Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inquiry teaching in primary science:
A phenomenographic study
Joseph Ireland
BSc(Psych), GrDipEd (Sec), MEd.
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
April 2011
i
Keywords
Science education, inquiry learning, inquiry teaching, phenomenography,
conceptions of teaching.
ii
iii
Academic supervisors:
Associate Professor Jim Watters,
Associate Professor Jo Brownlee,
Doctor Mandy Lupton
iv
v
Abstract
In spite of having a long history in education, inquiry teaching (the
teaching in ways that foster inquiry based learning in students) in science
education is still a highly problematic issue. However, before teacher
educators can hope to effectively influence teacher implementation of inquiry
teaching in the science classroom, educators need to understand teachers’
current conceptions of inquiry teaching. This study describes the qualitatively
different ways in which 20 primary school teachers experienced inquiry
teaching in science education. A phenomenographic approach was adopted
and data sourced from interviews of these teachers. The three categories of
experiences that emerged from this study were; Student Centred
Experiences (Category 1), Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2), and
Student Generated Questions (Category 3). In Category 1 teachers structure
their teaching around students sensory experiences, expecting that students
will see, hear, feel and do interesting things that will focus their attention,
have them asking science questions, and improve their engagement in
learning. In Category 2 teachers structure their teaching around a given
problem they have designed and that the students are required to solve. In
Category 3 teachers structure their teaching around helping students to ask
and answer their own questions about phenomena. These categories
describe a hierarchy with the Student Generated Questions Category as the
most inclusive. These categories were contrasted with contemporary
educational theory, and it was found that when given the chance to voice
their own conceptions without such comparison teachers speak of inquiry
teaching in only one of the three categories mentioned. These results also
help inform our theoretical understanding of teacher conceptions of inquiry
teaching. Knowing what teachers actually experience as inquiry teaching, as
opposed to understand theoretically, is a valuable contribution to the
literature. This knowledge provides a valuable contribution to educational
theory, which helps policy, curriculum development, and the practicing
primary school teachers to more fully understand and implement the best
vi
educative practices in their daily work. Having teachers experience the
qualitatively different ways of experiencing inquiry teaching uncovered in this
study is expected to help teachers to move towards a more student-centred,
authentic inquiry outcome for their students and themselves. Going beyond
this to challenge teacher epistemological beliefs regarding the source of
knowledge may also assist them in developing more informed notions of the
nature of science and of scientific inquiry during professional development
opportunities. The development of scientific literacy in students, a high
priority for governments worldwide, will only to benefit from these initiatives.
vii
Table of Contents
Keywords i
Abstract v
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures x
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgements xiii
Statement of original authorship xiv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background to the study 1
1.2 Rationale 4
1.3 Aim 6
1.4 Study Design 6
1.5 Organisation of the thesis 8
1.6 Conclusion 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review 13
2.1 Constructivism and learning in science 13
2.2 Epistemology and the Nature of Science (NOS) 16
2.2.1 The uncertain nature of the nature of science 17
2.2.2 Authentic science and the science classroom 19
2.3 Inquiry in the classroom 22
2.3.1 History of inquiry teaching 22
2.3.2 Status of inquiry teaching 23
2.3.3 What do we understand by inquiry teaching 25
2.3.4 Theoretical models of inquiry teaching 30
2.3.5 Contemporary issues regarding inquiry teaching 34
2.3.6 Studies to support inquiry teaching effectiveness 35
2.4 Ways of experiencing inquiry teaching 36
2.4.1 Conceptions of teaching in general 37
2.4.2 Conceptions of inquiry teaching in science education 49
2.4.3 Relationship between conceptions and practice 51
2.5 Conclusion 58
viii
Chapter 3 Methodology and Research design 61
3.1 Overview of phenomenography 62
3.1.1 Ontological and epistemological perspectives 62
3.1.2 Phenomenography and t qualitative research 64
3.1.3 Variation in approaches to phenomenography 65
3.1.4 Variation and the structure of awareness 68
3.1.5 Conceptions, categories, and outcome space 72
3.1.6 The experience of teaching 74
3.2 Methods 76
3.2.1 Participants 77
3.2.2 Data collection 79
3.2.3 Data analysis 84
3.2.4 Ethics 92
3.2.5 Research rigour 93
3.3 Conclusion 96
Chapter 4 Results 97
4.1 Overview of the Results 97
4.1.1 The outcome space: an overview 97
4.1.2 Dimensions of variation 100
4.1.3 The how and what 100
4.1.4 Conclusion 101
4.2 The Student Centred Experiences Category 101
4.2.1 Summary 102
4.2.2 Detail of the Student Centred Experiences category 103
4.2.3 Conclusion 112
4.3 The Teacher Generated Problems Category 112
4.3.1 Summary 112
4.3.2 Detail of the Teacher Generated Problems category 114
4.3.3 Conclusion 124
4.4 The Student Generated Questions Category 125
4.4.1 Summary 125
4.4.2 Detail of the Student Generated Questions category 126
4.4.3 Conclusion 137
4.5 The Outcome Space 137
ix
4.5.1 Comparison of the how and what of inquiry teaching 137
4.5.2 Quantitative comparison of category frequency 139
4.5.3 Outcome space for the awareness structures 140
4.5.4 Comparison of the Dimensions of variation 142
4.6 Conclusion 147
Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendations 149
5.1 General findings 150
5.2 Comparison with definitions of inquiry teaching 150
5.2.1 Comparison with theoretical models of inquiry teaching 153
5.3 Epistemology and the nature of science 156
5.4 Limitations 159
5.5 Recommendations 162
5.5.1 Recommendations for implementing Category 3 inquiry 162
5.5.2 Recommendations for general education 167
Chapter 6 Conclusion 171
Appendix A: Participant quantitative data 173
Appendix B: Interview schema 175
Appendix C: Comparison of categories 177
Appendix D: Sample personal profile 179
References 183
x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Influences on teacher approaches to teaching. ..........................55
Figure 3.1. Referential and structural ways of experiencing .........................71
Figure 3.2. A schematic presentation of The structure of awareness ...........72
Figure 3.3. An analysis of the experience of learning ...................................75
Figure 3.4. The experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study. ......76
Figure 4.1. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.........101
Figure 4.2. Student Centred Experiences category how and what .............104
Figure 4.3. Teacher Generated Problems category how and what.............114
Figure 4.4. Student Generated Questions category how and what ............127
Figure 4.5. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.........138
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of the outcome space of teachers’ ways
of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education. ...............................141
xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations.........26
Table 2.2 Forms of inquiry teaching by Martin-Hansen.................................31
Table 2.3 The 5E’s instructional model by Bybee. ........................................33
Table 2.4 Researcher generated comparison of teacher conceptions. .........40
Table 2.5 Summary of dimensions of variation in studies cited. ..................48
Table 3.1 Outcome space as presented in this study ...................................73
Table 4.1 Outcome space for the phenomenon of inquiry teaching. .............98
Table 4.2 Structure of awareness for Category 1........................................106
Table 4.3 Structure of awareness for Category 2........................................118
Table 4.4 Structure of awareness for Category 3........................................130
Table 4.5 Outcome space for the awareness structures.............................140
Table 4.6 Summary of the dimensions of variation across categories .......142
Table 5.1 Comparison of results with major models of inquiry teaching. ....154
Table 5.2 Comparison of Perla and Carifio and the current study...............157
xii
"Of only one thing am I convinced: I have never seen anybody improve in the
art and techniques of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry.”
(Bruner, 1962, p. 94).
xiii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jim Watters for helping this project get started,
providing literally hundreds of hours of patient corrections and contentious
advice, connecting me with the world of inquiry and science education, for
the inspiration of a precise and ordered mind.
To Jo Brownlee for her studious and gentle manner or making the
complex obtainable, for unravelling some of the mysteries of epistemology,
and introducing me to the phenomenography community.
To Mandy Lupton, bringing her energy and enthusiasm, and
dangerously sharp intellect, to a project lost in the past.
To John Lidstone, for his politeness and good manners which got me
to QUT, and for his entire contribution to this thesis which involves
suggesting I try phenomenography in the first place.
To Mum and Dad, who taught me everything I know, or taught me to
love knowing, through which I now know I know everything that I know I know
and many things I do not know I know. May your legacy live on in me and the
words and ideas I inflict upon the world – this is just the beginning…
To my wife Samantha, who never fails to complain about every new
adventure I begin, and never fails to see me through them all. The journey
wouldn’t be the same without you!
And finally to God, for reasons of a personal nature…
xiv
Statement of original authorship
The work contained in this thesis as not been previously submitted for
a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signed:
Date:
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
This study investigates the qualitatively different ways in which
primary school teachers experience inquiry teaching in science education
(hereafter referred to by the simplified phrase “inquiry teaching”). After
defining some necessary terms here, this chapter provides the background
(Section 1.1) rationale (1.2), and the aim of the study (Section 1.3). The study
design is briefly overviewed (Section 1.4), and an overview of the thesis
structure is then given (Section 1.5). The section is then concluded (1.6)
summarising the main aim of the study.
The word inquiry in an educational context can be considered as: (a) a
process in which scientists engage in the community, that is, scientific inquiry
(Ruiz-Primo, Li, Tsai, & Schneider, 2010); (b) skills students should develop
about how to do science (Asay & Orgill, 2010), that is, student inquiry; (c)
outcomes students should learn about the Nature of Science
(NOS)(Lederman, 2004); and (d) as an approach to teaching science (Brown,
Abell, Demir, & Schmidt, 2006), that is, inquiry teaching. This thesis will take
the fourth definition, but the others are presented here for completeness.
Usually the literature focuses on the student’s role, where the term is
called inquiry learning. In this thesis, the term inquiry teaching is used to
focus the reader’s attention on teacher, not student, conceptions. The term
inquiry teaching may also potentially be used to refer to the act of inquiring
into the act of teaching, that is, inquiring into what it means to teach (Hill,
Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). This thesis does not use the term in that way as it
would require the focus of a different study. Finally, the terms experience,
conception, and understanding are used somewhat interchangeably in this
thesis.
The background for this thesis will now be explored in order to locate
the study in the context of contemporary science education.
1.1 Background to the study
High quality science education is a priority in Australia and
internationally (Department of Education, Services, and Training [DEST],
2002; National Research Council of America, 1996, 2000; National Science
2
Board, 2007). Governments world wide recognise the contributions a rich
science education gives to their citizens. For example, the Australian
National Curriculum Board in its draft document of the science curriculum
(National Curriculum Board, 2009), states:
Young children and adolescents frequently pose questions to
gain a sense of themselves and the world about them. The
intrinsic curiosity and simple wonder that is involved in such
inquiry is the quality that drives learning and understanding.
