© Division of Chemical Education  • www.JCE.DivCHED.org  •  Vol. 85 No. 2 February 2008  •  Journal of Chemical Education 297

Research: Science and Education

The inclusion of inquiry-based instructional methods in the chemistry classroom (both K–12 and beyond) has been widely advocated in the past decade from a variety of sources, including national standards for K–12 teaching (1, 2), national reports on the crisis in K–12 mathematics and science education (3, 4), and editorials and commentaries from this Journal (5–8). Most of these advocates have focused on the use of inquiry-based meth-ods as a way to improve students’ conceptual content knowledge of chemistry (i.e., students will learn more chemistry and learn it better through the use of inquiry). This is best illustrated by a quote from an editorial in this Journal (7): “It is no longer a question of whether to fit inquiry-based learning into the cur-riculum at the expense of content. Inquiry is content and must be included in a standards-based curriculum.”

While inquiry-based methods are useful in helping students develop conceptual chemistry content knowledge (9), they also color students’ perceptions of what science is and how it is done (10), and more importantly for teachers, how science is taught and how it is learned (11). Referring back to John W. Moore’s quote, I would argue that inquiry is more than just content; inquiry is also a process by which students learn chemistry concepts and content that ultimately shapes their views regard-ing what chemistry (or any other science) is and how it is done. Others have recognized the effect that different instructional methods can have on the way students learn science concepts and how they view science as a field (1, 2, 12, 13), and that teachers, who were once students whose views about science were shaped by their learning environments, tend to teach sci-ence using the same methods and in the same ways they were taught (1, 5, 14, 15).

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (10), Thomas Kuhn outlined a theory of scientific change in which he relinquished the idea that doing science involves the progres-sive and cumulative process of chipping away bit-by-bit until the objective truth is found, in favor of the idea that doing science involves occasional revolutions or paradigm shifts in which the old theory is replaced by a completely different (and often incompatible) new theory that is not a progression or extension of the old one. The general term used to describe the way that science is done and the way that scientific knowledge is constructed (by individual learners and by the scientific com-munity as a whole) is the nature of science. From an instructional perspective, helping students understand the nature of science is crucial because it helps them think like scientists, it helps them learn how knowledge is developed in a scientific field, and when students mimic what scientists do it helps them learn sci-

How Does Inquiry-Based Instruction Affect Teaching Majors’ Views about Teaching and Learning Science?Michael J. SangerDepartment of Chemistry, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132; mjsanger@mtsu.edu

ence concepts (16–19). A mature view of the nature of science includes several ideas (11, 20–22): • Scientificknowledgeis—atthesametime—reliableand

tentative. • No step-by-stepprescriptionapplicable toall scientific

investigations exists. • Scientificknowledgeisbasedonnaturalisticexplanations

supported by empirical evidence (not faith). • Scientificknowledgemustbetestable(orfalsifiable). • Withnew evidence and interpretation, old scientific

ideas are replaced or supplanted (via evolutionary and revolutionary means) by newer ones.

• Scientificquestionsaskedareinfluencedbypreviousob-servations, the social and cultural context of the researcher, and the researcher’s experiences and expectations.

• Scientificknowledgeiscoloredbythevaluesandbeliefsof researchers.

The ideas listed above are consistent with psychological constructivism (23), which states that each individual’s con-structed knowledge is unique because it is based on his or her own unique experiences and ideas. This theory also suggests that students learning science using different instructional methodologies are likely to have different views regarding what science is and how it is taught and learned. This current study investigated how preservice teaching majors’ beliefs regarding how chemistry is taught and learned differed depending on whether they learned chemistry using traditional lecture-based methods or hands-on, inquiry-based methods.

