teaching science through inquiry,taking ownership of their own learning, researching while teaching, working in groups, andunderstanding themselves as learners and teachers.

The teacher researchers also perceived themselves as benefiting from the collaborativeprocess. Their responses to an e-mail questionnaire suggested that they found workingwith the prospective teachers to be stimulating and cheering. They enjoyed the discussions,appreciated the help with demanding activities, grew in their own knowledge about teachingand learning, and valued the opportunities for reflection.

However, organizing the group investigation was complex. Time issues, driving distances,school schedules, unexpected teacher responsibilities, and unpredictable weather conspiredto produce a logistics nightmare.

The group investigation initiated prospective teachers into the process of researchingwhile teaching. This provided an example of a way to meet the recommendation of Pekarek,Krockover, and Shepardson (1996) that the notion of teachers as researchers should be incor-porated in science teacher education programs for both prospective and practicing teachers(p. 12). The prospective teachers’ experiences prepared them for reading accounts by expe-rienced teacher researchers about their science teaching practices (Saul et al., 1993). Col-laborating with SING teachers, for example, seems to have helped the prospective teachersbe more open to the ideas expressed in Charles Pearce’s chapter on “What if . . . ?” thinking(Pearce, 1993). Inviting students to generate and explore their own questions may haveseemed more feasible after the prospective teachers had had such experiences themselves.

610 VAN ZEE ET AL.

The group investigation provided many opportunities for the prospective teachers to en-gage in various modes of reflection, such as reflecting on their own experiences as sciencelearners, reflecting on another’s teaching, reflecting on their own teaching, and reflectingon expert opinions via course readings (Abell & Bryan, 1997). The opening session ofthe course activated memories of positive science learning experiences and engaged theprospective teachers in jointly constructing a list of factors that fostered their science learn-ing. They wrote reflective journals about the first research festival and their impressionsof their SING teacher’s teaching. They also wrote journals about their own teaching andresearching experiences with peers and with children. In their written reports, they reflectedupon expert opinions by making connections among their findings and the readings. The firstauthor’s intent was to teach “reflective teaching” (Schon, 1988) by teaching reflectively—bylistening to the prospective teachers’ ideas about science teaching and learning, inventingand testing ways to help them get over their anxieties and preconceptions about scienceteaching, helping them to build on what they already knew from previous positive sciencelearning experiences, to discover what they knew but had not previously articulated, and tocoordinate their “knowing-in-action” while teaching in the SING teachers’ classrooms withthe formal knowledge presented in their texts (Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999; NationalResearch Council, 1996; Saul et al., 1993).

Devoting the first third of the course to the group investigation exemplified the currentreform emphasis on project-based learning (Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999). Initiallythe prospective teachers seemed puzzled by an invitation to formulate and explore a questionabout science learning and teaching. With guidance from the SING teachers, however, theydesigned ways to investigate their questions and collected relevant data. The first authorperceived their conversations to be insightful as she moved about the class while they weredeveloping interpretations of their data and constructing posters to report their findings.Their presentations at the second research festival were focused and enthusiastic.

Were the prospective teachers’ knowledge gains sufficient, however, to warrant devotingone third of the course to this collaborative process? Did they learn enough to compensatefor the information that could have been presented to them in regular classes? These areissues with which the first author wrestled as she contemplated the many topics she wasnot “covering” in this course. From her perspective, the students can read the informationpresented in the textbooks but they may not have opportunities to learn in their schoolplacements “That teaching science is exciting, not scary” and “That I am able to teachscience.” Unfortunately, some rarely see science taught in their schools and some observemore traditional approaches that emphasize learning science vocabulary and innumerablefacts. Through this collaborative process, however, the first author can ensure that all ofher students have at least some exposure to and experience in teaching science in ways sheadvocates in the course.

This study is an example of a self-study by a teacher educator and her colleagues. Itis intended to be a contribution to the emerging conversation about research on teachereducation from the perspective of teacher educators (Zeichner, 1999). This study articulatesthe practices of a teacher educator who has chosen to be an organizer of learning eventsrather than a presenter of information. The study also documents the current status of a7-year effort to build a network among practicing and prospective teacher researchers. Inaddition, it examines the nature and impact of the use of project-based approaches in thecontext of learning to teach.