Passion, excitement, frustrations, uncertainty and
enlightenment are experienced in the quest for science
understanding and a scientific view of the world. (p. 4)
Inquiry teaching is encouraged internationally as one of the most
effective means of educating students in science (Campbell, Abd-Hamid, &
Chapman, 2010; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010; National Curriculum Board,
2009; National Research Council of America, 2000, 2005). The National
Research Council of America (NRC, National Research Council of America,
1996, 2000) speaks of scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching as such:
Inquiry is a set of interrelated processes by which students
pose questions about the natural world and investigate
phenomena; in doing so, students acquire knowledge and
develop a right understanding of concepts, principles, models
and theories. Inquiry [teaching] is a critical component of a
science program at all grade levels and in every domain of
science, and designers of curricula and programs must be sure
that the approach to content, as well as the teaching and
assessment strategies, reflect the acquisition of scientific
understanding through inquiry. Students then will learn science
in a way that reflects how science actually works. (p. 214,
parenthesis added)
Nationally and internationally, calls are being made to include inquiry
as part of the curriculum (Lunetta, Hofstein, & Clough, 2007). The National
Science Teachers Association of America (2007) state that “Inquiry-based
laboratory investigations at every level should be at the core of the science
program and should be woven into every lesson and concept strand” (p. 2).
Inquiry teaching is promoted as having several quality outcomes for students
3
and teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2009; Abd-El-Khalick, Baujaoude,
Duschl, Lederman, Mamlok-Naaman, Hofstein et al., 2004; Gibson & Chase,
2002; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002). For
example, it can improve preservice teachers’ views regarding how science is
taught and learned that are more in line with constructivist ideals (Sanger,
2007); help students develop accurate scientific knowledge and skills (Fleer
& Hardy, 2001; Skamp, 2004; Wynne, Macro, Reed, & Schilling, 2003);
improve student motivation (Windschitl, 2004); develop content knowledge
(Sandoval, 2005); improve student scientific literacy (Goodrum et al., 2001;
Harwood, Hansen, & Lotter, 2006; Seroussi, 2005); attract and sustain
student interest (Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins, 2009); and in the
context of English as a second language (ESL) learners, provide valuable
hands on learning experiences and contextualised language experiences
(Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2004).
In many ways, the advantages in the preceding paragraph can be
summarised as a means to helping students to develop scientific literacy.
Inquiry teaching has much to contribute to the development of scientifically
literate citizens for the modern knowledge economy (Goodrum et al., 2001;
Harwood et al., 2006; Seroussi, 2005). Governments world wide have
recognised scientific literacy as a high priority for their citizens. Science
education today aspires to do more than train the next generation of
scientists; it aims to prepare all citizens of the community to participate fully
in a knowledge driven society (Goodrum et al., 2001):
The purpose of science education is to develop scientific
literacy which is a high priority for all citizens, helping them to
be interested in, and understand the world around them, to
engage in the discourses of and about science, to be sceptical
and questioning of claims made by others about scientific
matters, to be able to identify questions and draw evidence-
based conclusions, and to make informed decisions about the
environment and their own health and well-being. (p.ix)
Consequently, advocacy for inquiry teaching is increasingly common
in education policy documents (National Curriculum Board, 2009; National
Research Council of America, 1996, 2000; National Science Board, 2007).
4
For example, science taught through inquiry is highlighted as a characteristic
of best practice in science education in the Status and quality of science
teaching in Australian schools report (Goodrum et al., 2001), and science
inquiry skills are one of the three core strands of the emerging Australian
National Science Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009). Given
national and international investment in inquiry teaching outcomes, it is
important to invest in research relating to teacher understanding of inquiry
teaching in science education.
1.2 Rationale
Although much has been written in support of inquiry teaching, it is yet
to be embraced by the average teacher in daily practice (Asay & Orgill, 2010;
Goodrum et al., 2001). Furthermore, research indicates that its actual
implementation in schools is problematic (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Bybee,
2000; Campbell & Bohn, 2008; Justice et al., 2009; Lederman, 2004; Lee et
al., 2004). This argument, touched on here, is elaborated more fully in
Chapter 2.
One approach the science education community has taken to
understand and address this issue has been to explore the influence of
teachers’ knowledge on their enactment of inquiry in the classroom. This is in
terms of understanding teachers’ conceptions or ways of experiencing inquiry
teaching (e.g., Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, & Orr, 2000). This body of
literature is supported by the supposition that teacher knowledge (e.g.
conceptions, understandings, etc) of inquiry teaching has an influence on
teacher practice (Åkerlind, 2004; Ho, 2001; Kember, 1998). By understanding
this form of teacher knowledge, a better awareness of its influence on
teacher practice may be constructed. For some time now, a considerable
amount of research which is focused on teacher knowledge has been
undertaken to gain a greater understanding of teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching (e.g., Kember, 1998; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007). This
research has been reported through two distinct bodies of literature, each
with their strengths and limitations.
5
First, many of the studies that explore teachers’ knowledge of inquiry
teaching seek from the outset to compare teachers’ knowledge to a
theoretical model promoted in the literature, derived theoretically or from the
practice of expert teachers (e.g. Harwood et al., 2006). For example, studies
which derive a definition of inquiry teaching based on an understanding of the
epistemology of authentic science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), or scaffolding
teacher understanding towards open or full inquiry teaching approaches
(Martin-Hansen, 2002), are essentially comparing teacher knowledge to a
philosophical ideal. These comparison studies, while having much to
contribute to our understanding of the role of teacher knowledge in inquiry
teaching, do not explore the depth of individuals’ understanding of the
phenomenon, especially in terms of teachers’ own understanding and
language. This study seeks to give teachers a voice in expressing their
understandings and experience of inquiry teaching before contrasting their
conceptions with theoretical models. Related to this limitation, one possible
cause of the inability of many professional development programs to change
teacher practices in regards to the teaching of science though inquiry might
be a misunderstanding of their conceptions in the first place (Porlán & Pozo,
2004; Sandoval, 2005). The call has been made for studies which document
teacher thinking rather than those which are “looking for fidelity of
implementation” of the theoretical models (McDonald & Songer, 2008, p.
974).
The second body of literature attempts to understand the phenomenon
of inquiry teaching from teachers’ perspectives. However, in spite of their
important contributions, a significant limitation still remains. These studies are
typically based on recounts of individual experiences of the phenomenon,
implying and sometimes finding that there are as many understandings of
inquiry teaching as there are teachers trying to implement it (e.g., Fazio,
2005; Seroussi, 2005). While individual recounts are a valid and useful
research technique, and powerful in terms of highlighting individual
experiences of the phenomenon, it may be more helpful to consider teachers’
perspectives by using a phenomenographic outcome space (Cope, 2004). An
outcome space maps a limited range of categories of understanding of the
phenomenon which relate to the group, not the individual (Marton, 2000).
6
Use of an outcome space can provide a succinct and parsimonious set of
categories of teachers’ experiences without diluting the diversity of teacher
practices and opinions. These categories are expected to define in succinct
and parsimonious terms the major differences in the ways that teachers
experience inquiry teaching, distilling the essence of teachers’ experiences
without diluting the diversity of teacher practices and opinions. Categorising
the qualitatively different ways in which teachers’ experience this aspect of
teacher knowledge has the potential to be highly fruitful for the theory- praxis
nexus and may be used to inform preservice and inservice teacher education
programs.
1.3 Aim
This study seeks to explore the range of experiences that teachers
have of inquiry teaching. The research question is:
What are the qualitatively different ways in which primary school
teachers experience inquiry teaching in science education?
The intent of this question is to uncover teachers underlying
conceptions of what it means to teach science though inquiry.
1.4 Study Design
Phenomenography has been chosen as the research approach for this
thesis. Phenomenography is a methodology developed by a research group
at the University of Goteborg in Sweden in the 1970s (Pang, 2003).
Phenomenography was described by one of the principal pioneers Ference
Marton (1994) as:
the empirical study of the limited number of qualitatively
different ways in which various phenomena in, and aspects of,
the world around us are experienced, conceptualized,
understood, perceived and apprehended. (p. 4424)
Phenomenography therefore explores the different ways a group of
individuals experience (or conceptualise) a phenomenon. The application of
7
phenomenography to the problem of teacher understanding and
implementation of inquiry teaching in schools is a departure from previous
attempts which compared teachers’ conceptions to theorised models, or
developed as many conceptions as individual teachers. Phenomenography
maps a limited range of categories of understanding of the phenomenon
which relate to the group, not the individual, and does so without comparing
them to preconceived models during analysis. This argument, touched on in
sections 1.2 and 1.3, is developed through the review of the literature in
Chapter 2.
No phenomenographic studies of primary teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching have been found. Indeed, while there has been a great deal
of research investigating teachers’ conception of teaching (Boulton-Lewis,
Smith, McCrindle, Burnett, & Campbell, 2001; Kember, 1998; Samuelowicz &
Bain, 1992), and teacher conceptions of science teaching (Porlán & Pozo,
2004; Skamp & Mueller, 2001; Tsai, 2002), the literature regarding teachers’
conceptions of teaching science though inquiry is scant (Crawford, 2007;
Harwood et al., 2006), and in the context of primary teaching, appears to be
entirely absent (see Section 2.4).
The study was performed with teachers from several metropolitan
primary schools within the same educational jurisdiction in Brisbane,
Australia, with relatively diverse socio-economic status, cultural perspectives
and ethnicity. Participants were sought initially from among a group of
teachers who responded to the offer of participating in a study into
conceptions of inquiry teaching in science, and secondarily those who could
be enticed into participation with the promise of a free science show for their
students. As is typical for a phenomenographic study, variation in
participants’ experience of the phenomenon was actively sort in order to
maximise the expression of variation in the data. Variation exists in terms of
gender, years in teaching, school year level taught, school, and previous
experience with science. Participants were interviewed once each for an
average of 40 minutes each at their place of work, usually after the students
had left for the day.
Data were analysed in a phenomenographic tradition, see Chapter 4
for full details. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed for
8
emergent themes. Personal profiles were developed for participants in order
to assist in maintaining fidelity to their individual conceptions. After time, a
tentative categorisation scheme was developed, known as an outcome space
in phenomenography. This outcome space was rigorously examined for its
appropriateness through repeated iterations with the data, as well as
numerous meetings with research supervisors, interested peers and a
conceptual papers presented at the Australasian Science Education
Research Association conference (ASERA) 2008 and Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics in Education conference (STEM) 2010. After
the final outcome space was developed and validated the data analysis
phase was complete.