Methodology

SubjectsThis study compared the written responses from two

groups of students. The first group (N = 16) consisted of third- and fourth-year preservice elementary teaching majors who were minoringinBasicScience(24). These students were enrolled in a physical science course taught using inquiry-based methods, and each of these students had completed at least two introduc-tory science courses (physical and life sciences) taught using inquiry-based methods before enrolling in this course. All of these inquiry-based courses were based on student experiments using learning cycles (25) with minimal lecturing and most of the class time spent in the laboratory setting. These students were the same 16 students whose chemistry content knowledge

Chemical Education Research edited by

Diane M. BunceThe Catholic University of America

Washington, DC 20064

Melanie M. CooperClemson University

Clemson, SC 29634

298 Journal of Chemical Education  •  Vol. 85 No. 2 February 2008  • www.JCE.DivCHED.org  • © Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

was compared to the content knowledge of students enrolled in traditional lecture-based introductory college chemistry courses (9). The second group of students consisted of third- and fourth-year preservice secondary science teaching majors who were enrolled in either a general science methods course and a concur-rent technology methods course (N = 16) or a chemistry-specific methods course (N = 8). Many of these secondary science teach-ing majors were planning to teach chemistry in grades 7–12, and all of these students would have completed several college-level science courses (chemistry, physics, and biology) as part of the science portion of their majors. All of these courses were taught using the traditional lecture format, with separate laboratory sections that focused on verification experiments (26).

The two groups of students differed by both the instruc-tional method used in their science courses (inquiry-based or traditional lectures) and the level at which they plan to teach science (elementary or secondary). It is reasonable to compare these two groups of students since they have both expressed intense interest in science and have chosen a major or minor related to teaching science.TheBasicScienceminors in thisstudy are much less likely to hate or fear science than other elementary teaching majors; otherwise they wouldn’t minor in it.ComparingtheBasicScienceminorstoother(non-science)elementary teaching majors would introduce another confound-ing variable (interest or fear in science) into the data that could affect the results of this research study. Therefore, it makes more sense tocompare theseBasicScienceminorswith secondaryscience teaching majors (who are also not likely to hate or fear science) than to other elementary teaching majors who have chosen other minors.

Data Collection and AnalysisThe data analyzed in this study were in the form of writ-

tenstudentreflectionsthatwereturnedinaspartoftheirclassassignments. For the elementary teaching majors enrolled in the inquiry-based course (IB), they were required to turn in awrittenreflectioneverytimetheyturnedintheirlaboratorynotebooks for grading (at least two times during each of the eightchapterscoveredinthatsemester).Inthereflections,theywere asked to comment on the experiments, how they would or would not adopt these experiments for elementary students, what worked well in the experiment and what did not, and any questions or concerns they may still have regarding the material

covered in these experiments. As part of their final examination, these students were asked to write a paper explaining how their views of teaching science had changed; whether they were more or less likely to teach science after taking this course; and which experiences from this class were the most and least helpful in preparing them to teach science. The secondary science teach-ing majors who had taken several traditional lecture courses in science(TL)werealsorequiredtoturninwrittenreflectionsaspart of their assignments. For the general science and chemistry-specific methods courses, these assignments included, among others,students’reflectionson(27):

• Theirperceptionsofwhatmakessomeoneagoodscienceteacher

• Whattheidealscienceclassroomwouldlooklike • The instructionalmethods that they likedanddisliked

and with which they learned the best and the worst • Their observations and experiences in actual science

classrooms

For the technology methods courses, students were required tosendareflectiononceaweekviae-mailonthetopicsand equipment that were discussed in class.

Thewritten reflectionswere analyzedusing a constantcomparison technique (28–30). In particular, the data from the two sets of students were analyzed to detect differences in their beliefs regarding the way chemistry is taught and learned. While there were some similarities in the written responses from both groups, this study focused on the differences in their responses. (Similaritiesincludedstatementsfromstudentsofbothgroupsthat it is the teacher’s job to get students to know more, that stu-dents learn better when they are interested in the material, and that teachers are less likely to teach topics that they themselves do not completely understand.)

Although the students’ quotes listed in the following section each came from a single student, similar responses for many of these ideas were expressed by other students in the same group. These categories are intended to describe the differences as a whole for these two groups; according to the teachers who havetaughtusingbothinstructionalmethods—inquiry-basedandlecture-based—theseassertionscategorizedbelowdescribereal differences between these two groups of students preparing to be teachers.