As a self-study, this work has limitations. Perceptions of one’s own practices are likelyto be biased. The prospective teachers’ assignment was to write reflective journals thatdescribed positive science learning experiences they observed and to articulate factors thatfostered that learning. Those who saw little science teaching in their school placements


often chose to write about what they were learning in the course. There was no mechanism,however, to elicit writings about negative experiences to balance the positive journals quotedhere. Prospective teachers with negative opinions also may have chosen not to make theeffort to write these on the anonymous questionnaires used to evaluate the research festivals.

Documentation of the group investigation is an on-going effort. Plans for further researchinclude developing a more detailed rendering of what happens when the prospective teachersgo out to visit and teach in the SING teachers’ classrooms. Of particular interest is tracingchanges in perceptions by the prospective teachers who seem most at sea with the open-ended approach to learning and teaching that we advocate and try to exemplify. Also ofinterest is documenting the influence of those who seem to have an affinity for this approach,particularly those who are graduates of the inquiry-based physics course.

Perhaps the most useful aspect of this study is the model it provides for bringing togethercurrent students with graduates who can demonstrate the importance and feasibility ofthe approaches being advocated in a course. In contrast to inviting a graduate in to speakinspirationally to a current class, the group investigation involves current students in anextended collaborative process. Not only can they observe graduates in action but they alsocan try the approaches themselves in authentic contexts with the support of their peers andexpert mentoring.

REFERENCES

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

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary scienceteacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary scienceteacher preparation. Science Education, 82, 491–510.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacherstories–stories of teachers–school stories–stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.

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

Doris, E. (1991). Doing what scientists do: Children learn to investigate their world. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Erickson, G. L., & MacKinnon, G. L. (1991). Seeing classrooms in new ways: On becoming a scienceteacher. In D.A. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice.New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher-researchers. York,

Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing.Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach.

Boston: McGraw-Hill.Krajcik, J. S., & Layman, J. W. (1993). Micro-computer based laboratories in the science classroom.

National Research in Science Teaching Newsletter, 31, 3–6.Lay, D. (2000a). Engaging fourth grade readers in science. Ethnography in Education Research Forum,

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Lay, D. (2000b). Science inquiry conference: A better way. In J. Minstrell & E.H. van Zee (Eds.),

Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Associationfor the Advancement of Science.

612 VAN ZEE ET AL.

Layman, J. (1996). Inquiry and learning: Realizing science standards in the classroom. New York:The College Entrance Examination Board.

Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the “at rest” condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10–14.Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg,

& H. Niedderer (Eds.) Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Kiel,Germany: IPN (Institute for Science Education).

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

Nichols, S. E., Wieseman, K., & Tippins, D. (1997). A toolkit for developing critically reflectivescience teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 77–106.

Pearce, C. (1993). What if . . . ? In W. Saul, J. Reardon, A. Schmidt, C. Pearce, D. Blackwood, &M. Bird (Eds.), Science workshop: A whole language approach. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pearce, C. (1999). Nurturing inquiry: Real science for the elementary classroom. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

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

Reardon, J. (1993). A community of scientists. In W. Saul, J. Reardon, A. Schmidt, C. Pearce,D. Blackwood, & M. Bird (Eds.), Science workshop: A whole language approach. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Roberts, D. (1999). The sky’s the limit: Parents and first grade students observe the sky. Science andChildren, 37, 33–37.

Roberts, D. (2000a, March). On the move: Using microcomputer-based laboratories with students andteachers. Ethnography in Education Research Forum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Roberts, D. (2000b). Teacher research: A new teacher’s journey. In J. Minstrell and E. H. van Zee(Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 120–129). Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Saul, W., Reardon, J., Schmidt, A., Pearce, C., Blackwood, D., & Bird, M. (1993). Science workshop:A whole language approach. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: BasicBooks.

Schon, D. A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett & G. L. Erickson (Eds.), Re-flection in teacher education (pp. 19–29). New York: Teachers College Press.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

van Zee, E. H. (1998a). Fostering elementary teachers’ research on their science teaching practices.Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 245–254.

van Zee, E. H. (1998b). Preparing teachers as researchers in courses on methods of teaching science.Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 35, 791–809.

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

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

van Zee, E. H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach:Prospective teachers’ perceptions of positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85,733–757.

Wolk, S. (1994). Project-based learning: Pursuits with a purpose. Educational Leadership, 52(3),42–45.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28 (9), 4–15.

Documents

Fostering collaborative inquiries by prospective and practicing elementary and middle school teachers