1.5 Organisation of the thesis
The purpose of this thesis is to answer the question: What are the
qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers experience
inquiry teaching in science education? In order to answer this question,
Chapter 2 will review relevant literature from the field of education. First, the
theoretical frameworks that are referents for teaching science in primary
schools are discussed and analysed (2.1). Second, the influence of teacher
epistemological beliefs of the Nature of Science (NOS) and science
education (2.2) are discussed in order to unveil how this might influence their
conceptions of teaching science. Third, the definition, justification and history
of inquiry teaching are generated from the literature (2.3), with attention given
to contemporary issues in inquiry teaching. Fourth, conceptions of inquiry
teaching in science education are explored, including a discussion of
conceptions of teaching in general (2.4.1) as part of the context of
conceptions of inquiry teaching (2.4.2) for this study. This section also
includes a focus on the relationship between conceptions and practice as
part of the justification for the study (2.4.3). The chapter is then concluded
(2.5) summarising the main findings of the literature review section.
Chapter 3 describes and justifies the selection of phenomenography
as the appropriate research approach for this study. Issues discussed include
the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the research
9
methodology (3.1.1), phenomenography within the paradigm of qualitative
research (3.1.2). Variations in approaches to phenomenography are dealt
with in Section 3.1.3 in order to contextualise the current research in the
contemporary field of phenomenography. Theoretical foundations for the
data analysis are then discussed, including the structure of awareness
(3.1.4), conceptions, categories of description, and the outcome space
(3.1.5). To complete this section, a theoretical model of the nature of
learning by Marton and Booth (1997) is adapted to this study of conceptions
of teaching.
The chapter on methodology continues with a discussion of the
research design and methods (3.2) in order to establish the approach this
particular study will take. Participant data and selection procedures are
discussed in Section 3.2.1, followed by the detailed description of data
collection procedures (3.2.2). Section 3.2.3 contains a record of data analysis
procedures, and issues of ethics are dealt with in detail in Section 3.2.4.
Research rigour, including the validly and reliability of the study, are dealt
with in detail in Section 3.2.5. The chapter on methodology is concluded in
Section 3.3, summarising major methodological considerations for the
research.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study using a
phenomenographic framework. Phenomenography was chosen as a
research methodology as it had not yet been applied to the research
problem, and it generates a limited number of qualitatively different
categories of experiences from which to draw conclusions. This chapter
describe the outcome space, which comprises the three qualitatively different
categories uncovered in this thesis: Student Centred Experiences (Category
1); Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2); and Student Generated
Questions (Category 3). It was found that teachers did not make overt use of
educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically with regards to
levels of inquiry (National Research Council of America, 2000), or
terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002). Section
4.1 contains an overview of the results. Detailed descriptions of the main
categories, including an examination of the how and what of teaching (see
Section 3.1.6), the structures of awareness of the phenomenon, and a
10
comparison of the dimensions of variation are dealt with in sections 4.2
through 4.4. A summary of the categories and a description of the outcome
space are found in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 concludes the chapter
highlighting the major research findings.
Chapter 5 discusses the results and various implications of the
research findings, and explores the potential impact on teacher development
programs in science education. Section 5.1 deals with general findings
arising from the study, The findings are analysed (5.2) in relation to the
inquiry teaching literature, such as the US National Standards (National
Research Council of America, 2000; National Science Board, 2007) and
various models of inquiry teaching (Bybee, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002).
Issues of epistemology arising from the results of this study (Section 5.3) are
given special treatment, in particular, the literature regarding teacher and
student understanding of the Nature of Science (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,
2000) and the authentic science debate (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002).
Limitations of the study are discussed, and the potential areas of research
are addressed in Section 5.3, including: (a) assessing student outcomes in
terms of the findings of this study; (b) comparing the teacher reports of
behaviour to actual teacher practice; (c) comparing individual teachers to the
categorisation scheme uncovered in this thesis; (d) exploring whether the
results of this thesis differ at different contexts such as educational
institutions, high school, or cultural contexts; (e) comparing the results of this
thesis to other curriculum areas, that is, inquiry teaching in English or
Religious education; and (f) exploring further the teacher perception of the
necessity to use equipment in science classes.
Chapter 5 then discusses recommendations developed from the
findings of this study. This discussion is dealt with in two sections; first, six
specific recommendations are made to help teachers implement Category 3
inquiry (5.4.1). Second, two recommendations are made regarding the
potential of this study to contribute to further research to the development of
teacher education programs (5.4.2).
11
Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, briefly summarising and emphasising
the importance of this unique research approach to the research question:
What are the qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers
experience inquiry teaching in science education?
1.6 Conclusion
In spite of being strongly promoted for science education (National
Research Council of America, 2000), inquiry teaching is still a highly
problematic issue in education today (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Goodrum
et al., 2001), notwithstanding its potential to benefit student learning (Wynne
et al., 2003). Through use of the phenomenographic research approach this
study addresses this concern by investigating the qualitatively different ways
in which primary school teacher’s experience inquiry teaching.
12
13
Chapter 2 Literature Review
The purpose of this thesis is to address the question: What are the
qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers experience
inquiry teaching in science education? In order to address this question, the
following chapter will present the theoretical framework that supports this
study of teacher conceptions. First, the theoretical frameworks that are
referents for teaching science in primary schools are discussed and analysed
(2.1). This discussion is followed by an investigation of teacher
epistemological beliefs with regards to the Nature of Science (NOS) and
science education (2.2), and how this might influence teachers’ conceptions
of teaching science. Third, the history and status of inquiry teaching is
synthesised from the literature (2.3), with attention given to contemporary
issues in teaching to foster learning through inquiry including the difficulties
surrounding defining inquiry teaching. Fourth, conceptions of teaching in
general, and of inquiry teaching in science education in particular are
explored, with a focus on the relationship between conceptions and practice
as part of the justification for the study (2.4). The chapter is then concluded
(2.5) by summarising the literature and highlighting important considerations
for the study.
2.1 Constructivism and learning in science
Modern movements in philosophy and pedagogy, in particular social
constructivism, often challenge previously held beliefs and theories
surrounding the educational enterprise. Teachers are challenged to
reconstruct notions of teaching and learning in terms of the student centred
curriculum (American Psychological Association, 1997; McCombs, 2003),
helping students to become constructors of knowledge within their social
context; to engage in higher order thinking rather than merely reproducing
knowledge. This focus on learners as active agents in their own learning is
due in part to the influence of philosophies which appreciate how teaching
and learning take place in social contexts (Windschitl, 2002). Students are
encouraged to address real world ill-structured problems and engage in
14
collaborative learning (see also Elen & Clarebout, 2001; Yang, Chang, &
Hsu, 2008).
Approaches to teaching science through inquiry, referred to as inquiry
teaching herein, are strongly influenced by constructivist philosophies (Keys
& Bryan, 2001). Constructivism is the philosophical position postulating that
individuals construct their personal interpretation of reality based on their
experiences (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) is
commonly credited with the original idea, with philosophers such as
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) later developing the philosophical foundations of
the theory (Mahoney, 1996). The use of empirical, interpretive research
methodologies often characterise this philosophical position (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005), which focuses on the private creation of knowledge, or the
meaning-making activity of the individual mind (Young & Collin, 2004).
Keys (2005) outlined constructivism as one of three major issues
impacting contemporary education in Australia along with outcomes based
education and curriculum integration. Constructivism has come to play a
major role in education as a philosophical referent for constructivist learning
theory. Constructivist learning theory holds that students acquire knowledge
through diverse experiences that help them to make connections from
previously learned material to new information (Colburn, 2000).
Specifically, social constructivist learning theory focuses on how
construction of knowledge is influenced by the social environment (Kim,
2001). Knowledge is considered a human product, created by the individual
through his or her social and cultural interactions within the environment
(Ernest, 1999). Learning does not take place solely within an individual, nor is
it developed by external forces in the environment, but learning occurs as
individuals engage in social activities (McMahon, 1997). From this
perspective, science learning is seen as more than the construction of
meaning by individuals, but by individuals embedded in their social
environment and influenced by such social factors as culture and language
(Keys & Bryan, 2001).
Social constructivist learning theory has an influence on the teaching
of science (Hodson & Hodson, 1998) through viewing the concepts taught in
science education not as hard facts, but as evidence based conclusions
15
given by scientists to account for their observations: “The objects of science
are not the phenomena of nature but constructs that are advanced by the
scientific community to interpret nature” (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, &
Scott, 1994, p. 5). Hodson and Hodson (1998) argue that teaching science
influenced by the constructivist principles of learning does not mean students
are permitted to generate any explanation for any reason or that any
explanation will do. Rather, the world presents many challenging phenomena
that students can develop critical understandings of through the processes of
science. Thus, students are scaffolded by teachers to construct an
understanding of the phenomena, which also promotes evidence-based
understandings for students (Hodson & Hodson, 1998).
Teaching approaches based on Social constructivist learning theory
contrasts with a transmissive approach to teaching that dominated education
up until the 20th century and is still highly prevalent today (Brownlee, 2004;
Crawford, 2007). The role of the teacher during the transmissive approach is
to be a keeper and purveyor of knowledge, to present information in a logical
and clear manner so that students can understand or receive this knowledge
(Abruscato, 2001). Transmissive science teaching tends to assume that
learning occurs by the implantation of new information into a tabula rasa
brain.
Constructivist based approaches to teaching strive to be student
centred, reflecting the use of the concept of a continuum from teacher-
centred to student-centred approaches, terms which are problematic yet also
ubiquitous in teacher conception literature (Pratt, 1992; Pratt, Arseneau, &
Collins, 2001). Conceptions of teaching which may be considered teacher-
centred tend to focus on the teachers’ role in students’ learning (Kember,
1997). Teachers are concerned with imparting information to students, and
thus knowledge is considered transmitted to students rather than constructed
by them.
On the other hand, conceptions of teaching which may be considered
student-centred tend to focus on the students’ role in learning (American
Psychological Association, 1997). Teachers are concerned with how students
learn best, and are motivated by internal rewards such as helping students to
16
improve as people. Teaching is seen as “an interactive process where
meaning is negotiated” (McKenzie, 2003, p. 25).