Preservice Teachers’ Views on Teaching and Learning Science

Thereflectionsfromthetwogroupsofstudentswerecom-pared to find topics that were discussed by at least one student from each group, and where the perceptions of the two students were very different (see List 1). These topics are listed as a series of assertions (27) that match the views presented by students (secondary science teaching majors) who learned science using traditional lecture-based methods (TL), but are contradicted by students (elementary teaching majors) who learned science using inquiry-based methods (IB). Implicit in these comparisons is the assumption that if the elementary teaching majors had learned science from the traditional lecture-based science courses, their attitudes toward teaching science would be comparable to the attitudes of the secondary science teaching majors.

1. The teacher is the classroom information source.

2. The textbook is the classroom information source.

3. Teaching science is all about knowledge transfer.

4. Teaching science is all about lecturing.

5. Learning science is about being told what to do.

6. Learning science is about never making mistakes.

7. Learning science is more about facts than concepts.

8. Learning science is hindered by the real world.

List 1. Contrasting Assertions about Teaching and Learning Science from Both Preservice Groups

© Division of Chemical Education  • www.JCE.DivCHED.org  •  Vol. 85 No. 2 February 2008  •  Journal of Chemical Education 299

Research: Science and Education

Assertion 1: The teacher is the source of information in the science classroom

The science teaching majors were very comfortable with the idea that the teacher is in charge of the teaching and learn-ing in the classroom (12), presumably because of their past experiences in traditional lecture-based college science courses. Their responses show that they believed that college is all about instructors telling students what they need to know and students parroting that material back. This is in stark contrast to the views of the elementary teaching majors regarding the teacher’s role in the classroom. Because of their experiences in science classes where they were in charge of learning (collecting data and making sense of it), they were less likely to believe that it is the teacher’s job to tell students what the right answers are, and more likely to instead believe that teachers should be encouraging students to figure these answers out on their own (with instructor guidance).

…I am more upset by the fact that I learned nothing new in the course of the semester and that I am being punished for that fact, when the instructor is supposed to supply the majority of the information (or what good is college then?) [TL]

I remember when in elementary school how the teachers told you what to do and what to see when the experiment was done. I feel that this is the wrong way of teaching sci-ence… This [hands-on experimentation] allows the student to see and comprehend that not every answer in life is going to be given to them, they will have to figure out the results on their own and not have someone telling them what the outcome should be… [IB]

Assertion 2: The textbook is the source of information in the science classroom

This assertion is related to the first one, although it is probably more true for classes where the teacher does not feel comfortable or confident enough with the material to accept the role of “content expert”. Many of these uncomfortable teachers use the textbook not only as the source of information, but also as the organizer of the lessons (31, 32). The comments from thescienceteachingmajors—evenfromthosewhofeltprettycomfortablebeingthe“expert”intheclassroom—showabeliefthat the textbook is a source of content and organization in the classroom. The elementary teaching majors, on the other hand, felt more comfortable with allowing the students to assume a more pivotal role in their learning instead of depending on the textbook to provide this support, because that is the way they learned science using inquiry-based methods.

I’ve had difficulty in the education department, (lowest grades I’ve ever gotten) because the profs did not discuss stuff from the book. The exams were over book material integrated with their lectures, however, the lectures seemed to lack content and systematic approaches. [TL]

My views on teaching middle school science have changed dramatically. I used to just want to have my students read out of a book and then complete some supplemental labs to go along with their readings. I now understand every subject can be taught in a hands on manner. [IB]

Assertion 3: Teaching science is all about knowledge transfer

Many of the quotes from the science teaching majors reveal a belief that the teacher’s job is to present material, and that if this is done clearly then students will automatically learn. Although these students had learned about the fundamental claim of constructivism that students must be actively involved in their learning and are not “empty vessels” to be filled with the teacher’s knowledge (33, 34), their views regarding teaching sci-ence were often inconsistent with these constructivist notions. The elementary teaching majors’ views regarding student and teacher involvement were more consistent with the construc-tivist ideal that students are ultimately in charge of developing their own knowledge.