Student-centred approaches to teaching are claimed to be more
effective than teacher-centred approaches to teaching in most circumstances
(Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008). Inquiry teaching, in general, aspires to
be a student centred approach to teaching as evidenced by the use of
student centred approaches to teaching in the literature on effective inquiry
teaching (Bybee, 2000; Martin-Hansen, 2002; National Research Council of
America, 2000).
In conclusion, social constructivist learning theory has had an impact
on modern pedagogy and inquiry teaching in particular. This section has
outlined the theoretical frameworks necessary for situating the current thesis
in contemporary education. The next section discusses teachers’
understandings of the epistemology of science in order to interrogate how
teacher beliefs of science can influence their teaching of science in the
classroom.
2.2 Epistemology and the Nature of Science (NOS)
Teacher beliefs are considered agendas for action in given situations
(Sandoval, 2005). One very important belief in regard to the current study is
teacher beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge, or more specifically
scientific knowledge. Teacher beliefs regarding the epistemology of science
are shown to influence how teachers enact the teaching of science in the
classroom, and the kinds of experiences their students are likely to have
(Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004).
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of
knowledge (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), and the phrase the nature of science
usually refers to the epistemology of science – how scientific knowledge is
created, justified and used in the community (Sandoval, 2005). Teacher
beliefs regarding the epistemology of science are subsumed under the
phrase NOS (the Nature of Science) in this study, where such beliefs have
been called the “linchpin” to developing scientific literacy in students and
teachers (Hogan, 2000, p. 52).
17
2.2.1 The uncertain nature of the nature of science
One line of inquiry into the difficulties that teachers have in
implementing inquiry teaching sees the problem as being related in part to
student and teacher misunderstanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) and
the nature of scientific inquiry itself. For example, several reviews of NOS
literature showed that students and teachers consistently fail to understand
given aspects of the nature of science as defined by these reviews (Abd-El-
Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 1992). In the words of Lederman and
Neiss (1997):
The longevity of this educational objective [NOS] has been
surpassed only by the longevity of students’ inability to
articulate the meaning of the phrase ‘nature of science’, and to
delineate the associated characteristics of science. (p. 1)
Many reasons may be sought to explain student and teacher
misunderstanding of the formalised understanding of NOS. First, the
changing nature of our understanding of NOS historically creates confusion
for teachers and teacher educators (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000).
Second, the divergent methods and philosophies employed in the various
branches of science cannot be easily subsumed under a single banner (Van
Gigch, 2002). Third, disagreement among educators and philosophers of
science might contribute to confusion among teachers (Osborne & Collins,
2003). Each of these issues will be discussed in turn.
Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) divide teachers’ understandings
of NOS historically into pre- and post-Kuhnian eras, as a way to explain the
changes in our understanding of NOS. Pre-Kuhnian (Perla & Carifio, 2008)
philosophy defined NOS based on logical and epistemological grounds while
failing to acknowledge the important influence of social and psychological
factors in the scientific endeavour. The latter two factors were seen as
external to science and thus the era is referred to as externalist. For
example, the scientist was seen as an independent worker searching to
discover nature’s truths, as exemplified by individuals such as Newton,
Darwin and Einstein. This era was followed by the Post-Kuhnian period
dominated by an internalist approach which in reaction to the externalist
approach may have placed excessive emphasis on the history and context of
18
discovery in an attempt to explore the social factors of science (Abd-El-
Khalick & Lederman, 2000).
Thus, the definition of what constitutes NOS has also changed over
time (Van Gigch, 2002), with such studies as the Osborne et al. (2003)
Delphi study setting out to try to address which ideas about science ought to
be taught in schools. For example, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) cite
the leap “from a classical deterministic approach in physics to a quantum
indeterministic conceptualisation of the discipline” (p. 666). These historical
factors contribute to teacher confusion regarding both the nature of science,
and also the depiction of science they attempt to employ during inquiry
teaching.
The second reason teachers might experience difficulty understanding
the formalised definitions of NOS is that some accounts of the nature of
science take for granted the divergent methods of scientific inquiry among
various scientific disciplines. The experimental method which is occasionally
lauded as the quintessential model for science is not the only manner in
which science is legitimately pursued in the various scientific fields
(Lederman, 2004). Over a century ago, the Central Association for Science
and Mathematics Teachers (1907) noted the different epistemologies that
inform modern physics as opposed to the social sciences. These divergent
accounts of scientific inquiry add further confusion to teachers who are
already struggling to understand NOS.
Finally, another difficulty facing teachers may be the failure among
academics and philosophers to agree upon a single definition of NOS
(Duschl, 1990; Osborne & Collins, 2003; Perla & Carifio, 2008). In order to
rectify this, in 2003 a Delphi study (Osborne & Collins, 2003) of 23 science
education community experts attempted to consolidate understanding of the
most important attributes of NOS that they felt should be taught in schools.
The study developed nine themes which were: (a) scientific method and
critical testing; (b) creativity (specifically to help make science education
engaging); (c) historical development of scientific knowledge; (d) science and
questioning; (e) the diversity of scientific thinking; (f) analysis and
interpretation of data; (g) science and certainty; (h) hypothesis and
prediction; and (i) cooperation and collaboration in the development of
19
scientific knowledge. Interestingly, the relationship between scientific laws
and theories was not explicitly considered in the Delphi study, despite being
treated as a core attribute by several studies into NOS (Lederman, 1992, p.
352), such as found in the Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire
Version C (VNOS-C, Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002).
Similar to the nine themes developed by the Delphi study, Perla and
Carifio (2008) provided five core characteristics of the nature of science as
distilled from the literature and national science curriculum documents, such
as the NSA. Their categorisation scheme is also used in other studies, such
as Bell, Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick (2000). These five characteristics are
referred to again in the discussion section of this thesis, and it is felt they
contain the nine themes of the Delphi study in a more general degree. They
are that:
• Science is empirical;
• Science is a human enterprise;
• Science involves creativity and human imagination;
• Scientific knowledge is subjective and theory laden;
• Scientific knowledge is stable yet tentative.
These three reasons; historical changes, divergent methodologies,
and contemporary uncertainty, contribute to a confusing situation for
practicing teachers already facing multitudinous demands on their time
(Akerson & Hanuscin, 2006). Teacher understanding of NOS has been
shown to influence their enactment of inquiry teaching in the classroom, and
thus the experiences of students in developing scientific literacy
(Bartholomew et al., 2004). The following section will explore issues around
teachers’ understanding of what they perceive to be the nature of science in
the classroom setting.
2.2.2 Authentic science and the science classroom
Studies have been undertaken to explore teacher misunderstanding of
the formalised nature of science, finding that formal understanding of NOS is
not equivalent to personal understanding (Hogan, 2000), and that teacher
understanding of NOS may not necessarily translate into practice (Bell et al.,
2000). Many studies have begun to explore the relationship between inquiry
20
as it is practiced in the classroom and inquiry as it is practiced by
professional scientists in the community (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Chinn
& Malhotra, 2002; Goodrum et al., 2001; Hogan, 2000; Lotter et al., 2007;
Watters & Diezmann, 2004).
Chinn and Malhotra (2002) contrasted school and community science,
criticising school inquiry for not teaching children what they termed an
authentic epistemology of science. In this way, the authors were attempting
to model school science on their perception of science in the community. In
authentic inquiry, the authors argued, the scientist generates the research
questions, identifies, selects and where necessary even invents the variables
to be studied. They further argued that scientists must often create or use
complex procedures to study the phenomenon of interest, and often devise
analogue models (analogies) to express their understanding of the
phenomenon. School science, on the other hand, rarely questions the
appropriateness of such analogue models. Scientists must devise their own
controls for variables, employ their own planning measures, and employ
elaborate measures to overcome factors such as observer bias. Chinn and
Malhotra (2002) remind us that in school science, these processes are
usually performed by the teacher, not the learner.
Of special interest is the use of indirect reasoning in authentic science,
where “observations are related to research questions by complex chains of
inference”, and where “observed variables are not identical to the theoretical
variables of interest” (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002, p. 181). For example, it takes
several layers of understanding to conclude that the dark x-shaped blotches
on a piece of photographic film represent the spiral nature of the double helix
structure as viewed through x-ray crystallography, or that a stream of 1’s and
0’s represents valuable information about star formation from a radio
telescope. Students, on the other hand, are rarely asked to discuss
alternative explanations of their observations, especially in traditional didactic
approaches to science education. In this way the epistemological
requirements of school and community science are different (Kuhn, 2009).
Although the preceding discussion (Lawson, 2000, based on Lawson,
1978) attempted to argue that school science ought to be epistemologically
more representative of community science, school-aged students are
21
understandably going to have some difficulties with aspects of a school
science as authentic as scientific inquiry in the community. Young students,
in particular, may lack the content knowledge and ability of abstract thinking
required by indirect reasoning. Therefore it may be unwarranted to assume
that inquiry as used in the scientific community is functionally equivalent to
inquiry as used in the classroom. A recent study (Brown & Melear, 2006)
which attempted to improve teacher use of inquiry teaching through providing
authentic inquiry experiences, stated that:
In conclusion, we find the inquiry-based science course
experience necessary, but not sufficient, in bringing about belief
and behavior change with secondary science teachers. (Brown
& Melear, 2006, p. 962).
This suggests that scientific inquiry and school inquiry are not
equivalent activities, since teachers were assisted in understanding,
however incompletely, the formalised description of the nature of
science and authentic science as it is practiced in the community
through engaging in their own authentic science experiences. This
also suggests the need for a study to explore teachers’ conceptions of
what it means to teach science through inquiry, and not just teachers’
conceptions of inquiry alone.
In essence, the propositions emerging out of the review of the
difference between natural science research and school based inquiry
science are as follows. Some NOS studies are about helping teachers
understand, or researching why they misunderstand scientific inquiry
and the nature of science, and are not about understanding teachers’
current perspectives of inquiry teaching (Waters-Adams, 2006).
However, teacher understanding of NOS has been found to be only
one aspect of successful inquiry teaching (Bartholomew et al., 2004).
This review highlights the need to know more about teacher
understanding of teaching science through inquiry, but unfortunately,
some NOS studies fail to explore what those understandings are
before comparing them to theorised models. This is not to implicate
that teacher understandings of NOS do not profoundly affect the
enactment of teaching science through inquiry; they most certainly do.
22
Along with presenting the literature with regards to the authentic
inquiry debate, this section highlights the fact that NOS and scientific
inquiry considerations inform inquiry teaching, while not necessarily
being functionally equivalent to inquiry teaching.
Conclusion to Section 2.2
To conclude, this section has explored teacher understanding of the
epistemology of science. This section has been used to support the claim for
a detailed qualitative study that thoroughly documents the reported
experiences of teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching and not just inquiry
itself, whatever that may be. Giving teachers the space to voice their
uncertainties, as opposed to measuring up to an outside ideal, will assist
certain teachers to reflect upon their understanding of scientific inquiry and
teaching science through inquiry.
2.3 Inquiry in the classroom
The previous section reviewed key literature regarding teacher
understanding of the epistemology or the NOS and its enactment in the
classroom. This next section reviews the voluminous literature regarding
inquiry in the classroom. The intention of this section is to explore issues
surrounding the conceptualisation and implementation of inquiry teaching.
2.3.1 History of inquiry teaching
According to DeBoer (2004) inquiry, and by implication inquiry
teaching, has been promoted as a valuable pedagogical tool from the
beginning of formal attempts to include science in the school curriculum.
Around the middle of the 19th century, advocates such as Thomas Huxley
(1825 – 1895), Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) and German philosopher
Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776 – 1841) were arguing for the inclusion of
science as a school subject. Science was seen as a means of helping
students develop strong inductive reasoning skills which other classical
subjects were not inclined to do. In the words of Spencer (1864):
Children should be led to make their own investigations, and to
draw their own inferences. They should be told as little as
23
possible, and induced to discover as much as possible. (p. 124-
125, emphasis in original).
The term inquiry learning was perhaps first used by philosopher,
psychologist and educational reformer John Dewey (1859-1952) around the
beginning of the 20th century (Barrow, 2006). As part of what became known
as progressive education, Dewey first advocated student inquiry as a means
of helping students not only understand science better, but also the
processes involved in the creation of scientific knowledge. Hence the role of
teachers was to foster inquiry based learning, or in terminology adopted in
this thesis, to implement inquiry teaching. However, the Cold War era mid
century saw a shift from a process driven to a content driven curriculum,
arguably in an attempt to produce the best scientists possible (Rudolph,
2002). This change in emphasis and other factors such as the need to cover
crowded syllabus requirements led to defocusing on the scientific method
(DeBoer, 2004).
Science, a process approach (AAAS, 2009; Arthur, 1964) was another
movement in science education which ran from 1960-1974. However, undue
emphasis on processes over the context of learning may have helped spark
the context based learning movement. Context based learning, such as that
espoused by Wilson (1993), King (2009) and Bennett and Holman (2002), is
common in education today and focuses on bringing students to
understanding through the context of a situated problem that students may
face in the real world or local community.
Inquiry teaching began a resurgence in interest by teachers from
around the 1970s and eighties, perhaps due in part to the prevalence of
constructivism as a referent for pedagogy (Seroussi, 2005). Today inquiry
teaching is promoted as one of the most valuable means of helping achieve
the modern science educator’s goals (National Curriculum Board, 2009;
National Science Board, 2007). Thus, this next section will review the impact
and influence of inquiry in education.
2.3.2 Status of inquiry teaching
Much has been written in support of inquiry teaching, but for reasons
that will now be discussed, it has yet to see much application in the average
24
teacher’s daily practice (Goodrum et al., 2001). In a review of the literature as
a foundation for their study into the science laboratory experiences of high
school students in Utah, US, Campbell and Bohn (2008) found that many
teacher educators feel that inquiry is not happening in the science education
classroom. As far back as the early eighties, Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhead and
Robinson (1981) stated:
The widespread espoused support of inquiry is more simulated
than real in practice. The greatest set of barriers to the teacher
support of inquiry seems to be its perceived difficulty. There is
legitimate confusion over the meaning of inquiry in the
classroom. (p.40)
This confusion over the meaning of inquiry continues even today
(Asay & Orgill, 2010). Teachers seem eager to display their style of teaching
as modern simply by labelling it inquiry. Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie
(2001) found that even traditional transmissive approaches have been
labelled inquiry. In line with the findings of Section 2.2.1, Flick and Lederman
(2004) stated that teachers are uncertain about scientific inquiry itself, as well
as how it is to be applied in the classroom:
Unfortunately, classroom teachers, as well as teacher
educators, remain uncertain about the specific attributes of
scientific inquiry and nature of science, let alone their
integration into current science instruction and curricula. (p. ix)
Asay and Orgill (2010), in a review of the essential features of inquiry
found in articles published in The Science Teacher between 1998 and 2007,
cite research illustrating teacher confusion regarding the use of the term
inquiry. This includes describing inquiry as discovery learning, hands on
activities (Crawford, 2000), authentic problems (Kang & Wallace, 2005), and
classroom debate (Carnes, 1997). While inquiry encompasses all these, such
beliefs still represent a limited perception of the role inquiry teaching can play
in the science education classroom. “Inquiry, as described in the Standards,
puts emphasis on learners working under the guidance of experienced
teachers to construct understandings of scientific concepts through
interactions with scientific questions and data“ (Asay & Orgill, 2010, p. 58).
25
As has been claimed in the literature, teachers are struggling with
understanding inquiry and the nature of inquiry teaching in science
education. The study reported in this thesis has been performed to inform the
science education literature with regards to the conceptions that teachers
actually have concerning inquiry teaching. In order to situate this question
within the field, the challenges facing a formal definition of inquiry teaching
will now be expanded.
2.3.3 What do we understand by inquiry teaching
This section will discuss the formalised definition of inquiry teaching in
science education as derived from the literature. However, in the words of
Minner et al. (2010), “the field has yet to develop a specific and well-accepted
definition of what is meant by that term“ (Minner et al., p. 475). This
sentiment is echoed in Brown, Abell, Demir and Schmidt (2006) who state
that there exists a “… lack of agreement about what constitutes an inquiry-
based approach” (p. 786), which they found to be part of the difficulty in
comparing studies of inquiry teaching.
Defining inquiry teaching must begin with the definition of inquiry itself.
Many lines of argument maintain that inquiry teaching is simply the
application of authentic science processes to teaching methodology (DeBoer,
2004), to a greater or lesser degree depending on school and student
requirements. Internationally many documents draw their definition of inquiry
teaching from the 1996 American document, by the NRC (1996) which
states:
Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making
observations; posing questions; examining books and other
sources of information to see what is already known; planning
investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of
experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and
interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and
predictions; and communicating the results. (p. 23)
This statement provides the basis for understanding inquiry teaching
as it is understood in this thesis. Another influential publication regarding
inquiry teaching is the document Inquiry and the national science education
26
standards, which presents a model of inquiry learning provided by the
National Research Council of America [NRC] (2000), from which related
teacher behaviours for inquiry teaching may be assumed. Table 2.1
summarises this NRC definition.
Table 2.1
Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations
Variations Essential Feature
More---------------Amount of learner self-direction-------------Less Less------Amount of direction from teacher or material------More
[levels as defined by current study]
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1. Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions
Learner poses a question
Learner selects among questions, poses new questions
Learner sharpens or clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other source
Learner engages in question provided by teacher, materials, or other source
2. Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions
Learner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it
Learner directed to collect certain data
Learner given data and asked to analyse
Learner given data and told how to analyse
3. Learner formulate explanations from evidence
Learner formulates explanation after summarizing evidence
Learner guided in process of formulating explanations from evidence
Learner given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanation
Learner provided with evidence and how to use evidence to formulate explanation
4. Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge
Learner independently examines other resources and forms the links to explanations
Learner directed toward areas and sources of scientific knowledge
Learner given possible connections
5. Learner communicates and justifies explanations
Learner forms reasonable and logical argument to communicate explanations
Learner coached in development of communication
Learner provided broad guidelines to use sharpen communication
Learner given steps and procedures for communication
Note. From the NRC (2000), p.29.
27
The NRC definition of inquiry requires teachers to structure teaching
around a continuum of more or less teacher direction, the far right being
highly teacher directed and far left student highly student or self directed.
While the table specifically discusses inquiry from the student’s perspective,
that is, inquiry learning, aspects of inquiry from the teacher’s perspective or
inquiry teaching are easily derived. The five qualities that make up
“Classroom inquiry” are: (a) learner engages in scientifically oriented
questions; (b) learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions;
(c) learner formulates explanations from evidence; (d) learner connects
explanations to scientific knowledge; and (e) learner communicates and
justifies explanations (emphasis added). Minner (2010) noted The National
Science Education Standards adds one more to this list, that learners design
and conduct investigations (NRC, 1996). The Australian National curriculum
documents (National Curriculum Board, 2009), the cultural context in which
this study may be placed, include all these qualities in a manner that allows
for greater complexity across year levels.
The NRC definition also illuminates the issue of the role of student
questions during inquiry teaching. That is, are student questions the focal
point of the investigation, does the teacher need to choose the scientific
question to be investigated, or is it something in between? Some authors
feel that the defining attribute of inquiry teaching is that students are asking
the questions (Yager, 2007), while others do not (Brown et al., 2006;
Eastwell, 2007; Kowalczyk, 2003). The National Science Board of America
(2007, p. 83) defines inquiry teaching as a “process in which students
investigate, work-through, and solve problems.” It is interesting that the
focus is on problems and not on students asking and answering their own
questions. This focus is contrasted with the definition in Justice et al. (2009,
p. 843) that “inquiry refers to instructional practices designed to promote the
development of high order intellectual and academic skills through student-
driven and instructor-guided investigations of student generated questions.”
Harwood, Hansen and Lotter (2006) include students asking questions as an
attribute of general education and not just inquiry, however, students
formulating questions to investigate is given as being appropriate for science
education. Windschitl (2003) argues:
28
For a science student, developing one’s own question and the
means to resolve the question suggests an inquiry experience
that is profoundly different from the far more common tasks of
science schooling which consist of answering questions
prescribed in the curriculum using methods also preordained in
the curriculum or by the classroom teacher. (p. 114)
This quote suggests a gap between conceptions of inquiry teaching in
the literature and the actual conceptions of most practicing teachers,
discussed further in Chapter 5. Further, while it may seem fundamental, this
section illustrates that the role of student questions during inquiry teaching is
unresolved in the literature. The NRC (2000) definition provides one solution
by permitting student questions during only some forms of inquiry teaching,
specifically Level 1 and not Level 4. This is supported by Sandoval (2005),
who provides another definition of both scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching
as:
Inquiry generally refers to a process of asking questions,
generating and pursuing strategies to investigate those
questions by generating data, analysing and interpreting those
data, drawing conclusions from them, communicating those
conclusions, applying conclusions back to the original question,
and perhaps following up on new questions that arise… As an
instructional method, inquiry can occur along a continuum of
more to less structure. (p. 636-637)
This definition clearly supports the use of student questions, but allows
for more or less structure from teachers scaffolding students in developing
their inquiry skills. Thus the exact role of student questions is still debated in
the literature in general, but that students’ questions should play some role
during inquiry teaching is without dispute.