Good teachers have good communication skills and present material clearly. [TL]

Good teaching involves the transfer of knowledge. [TL]

I feel that I know these concepts well enough that I will be comfortable to be in the position of letting the students find these subjects out for themselves and just use me when needed. [IB]

Assertion 4: Teaching science is all about lecturing

The expression of this assertion is not surprising, and is perhaps an extension of the science teaching majors’ beliefs that teaching science is knowledge transfer. If one believes that knowledge can be directly transferred from one individual to another, then lecturing would be the most effective way of doing so.Still,someofthescienceteachingmajorsexpressedconcernsabout lecturing; they were just not sure what else to do. After taking several inquiry-based science courses, the elementary teachingmajorshadverydifferentviewsaboutlecturing.Sometalked about eliminating lectures in favor of more hands-on instructional approach, while others (still recognizing that lec-turing has its place in the science classroom) talked more about minimizing the importance of lecturing.

The instructional method that I learn most from is lecturing. …I am an accomodator and usually am at my best in real, active experiences. My rationale for this discrepancy is that lecturing is the only form I’ve truly known, so I’m used to it—Iknowhowtosurvive.Ontheflipside,I’mnotusedtoactivity-based or student centered learning, so now when I am forced to come up with the learning on my own, I’m almost “in the dark” and don’t know where to start because I haven’t had a lot of practice at it… [TL]

My view of teaching elementary school science has changed since taking this course. I see it as more of a hands-on ap-proach than a lecture and take notes way of teaching… I have learned more about the learning cycle type of teaching (experiment first, talk later) and I think it is a great way to teach and for students to learn. [IB]

I really have come to believe that teaching children with a hands-on approach makes the subject matter so much more realistic to students… I think that lecture may be an integral part of my classroom, but it will only be a small part. [IB]

300 Journal of Chemical Education  •  Vol. 85 No. 2 February 2008  • www.JCE.DivCHED.org  • © Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

Assertion 5: Learning science is about being told what to do

One of the science teaching majors’ concerns regarding student-centered learning is the lack of control on the part of the student. Perhaps because of their reliance as students on the teacher as a source of information, they were unfamiliar (and therefore uncomfortable) with the uncertainty of being in charge of finding their own information. Even though the elementary teaching majors felt the same uncertainty regarding their science knowledge, in previous IB courses they had expe-rienced the feeling that they didn’t understand the material as well as the rest of the class although they recognized that this feeling was not permanent.

One way that I do not do that good at learning is give me a lab and set me loose and have me do whatever I want to get the results I need. YEAH RIGHT! I need to follow exactly what someone tells me to do otherwise I will be in trouble. I will not learn anything but perseverance if I am let free in a lab to “discovery∙learn”.NOT![TL]

I have little to no experience with [electrical] circuits so I feel a little out-of-it in comparison to some people. But after it is explained to me I think I understand it for the most part. IthinkIwillgetitaftermoreexperiments—itisokaytobein the dark for awhile!! [IB]

Assertion 6: Learning science is about never making mistakes

Another of the science teaching majors’ concerns regard-ing student-centered learning is the lack of control on the part oftheteacher.Student-centeredlearningisscaryforteachers,especially if they are accustomed to being the sole source of information in the classroom, because performing experiments involves uncertainty and students make mistakes in lab. For some of the secondary teaching majors, this was a reason to limit or eliminate the use of student-centered learning strate-gies. For the elementary teaching majors who had spent most of their time in class performing experiments, they viewed it as an opportunity to talk to students about how science is really done. If unexpected or contradictory data were collected, then the experiment should be repeated to see whether a mistake was made. In this case, a mistake is not fatal; it’s a learning experience for student and teacher.