Likewise unclear is the role of teacher generated problems for
students to answer. Hackling (2005) clearly supported the use of problems as
essential to distinguishing open investigations, a form of inquiry. DeBoer
(2004, p. 20) gives a general definition of inquiry as “…a broad array of
approaches that has as its most general characteristic a problem to be
solved or a question to be answered.” That problems form a part of inquiry is
29
clear, but whether those are student or teacher generated problems is
unclear. The literature also seems to assume that questions and problems
are synonymous, so while the NRC (2000) is speaking of students selecting
from among questions it appears the teacher has selected the problem to be
pursued, and student are selecting the exact question to be answered within
that context.
Another quality of inquiry teaching whose status in education remains
unclear is that of student selection of the topic. Fleer and Hardy (2001)
advocate student selection of topic as a potential aspect of the interactive
method, which shares many similarities with an inquiry approach. However,
Wilson and Wing Jan (2003) clearly discouraged student selection of topics,
while encouraging student selection of questions, for pedagogical reasons
such as teacher familiarity with school requirements and student learning
needs and abilities.
One final issue regards the students’ role in interpreting data and
making conclusion from the results of their experiments. Eastwell (2008)
provides the following definition: “An inquiry activity is one that requires
students to answer a scientific question by analysing raw, empirical data
themselves” (p.31). The strength of this definition is that it relates to specific
instructional activities. Although it seems most definitions make use of
students’ analysis of data, even the NRC allows for a form of inquiry that
instructs students on analysing data, which Eastwell would see as no longer
an inquiry activity. On the other hand, to stipulate that inquiry requires raw
data may be a standard most other theoretical models do not apply. In
contrast to the NRC of America (2000), the Australian National curriculum
framing documents clearly advocate interpreting evidence as part of essential
science inquiry skills for students at all levels of inquiry (National Curriculum
Board, 2009), as does Hackling (2005). In short, some models and definitions
of inquiry teaching require that students conclude on data as a necessary
feature of inquiry teaching (Eastwell 2008, Hacking 2005), while others do
not (NRC 2000). Again, this is a confusing situation for teachers and teacher
educators.
30
To summarise, it appears that the defining quality of inquiry teaching is
that it is related in some way to questions, though whether those are
questions of the teachers, the students, or both depends on the definition.
Secondly, inquiry teaching is in some way related to inquiry as it is practiced
by scientists in the community (Section 2.2), but again, there is no strict
definition on how this comes about. These issues are highlighted for
discussion, rather than coming to a strict definition of inquiry teaching for
comparison in this study. Given the multitude of definitions of inquiry and
inquiry teaching in the teacher education literature revealed by this brief
overview, it is perhaps little wonder that teachers themselves are faced with
“confusion over the meaning of inquiry in the classroom” (Welch et al., 1981,
p. 40).
This section highlighted issues with defining inquiry teaching for
teachers. This study, however, has not been performed to compare teachers
to theoretical standards, but to source from teachers their actual conceptions
that inform their thinking about inquiry teaching. Thus, while further qualities
such as the role of the teacher, assessment, and even school wide policies
no doubt inform teacher thinking regarding this important aspect of teacher
knowledge, they are not further pursued here.
This section has highlighted some of the issues with defining inquiry
teaching. The literature also contains examples of attempts to scaffold
teacher understanding of inquiry teaching in order to facilitate implementation
in their classroom, as presented in the next section.
2.3.4 Theoretical models of inquiry teaching
Many attempts have been made in the literature to develop models to
scaffold inquiry teaching so as to help teachers implement it in their
classroom. Two popular models are presented here as general examples,
drawn from the work of Martin-Hansen (2002) and Bybee (2001).
The first model to be discussed is that of Martin-Hansen (2002). To
begin with, Martin-Hansen discusses several theoretical constructions of
inquiry teaching, given in Table 2.2, and attempts to generate instructional
strategies based on her understanding of inquiry teaching. This table is given
31
as an example of the many attempts based to varying degrees on NRC to
structure inquiry teaching on a continuum from more to less student
ownership, more being full and less being structured (see also: Bell,
Smetana, & Binns, 2005; Colburn, 1997; Crawford, 2007).
Table 2.2
Forms of inquiry teaching by Martin-Hansen (2002)
Type of inquiry teaching
Definition
Open or Full … a student centred approach that begins with student questions, followed by the student (or groups of students) designing and conducting an investigation or experiment and communicating results.
Coupled … combines a guided-inquiry investigation with an open-inquiry investigation.
Guided … teacher helps students develop inquiry investigations in the classroom. Usually, the teacher chooses the question for investigation. Students … may then assist the teacher in deciding how to proceed with the investigation.
Structured … sometimes referred to as directed inquiry, is a guided inquiry mainly directed by the teacher. Typically, this results in a cookbook lesson in which students follow teacher directions to come up with a specific end point or product.
Some parallels may be drawn between the Martin-Hansen (2002)
types and the NRC definition given in Table 2.1 (pg. 31). Indeed, Table 2.2
may be seen as an attempt to label the columns of Table 2.1 from left to right
in that they represent less to more teacher direction. Both tables are
organised in terms of the teacher/student – centred dichotomy. However,
while the NRC definition of inquiry teaching is designed to focus on the
definition of inquiry, Martin-Hansen (2002) focuses on various teacher
approaches to inquiry teaching.
Other authors differ in their acceptance of the Martin-Hansen system.
Eastwell (2007), based on his definition given previously, strongly advocated
that students are either answering scientific questions by analysing raw data
for themselves, or they are not doing inquiry. Thus, whether the experience
counts as an inquiry or not had nothing to do with it being open, guided or
structured. However, the degree of teacher guidance may be termed
structured, guided, or open. This kind of thinking is supported by Settlage
(2007) who suggested teacher educators stop using terms such as open
inquiry altogether. However his position is not supported by others who argue
32
against Settlage’s position (Johnston, 2008). For this study the debate is left
open, yet it is highlighted here in order to give greater context to the results
section, and to illustrate the confusing situation for teachers regarding the
nature and role of inquiry teaching in schools.
5E’s model of inquiry instruction
The second popular model of inquiry teaching is the 5E’s Model
(Bybee, 2001), presented in Table 2.3. Unlike the two previous models,
inquiry teaching is not constructed along a continuum of more or less teacher
direction but is presented as an instructional sequence for teachers to follow
in order to make a teaching experience inquiry teaching. As such, it is not a
theory of inquiry teaching, but an example of an approach to inquiry teaching.
The 5E’s instructional model is based on the work of learning cycles
(Lawson, 2002), dating back to Atkin and Karplus (1962). The Learning cycle
was a three phase teaching strategy that began with students freely exploring
science content and materials, being exposed to new ideas during concept
introduction, and finally testing and consolidating their understanding during
concept application. Various other models of the learning cycles have
developed over time, with different phase names and various added phases
(Lindgren & Bleicher, 2005). The learning model presented here uses the
5E’s teaching strategy proposed by Bybee (2001) and others through their
work at the US Biological Science Curriculum Study authority.
Many contemporary teaching strategies and programs are based on or
inspired by the 5E’s model (Withee & Lindell, 2006), such as the Primary
Connections professional development program which is becoming more
prevalent and is flagged to be heavily influential in the Australian National
curriculum (Hackling, Peers, & Prain, 2007). The 5E’s model has the benefit
of pointing out the importance of the role of the teacher in exposing students
to the ideas and theories of the scientific community, which Lunetta, Hofstein
and Clough (2007) felt was not explicitly described in many studies.
However, the 5E’s model is not to be confused with inquiry itself. Eastwell
(2007) points out that only the explore, explain and elaborate phases can be
considered as inquiry.
33
Table 2.3
The 5E’s instructional model by Bybee, 2001.
Stage Description Engage In the stage Engage, the students first encounter and identify the
instructional task. Here they make connections between past and present learning experiences, lay the organizational ground work for the activities ahead and stimulate their involvement in the anticipation of these activities.
Explore In the Exploration stage the students have the opportunity to get directly involved with phenomena and materials. Involving themselves in these activities they develop a grounding of experience with the phenomenon. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and guiding the students' focus. The students' inquiry process drives the instruction during an exploration.
Explain The third stage, Explain, is the point at which the learner begins to put the abstract experience through which she/he has gone/into a communicable form. Language provides motivation for sequencing events into a logical format. … Explanations from the facilitator can provide names that correspond to historical and standard language, for student findings and events. Created works such as writing, drawing, video, or tape recordings are communications that provide recorded evidence of the learner's development, progress and growth.
Elaborate In stage four, Elaborate, the students expand on the concepts they have learned, make connections to other related concepts, and apply their understandings to the world around them. … These connections often lead to further inquiry and new understandings.
Evaluate Evaluate, the fifth "E", is an on-going diagnostic process that allows the teacher to determine if the learner has attained understanding of concepts and knowledge. Evaluation and assessment can occur at all points along the continuum of the instructional process. … if a teacher perceives clear evidence of misconception, then he/she can revisit the concept to enhance clearer understanding. If the students show profound interest in a branching direction of inquiry, the teacher can consider refocusing the investigation to take advantage of this high level of interest.
In conclusion, the theoretical models of inquiry teaching given as
examples here play an important role in education by attempting to scaffold
teachers’ understandings of a complex and at times novel addition to the
science curriculum. Both Bybee (2001) and Martin-Hansen (2002) advocated
the importance of student questions as being part of what it means to pursue
inquiry in the classroom, and place the teacher in a facilitator role rather than
transmitter of knowledge. Still, to others such attempts to define inquiry
teaching are unnecessarily complicated. For example, Yager (2007) argued
for simplifying the definition of inquiry teaching by stating that inquiry is
“…‘questioning in order to get information.’ I prefer to leave it at that!” (p.108).
34
This section has briefly overviewed a few of the most significant
publications with regards to theoretical models of inquiry teaching, which will
be revisited during the discussion section of this thesis. In order to situate
inquiry teaching within the area of contemporary models of education, the
issues that teachers and other stakeholders experience using inquiry
teaching in the primary science education classroom are now considered.
2.3.5 Contemporary issues regarding inquiry teaching
Reports of teacher difficulties regarding the implementation of inquiry
teaching, as distinct from understanding inquiry teaching, are abundant in the
literature. A brief review of the literature by Brown et al. (2006, p. 786)
reported “logistical constraints, lack of administrative support, teacher
knowledge, and teacher perception of students” as some of the difficulties
teachers face. Other teacher concerns also include that student questions
will not be related to the curriculum (Fleer & Hardy, 2001), and that teachers
are uncomfortable with prioritising student questions (Oliveira, 2010; Pierce,
2001). Teachers also report concerns over losing control of their classes
during the more open ended investigations of inquiry learning (Asay & Orgill,
2010; Windschitl, 2004), confusion over how to deal with not giving students
the answers (Furtak, 2006), the return to transmissive approaches for
beginning teachers (Gilbert, 2009), and that inquiry teaching experiences are
too time consuming to allow for content coverage (Wallace & Kang, 2004).
Researchers also note that few teachers have had actual personal
experience doing inquiry based learning themselves, and may be falling back
on familiar teaching techniques such as the transmissive approach (Colburn,
1997; National Research Council of America, 1996). This may result in
reluctance on the part of teachers to implement inquiry teaching.
Furthermore, it may also indicate a measure of teacher misunderstanding of
the complex and diverse nature of inquiry teaching.
Although these difficulties persist, and many studies have been
undertaken to address each difficulty, this study seeks not to correct but to
understand. The focus herein is on understanding teacher conceptions of
inquiry teaching, not the challenges of implementation.
35
2.3.6 Studies to support inquiry teaching effectiveness
In spite of the challenges of inquiry teaching, it is promoted as having
several quality outcomes for students and teachers. These include: (a)
improving preservice teachers’ views regarding how science is taught and
learned that are more in line with constructivist ideals (Sanger, 2007); (b)
helping students develop accurate scientific knowledge and skills (Fleer &
Hardy, 2001; Skamp, 2004; Wynne et al., 2003); (c) increasing student
understanding of science (Hakkarainen, 2003); (d) developing content
knowledge in students (Sandoval, 2005); (e) developing student
understanding of the nature of science (Bianchini & Colburn, 2000; Schwartz
& Crawford, 2004); and (f) providing valuable hands-on learning experiences
and contextualised language experiences in the context of ESL (English as a
second language) learners, (Lee et al., 2004). Inquiry has also been found to
have emotive benefits, such as improving students’ attitudes towards science
(Brown, 2000; Cavallo & Laubach, 2001), improving students’ motivation
(Windschitl, 2004), and attracting and maintaining students’ interest (Justice
et al., 2009).
Perhaps most importantly, according to a range of researchers, inquiry
teaching has much to contribute to the development of scientifically literate
citizens for the modern knowledge economy (Goodrum et al., 2001; Harwood
et al., 2006; Seroussi, 2005). In many ways, the advantages in the previous
paragraph can be summarised as the means to the end in helping students
to develop scientific literacy. Governments worldwide have recognised
scientific literacy as a high priority for their citizens. Science education today
aspires to do more than train the next generation of scientists; it aims to
prepare all citizens of the community to participate fully in a knowledge driven
society (Fensham & Harlen, 1999). Goodrum et al. (2001) argue for the
importance of scientific literacy as follows:
The purpose of science education is to develop scientific
literacy which is a high priority for all citizens, helping them to
be interested in, and understand the world around them, to
engage in the discourses of and about science, to be sceptical
and questioning of claims made by others about scientific
matters, to be able to identify questions and draw evidence-
36
based conclusions, and to make informed decisions about the
environment and their own health and well-being. (p.ix)
These goals associated with the development of scientific literacy are
considered priorities for many educational institutions internationally (O'Niell
& Pollman, 2004). This also supports the importance of the current study as a
contributor to our understanding of teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching,
and thus, the students’ experience of science in the classroom.
Although inquiry teaching has a long and often problematic history in
science education, these outcomes clearly indicate that inquiry teaching still
holds great promise which is yet to be fully realised. Describing teachers’
ways of experiencing inquiry teaching will help inform educational theory and
policy, which may be used to help teacher education programs deliver
greater outcomes in terms of inquiry teaching, scientific literacy, and student
understanding of the nature of science.
2.4 Ways of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education
Having explored the problematic definition of inquiry teaching in
previous sections, this section now explores the literature regarding teachers’
conceptions, or ways of experiencing, inquiry teaching in science education.
First, in order to interrogate the phenomenon of teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching specifically, it is necessary to consider conceptions of
teaching in general. Conceptions of teaching in general are addressed in
Section 2.4.1 as a background to understanding conceptions of inquiry
teaching specifically (Section 2.4.2). Finally, the relationship between
conceptions and practice is clarified (2.4.3) in order to provide a final
justification for the use of phenomenography in this study.
It is important to note that this thesis considers the literature on beliefs
of teaching as separate but related to literature on conceptions of teaching.
Conceptions are seen as a way of experiencing a phenomenon (Marton &
Booth, 1997), while beliefs are attitudes which guide behaviour (Beck,
Czerniak, & Lumpe, 2000). Conceptions can change even for the same
individual in different circumstances as they perceive variation in the ways of
experiencing a phenomenon (Åkerlind, Bowden, & Green, 2005). Beliefs, on
the other hand, are known to be resistant to change (Entwistle et al., 2000).
37
Beliefs hold a more emotive weighting whereas conceptions are more
cognitive in orientation (Entwistle et al., 2000). Finally, beliefs tend to be of a
highly individualistic nature in that there can be as many beliefs about a
phenomenon as there are individuals who perceive it – while
phenomenography strives to find grouped, not individual, descriptions
(Åkerlind, 2005a). In essence, the term conception as used in this thesis is
being interpreted from the standpoint of phenomenography. Thus, the data
gathering and analysis of this study focuses on teacher conceptions of
inquiry teaching as viewed through a phenomenographic lens.
No phenomenographic studies of primary teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching have been found. Indeed, while there has been a great deal
of research investigating teachers’ conception of teaching (Boulton-Lewis et
al., 2001; Kember, 1998; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992), and teacher
conceptions of science teaching (Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Skamp & Mueller,
2001; Tsai, 2002), the literature regarding teachers’ conceptions of teaching
science through inquiry is scant (Crawford, 2007; Harwood et al., 2006;
Withee & Lindell, 2006), and in the context of primary teaching, entirely
absent. A rigorous search of the literature failed to locate any articles
regarding primary school teachers’ conceptions or ways of experiencing
inquiry teaching in science education. This study addresses this gap,
especially given the current importance of inquiry learning in science
education.
2.4.1 Conceptions of teaching in general
Conceptions of teaching in general are expected to inform teacher
thinking with regards to their experiences and implementation of the specific
teaching approach known as inquiry teaching. This thesis begins with the
literature review provided by Kember in the late 90s (Kember, 1998), and
provides a very brief overview of some related literature regarding
conceptions of teaching in general in order to help situate the study in the
contemporary field and provide a framework for the later interpretation of
results.
This review is necessarily brief because this study focuses on a
specific approach to teaching, namely inquiry teaching, and not on teachers’
38
conceptions of teaching in general, both of which have been the focus of
several studies in recent years (Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008). Also,
the majority of the studies here presented, even those with a
phenomenographic methodology, were published pre Learning and
awareness (Marton & Booth, 1997). In these studies the word conception
may be taken to mean belief as the words have been defined in this study
(see introduction to Section 2.4).
One of the earliest attempts to consolidate research on teacher
conceptions of teaching is the literature review by Kember (1998). He
reviewed 14 studies into conceptions (or rather, beliefs) of teaching held by
tertiary educators. These studies were performed between 1983 and 1996,
predominantly between 1992 and 1994, with approximately half making use
of phenomenography as a research approach.
The Kember (1998) study derived five categories, called conceptions,
of teaching ranging from teacher-centred to student-centred. These were
imparting information, transmitting structured knowledge, student-teacher
interaction, facilitating understanding and conceptual change/intellectual
development. The conceptions also varied according to the degree to which
teaching encourages learners to be actively engaged in the process of
constructing knowledge as opposed to teaching that focuses on the delivery
of content. In a sense, the Kember study paralleled the contrast between
transmissive approaches to teaching and approaches to teaching based on
social constructivist learning theory described in Section 2.1.
The five conceptions were then presented under a two level category
scheme. The first two conceptions were presented under teacher-
centred/content-oriented conceptions and the last two under student-
centred/learning-oriented conceptions, with the student-teacher
interaction/apprenticeship conception appearing mid way between the two
groups. Kember (1998) also speculated that his categorisation scheme
represented a developmental hierarchy, and that teachers could progress
from more teacher-centred approaches to more student-centred ones.
The Kember (1998) study serves as an effective foundation from
which to discuss and compare later studies of teacher conceptions of
teaching. The following Table 9 compares 11 studies and their categorisation
39
schemes. None of the studies here cited are set in primary schools. Also,
most studies were completed in the previous decade, indicating that research
has moved on to more specific areas, such as implementation of the teaching
approaches based on previous research or justifying various approaches in
specific content areas, such as medicine (Pratt et al., 2001).
As can be seen from Table 2.4, the studies here cited can be grouped
into five general categories which structure the far left column: (a)
transmission of content from teacher to student; (b) student centred
transmission, or transmitting content in a way that makes it easy to “catch”;
(c) facilitating learning, or designing learning experiences around helping
students to make personal meaning of content; (d) conceptual change, or
helping students to change their own understanding through conceptual
change approaches; and (e) student transformation, or helping students to
become better people through constructing their own understandings. These
five categories develop from being entirely teacher and content focussed (a),
to having a more broad and holistic conception of education as being student
focused and having the potential to benefit society as a whole (e). The first
two categories are seen as teacher-centred and the remaining three are
more student-centred.
However, as mentioned previously, the current study concern
conceptions of inquiry teaching specifically, and not on conceptions of
teaching in general. Also, one of the potential limitations of many of the
earlier studies is the lack of any serious reflection on the qualities that define
the variation between the categories, apart from the student/teacher-centred
dichotomy. Such a lack of clarity makes it difficult at times to see the richness
in qualitative differences between categories. The next section will give more
detailed and contemporary analysis of the dimensions of variation that make
up the differences between conceptions of learning in general.
40
Table 2.4
Researcher generated comparison of teacher conceptions of teaching studies.
Fox, 1983
Martin and Balla, 1991
Duffy, 1992
Samuel-owicz and Bain, 1992
Gow and Kember, 1993
Prosser et al, 1994
Murray and MacDonald, 1997
Kember, 1998
Brownlee, 2001
Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001
Åkerlind, 2004
Category Sub cate-gories
Transmission Trans-mission
Teacher initiated learning with focus on content
Presenting info (not concerned with prior learning)
Direct instruct-ion
Imparting information
Knowledge trans-mission.