One problem about letting the students do the experiment is thattheycanlearnwrongfromtheexperiment.Mrs.Smithstated today for the Current Curricula in Physics class [a physics-specific methods course] that letting students do the free fall with ticker tape hurts the experiment. Ticker tape has friction, and so when heavier masses are attached to the ticker tape, then it actually looks like heavier objects fall faster. If students were to run this experiment before learning that gravity is constant regardless of mass, then they will believe in the misconception linking gravity and mass. [TL]

If the student performs the activity the way they understand and then see the results as an activity gone wrong, they can retest the activity and try again, knowing they need to be more careful and more cautious about how they work on the experiment. [IB]

Assertion 7: Learning science is more about facts and figures than concepts

The science teaching majors tended to focus more on learn-ing facts and mathematical manipulations rather than focusing on learning concepts (27). This is partially a practical approach, since they were usually asked to demonstrate knowledge of facts and mathematical calculations in their previous science classes. However, when asked to explain concepts, some science teach-ing majors expressed frustration at not being able to explain the concepts behind a particular fact or calculation. The elementary teaching majors, on the other hand, tended to focus on concepts and how they were developed based on classroom experiences, often in contrast to the way they had learned science in previous (traditional lecture-based) classes.

There is no big picture. We get a formula, we fill in the val-ues and that’s it. I know that D = m ∙ V but I am not sure I understand density. [TL]

The concept of density has always been something that has confused me. I didn’t know how to explain density except for a math equation, which doesn’t do much except for getting the answer. I like the explanation that something has a greater density when the molecules are more “crowded”. [IB]

This is the first class that I have had that I have honestly had to given reasons “why” that related to molecules or particles…NowIjustneedtocatchmyselfgivingincompleteanswers that forget to mention the real reason “why” when I hand in my labs. [IB]

Assertion 8: The real world gets in the way of learning science

Partly because the science teaching majors were used to focusing on facts instead of concepts, they got frustrated when they tried to apply science concepts they had studied in previous science classes to new situations they encountered in the real world. Even worse, they felt that focusing on real world appli-cations distracted them from learning the material that will be assessed. Because the inquiry-based science courses incorporated real-world applications into the hands-on experiments, the el-ementary teaching majors felt more comfortable discussing these applications and saw the relevance for doing so.

We never talk about real world stuff in class and it is just confusing to think about on your own. Trying to apply this stuff just keeps you from learning what you need for the test. [TL]

Physical science has everything to do with every day life… To take this child who doesn’t understand the world he lives in and to be able to explain it to him so he can be comfort-able living in it and dealing with it is what I want to do in my life. [IB]

Teachers’ Interest and Confidence in Teaching Science: A Return to Content

The lack of meaningful science instruction in elemen-tary schools has been a topic of intense debate and research worldwide for several decades. Two major reasons cited for

© Division of Chemical Education  • www.JCE.DivCHED.org  •  Vol. 85 No. 2 February 2008  •  Journal of Chemical Education 301

Research: Science and Education

this predicament are a lack of elementary teachers’ interest and enthusiasm in teaching science (13, 27, 35–38) and a lack of elementary teachers’ confidence that they can teach science ef-fectively (13, 35, 37, 39–43). This lack of elementary teachers’ confidence (and to some extent, their lack of interest) in teaching elementary school science has been attributed to these teachers’ beliefs that they do not know enough science content or don’t know it well enough to properly teach their science lessons in meaningful, hands-on ways (31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45). The elementary teaching majors in this study who had taken several inquiry-based science courses in college reported that perform-ing these hands-on lessons involving real-world applications that can be adapted to the elementary science classroom had greatly increased their interest in teaching science.

When I was in high school I did not enjoy physics or chemistry… However, as it turns out chemistry and physics canbefun—imaginethat!Yourclassreallyopenedmyeyesand made me realize that physical science can be fun and interesting—andmessy!Inolongerholdontothosebadmemories of high school chemistry of balancing equation afterequation.NowIknowthatchemistrycanbefunandinteresting for both my students and I. [IB]

IhadfunplayingwiththeSquand[hydrophobicsand],andI think that if a college student has this much fun with sand then elementary students would too. [IB]

A good thing about this class was that I was able to feel like a kid again. That was good because it will enable me to see how my future students will most likely learn. [IB]

I thinkthatInvestigations inPhysicalScience isprobablythe most unique science class that I have ever taken… This class is very hands-on, something I hope to incorporate into my future science classes. I like how the other students and I have fun while doing the experiments, but also learn science. [IB]

In addition, several of these students commented that taking this course had improved their content knowledge in physical science and their confidence to teach elementary school science using these hands-on techniques.

Someoftheformulasandtypesofbonding[discussedinthisclass] may be too difficult for most elementary students, but it is good background for the teacher to know when teach-ing. I think that a person can teach better when they know more about the subject than what they are teaching. Many times students have so many questions and to be able to tell that child a little more may help that child understand more of the subject matter. [IB]

With the bottle [Cartesian diver] sitting in my dorm room, I have had 6 or 7 people ask me about it. When they were playing with it, I had the opportunity to explain how the densities of the H2O and the diver made the experiment work. [IB]

I know that this course has affected me because I have seen my new found knowledge shine through in an actual classroom. I went to Grant Elementary to teach a light lesson right after we had talked about colored light. I was quite nervous worrying that I would “mess up” or

not be able to explain everything correctly. The knowledge that I learned from only a few days of class had made me ex-tremely confident that day in the classroom. My lesson went well and it made me feel that I was accomplishing something inclasses—whichdoesnotreallyhappentoooften…[IB]

Conclusions

This study compared the views of how science is taught and learned for elementary teaching majors who had taken several inquiry-based college-level science courses and for secondary sci-ence teaching majors who had taken several traditional lecture-based college-level science courses.Written reflections fromstudents in the two groups demonstrated very different views regarding how science is taught and how it is learned. Compared to the secondary science teaching majors, the elementary teach-ing majors developed more mature views regarding the nature of science (11, 20–22) that are more in line with constructivist ideals (33, 34) as a result of these hands-on inquiry-based science courses. In particular, the elementary teaching majors viewed chemistry as an explanation of nature based on empirical evi-dence collected in class as part of the inquiry lessons, while the secondary science teaching majors viewed chemistry as a set of unrelatedfactsthatwereblindlyacceptedonfaith—notareli-gious faith in this case, but rather a faith in the infallibility of the teacher and textbooks as the source of all knowledge. Chin (46) reported that preservice elementary teaching majors in Taiwan scored lower on a nature of science test than preservice second-ary science education majors. The fact that this trend is reversed in this study may suggest that the inquiry-based methods have had a positive effect on the elementary teaching majors’ views of how science is taught and learned.

In addition, several of the elementary teaching majors in this study reported that the inquiry-based college science courses they had taken led to greater interest and confidence in teaching science in the elementary school setting, and an increased likelihood that they will teach elementary science using hands-on inquiry-based methods. Raising elementary teachers’ interest and confidence in teaching science has been of considerable interest (13, 35, 37), because teachers with low interest or confidence in teaching science tend to avoid teaching science to their students and when they do, they tend to rely on textbook-dominated or lecture-based methods that are not as effective as inquiry-based instructional approaches.

Taken together, this study and the previous one (9) that compared the chemistry content knowledge of elementary teaching majors enrolled in an inquiry-based physical science course and science majors enrolled in traditional lecture-based chemistry courses make a strong case for the use of inquiry-based methods when teaching preservice elementary teaching majors. The previous study (9) showed that students in an inquiry-based course learn chemistry content knowledge at a level comparable to (if not slightly better than) students enrolled in traditional lecture-based courses. This current study shows that the use of inquiry-based methods can greatly affect teachers’ interest and confidence in teaching chemistry (two measures that are also directly tied to their chemistry content knowledge) as well as their views regarding how science is done, and how it is taught and learned. These results also suggest that if we want to change the ways in which secondary science teaching majors view how

302 Journal of Chemical Education  •  Vol. 85 No. 2 February 2008  • www.JCE.DivCHED.org  • © Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

science is taught and learned, then these students also need to learn science in their science content courses using a more inquiry-based, hands-on approach.

Acknowledgments

TheauthorwouldliketothanktheMTSUOfficeofRe-search for financial support from the Research Enhancement Program.

Literature Cited

1. NationalResearchCouncil.National Science Education Standards; NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC,1996.

2. AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience.Benchmarks for Science Literacy;OxfordUniversityPress:NewYork,NY,1993.

3. NationalAcademyofSciences.Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future; NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC,2005.

4. NationalResearchCouncil.America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science;NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC,2005.

5. Crosby,G.A.J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73,A200–A201. 6. Ware,S.A.J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73,A307–A308. 7. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75,391. 8. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 775. 9. Sanger,M.J.J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84,1035–1039.10. Kuhn,T.S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,3rded.;Uni-

versityofChicagoPress:Chicago,IL,1996.11. NationalScienceTeachersAssociation.NSTA Position Paper: The

Nature of Science;Washington,DC,2000. 12. Ellsworth, J. Z.; Buss, A. Sch. Sci. Math. 2000, 100,355–363.13. Pell,A.;Jarvis,T.Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25,1273–1295. 14. Roehrig, G. H.; Luft, J. A.; Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A. J. Chem.

Educ. 2003, 80,1206–1210.15. Hammrich,P.L.J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 1998, 10,18–38. 16. Rutledge, M. L. Am. Biol. Teach. 2005, 67,329–333. 17. Hipkins, R. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27,243–254. 18. Ohana, C. Sci. & Children 2005, 43 (2), 6.19. McComas,W.Sci. Teach. 2005, 72(7),24–29.20. Abd-El-Khalick,F.Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27,15–42.21. Crowther,D.T.;Lederman,N.G.;Lederman,J.S.Sci. & Children

2005, 43(2),50–52.

22. Lederman,J.S.Sci. & Children 2005, 43(2),53.23. Bernal,P.J.J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83,324–326.24. Lee,C.;Krapfl,L.J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2002, 13,247–265.25. Marek,E.A.;Cavallo,A.The Learning Cycle: Elementary School

Science and Beyond, rev. ed.;Heinemann:Portsmouth,NH,1997.

26. Domin,D.S.J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76,543–547. 27. Phelps, A. J.; Lee, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80,829–832.28. Glaser,B.;Strauss,A.The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strate-

gies for Qualitative Research;AldinePublishing:NewYork,NY,1967.

29. Goetz,J.P;LeCompte,M.D.Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research;AcademicPress:Orlando,FL,1984.

30. Phelps,A.J.J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71,191–194.31. Grossman,P.L.;Wilson,S.M.;Shulman,L.S.TeachersofSub-

stance:SubjectMatterKnowledge forTeaching. InKnowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher; Reynolds, M. C., Ed.; Pergamon Press:Oxford,1989;pp23–36.

32. Harlen,W.;Holroyd,C.Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1997, 19,93–105.33. Bodner,G.M.J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63,873–878.34. Bodner,G.;Klobuchar,M.;Geelan,D.J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78,

1107.35. Tilgner,P.J.Sci. Educ. 1990, 74,421–431.36. Crosby,G.A.J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 271–272.37. Jarrett,O.S.J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 1999, 11,47–57.38. Liang,L.L.;Gabel,D.L. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 1143–

1162.39. Mulholland,J.;Wallace,J.J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 1996, 8,17–38.40. Jasien,P.G.J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 48. 41. Tosun, T. Sch. Sci. Math. 2000, 100,374–379. 42. Jarvis, T.; Pell, A. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 26, 1787–1811.43. Utley,J.;Bryant,R.Sch. Sci. Math. 2005, 105, 82–87. 44. Bearlin, M. Res. Sci. Educ. 1990, 20,21–30.45. Lederman,N.G.;Flick,L.B.Sch. Sci. Math. 2003, 103,361–

363. 46. Chin, C.-C. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27,1549–1570.

Supporting JCE Online Materialhttp://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Feb/abs297.html

Abstract and keywords

Full text (PDF) LinkstocitedURLsandJCE articles