Category a and b : based on concepts in the syllabus or based on teachers’ own knowledge structures
Impart knowledge
Imparting information
Presenting information
Trans-mission of content/skills,
Organ-ised trans-mission
Organised content for student access.
Trans-mitting structured knowledge
Trans-mitting information from teacher to student
Teacher trans-mission focused experience
41
Fox, 1983
Martin and Balla, 1991
Duffy, 1992
Samuel-owicz and Bain, 1992
Gow and Kember, 1993
Prosser et al, 1994
Murray and MacDonald, 1997
Kember, 1998
Brownlee, 2001
Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001
Åkerlind, 2004
Category Sub cate-gories
Student centred transmission
Stud-ent teacher relation-ship
Teacher initiated learning with focus on student change
Teacher–student relations focused experience
Apprentice-ship
Trans-mitting knowledge (develop competence)
Student/teacher interaction
Illustrating the application of theory to practice
Focus on students achieving the teacher’s level of skill and under-standing.
Motiv-ate
Enthuse, encourage, motivate students
Student engage-ment focused experience’
Facilitating learning
Facili-tate learn-ing
Encourage active learning
Facilitating under-standing by teacher efforts
Learning facilitation
Categories c and d : Student acquisition of the above
Facilitate student learning
Facilitating understanding
42
Fox, 1983
Martin and Balla, 1991
Duffy, 1992
Samuel-owicz and Bain, 1992
Gow and Kember, 1993
Prosser et al, 1994
Murray and MacDonald, 1997
Kember, 1998
Brownlee, 2001
Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001
Åkerlind, 2004
Category Sub-categry
Conceptual change
Conce-ptual change
Student initiated learning with focus on content
Changing students conceptions of the world (not just gaining knowledge)
Category e: Teacher helps students develop their own con-ceptions
Conceptual change
Developing concepts and principles through interaction with students
Teacher & student working together to construct personal meaning.
Developing the capacity in students to be experts,
Exploring [with students] ways of understanding from particular perspective
43
Fox, 1983
Martin and Balla, 1991
Duffy, 1992
Samuel-owicz and Bain, 1992
Gow and Kember, 1993
Prosser et al, 1994
Murray and MacDonald, 1997
Kember, 1998
Brownlee, 2001
Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001
Åkerlind, 2004
Category Sub catery
Student Transform-ation
Auton-omous student learner
Student initiated – learning with student change
Supporting student learning – conceptual change, student is autonomous and responsible
Category f: Helping student develop world views.
Support students
Bringing about conceptual change in students
Teacher organising the situation to provide the stimulus and then apparently fading into the back-ground
Student learning focused experience
Change the student/change the world
Transformative
Holistic
Reference:
(Fox, 1983)
(Martin & Balla, 1991)
(Duffy, 1992)
(Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992)
(Gow & Kember, 1993)
(Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994)
(Murray & MacDonald, 1997)
(Kember, 1998)
(Brownlee, 2001)
(Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001)
(Åkerlind, 2004)
44
Conception studies that explore dimensions of variation
The dimensions of variation refer to the qualities or attributes of the
categories that differ between each, helping to delimit each category from the
others. For example, one such dimension might include the role of the
teacher; are they the provider of knowledge or a facilitator of learning.
Kember (1997) provided the following five, which are noticeably similar to
many dimensions of variation found in the current study (see Section 5.1).
They were (a) teacher (role of the teacher as presenter of information or
facilitator of learning); (b) teaching (the act of teaching, from transfer of
information to development of persons and conceptions); (c) student (role of
the student from passive recipient to lecturer responsible for student
development); (d) content (from being defined by the curriculum to
constructed by students); (e) knowledge (source of knowledge, from being
possessed by lecturer to socially constructed). Some of the other dimensions
that may be discernable across the five Kember (1998) categories of
description could have included; role of the student/teacher relationship, role
of materials, purpose of assessment, and the impact teaching has on
students’ lives and society similar to breadth of impact aspect discussed in
Åkerlind (2004).
Other studies into teacher conceptions of teaching have also
attempted to explicitly describe the qualities that make up variation between
categories in their categorisation schemes. These qualities are called
dimensions of variation in most phenomenographic studies published after
the book Learning and Awareness by Marton and Booth (1997).
Åkerlind (2004), in a phenomenographic study of 20 research-
oriented university lecturers, derived four conceptions of teaching from four
dimensions of variation. The four conceptions of ways of experiencing being
a teacher were: (a) teacher transmission focused experience; (b) teacher–
student relations focused experience; (c) student engagement focused
experience; and (d) student learning focused experience. As a study, the
research went to great lengths to define the dimensions of variation and to
elaborate on how each dimension contributed to each conception. The four
dimensions were role of student, benefit to the student, benefits teachers’
45
find in teaching, and the breadth of benefit to the community at large. The
first two dimensions of variation were the role of the student, such as being a
passive or active learner, and the benefit to the student in the teaching-
learning process. The study made use of two dimensions of variation not
previously considered in the teaching literature (Åkerlind, 2004), the benefits
teachers find in teaching, and the breadth of benefit. The breadth of benefit
referred to the benefits as perceived by teachers from inquiry teaching,
running from students benefiting in the short term, to both student and
teacher benefiting, to society as a whole eventually benefiting from the
instruction. Benefits teachers find in teaching referred to the personal
benefits teachers found in teaching, such as personal growth or content
knowledge understanding. Interestingly, unlike the majority of other studies
into teacher conceptions of teaching, the role of the teacher is not explicitly
considered as a quality of variation, indicating it may not be necessary, or
perhaps that such an aspect is too broad to be useful and is better employed
broken down into more specific teacher behaviours such as benefit to
teacher and breadth of benefit.
Although Kember (1998) suggested that the high degree of consensus
among studies of teachers’ conceptions indicated the futility of further
research in this area, Åkerlind (2004) cited the derivation of two entirely new
dimensions of variation in her study as indicating further research is indeed
warranted. This conclusion supports the decision within this study to use
phenomenographic analysis to study the variation among teacher
experiences, as a study based on conceptions of inquiry teaching will serve
to highlight previously unilluminated dimensions of variation in teacher
conceptions. Also, the derivation of any further dimensions of variation which
will be used to expand our theoretical understanding of teachers’ conceptions
of teaching, would indicate that more research is warranted in this area (see
Section 5.5.2).
Another study into teacher conceptions which made use of dimensions
of variation was Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) who qualitatively derived five
conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. They were: (a) Imparting
information; (b) Transmitting knowledge, or the development of competence
in students; (c) Facilitating student understanding through teacher efforts; (d)
46
Changing students conceptions of the world as opposed to simply gaining
knowledge; and (e) Supporting student learning through conceptual change
where the student becomes autonomous and responsible. This
categorisation scheme was not constructed as hierarchical, but ordered. This
means that the higher level conceptions are not inclusive of the lower level
conceptions of transmitting information. This conclusion is to be contrasted
with other studies (Åkerlind, 2004; Bruce & Gerber, 1995; Porlán & Pozo,
2004) which reported hierarchical conceptions of teaching.
Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) derived their conceptions from five
dimensions of variation which they deemed could be either student- or
teacher-centred. The qualities which helped define variation among
categories were (a) teachers’ and students’ roles, (b) theory of learning, (c)
students current understanding and the role of assessing such, (d) ownership
of knowledge, such as who has a right to own and dispense knowledge, and
(e) the relationship between theory and practice in helping students see that
relationship. They suggested that putting theory into practice, while often
seen as a student-centred act, may actually be part of a teacher-centred
transmission conception of teacher and student roles (quality a).
In other research, Prosser et al. (1994), derived a matrix of six
conceptions of teaching, where the role of the teacher may be seen as
moving from less informed to more informed approaches that employed
teaching approaches based on constructivist learning theory. The first four
conceptions were: (a) transmitting concepts of the syllabus; (b) transmitting
the teachers’ knowledge; (c) helping students acquire concepts of the
syllabus; and (d) teaching as helping students acquire the teachers’
knowledge. Teachers holding these four initial conceptions were seen as
having a teacher-centred transmitting information conception. The final two
conceptions were seen as being student-centred. These were: (e) helping
students develop conceptions; and (f) helping students change conceptions.
Making use of phenomenographic language, Prosser et al. (1994)
defined their dimensions of variation in terms of what they labelled structural
and referential components. Their four structural components which were
used to build up and define the categories of descriptions were; information
transmission, helping students acquire concepts, helping students develop
47
conceptions, and helping students change conceptions. Their referential
components depend on the source or focus of knowledge; whether it is the
syllabus, the teacher, or the student. However, it appears that the authors
were using a nonstandard definition of structural and referential components
in light of contemporary views of variation theory (Section 3.1.4). What they
might have more accurately been referring to were dimensions of variation
(role of the teacher and source of course content knowledge), each with four
and three levels respectively, and the referential component referring to the
global meaning of each of the six categories of description.
It may be noted that there is a lack of consensus among formal
attempt to organise the dimensions of variation that make up teacher
conceptions. The dimensions of variation are the main way that the
differences between the categories are expressed. Samuelowicz and Bain
(1992) felt that what they termed the aspects of variation may be more lasting
than the various categorisation schemes derived from them– a comment
which seems reasonable considering the prevalence of the role of teacher as
defining the categories in most if not all studies (e.g., Åkerlind, 2004; Fox,
1983; Kember, 1998; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). However, two difficulties
exist. First, unfortunately many past studies neither explicitly detail the
dimensions of variation that they use to derive their categories. Second, a
literature review has yet to be attempted that compares the dimensions of
variation that make up the teacher conceptions of teaching literature. In terms
of the first difficulty, this study will contribute to the literature by explicitly
dealing with the qualities that define the categories, as do many modern
studies of teacher conceptions.
A brief comparison of several dimensions of variation as they appear
across the studies mentioned herein will now be undertaken. Table 2.5
summarises the dimensions of variation as found in the four main studies
cited in this section.
As is illustrated in Table 2.5, several dimensions of variation appear
more commonly in the literature; for example, the role of the teacher is fairly
ubiquitous, and while some studies may talk about the role of the student
(e.g., Åkerlind, 2004), it seems to be a role the teacher has assigned them.
The role of the teacher is commonly measured against a teacher/student-
48
centred continuum, with greater status given to student-centred approaches.
Another important dimension of variation regards the source of knowledge,
that is, whether accurate knowledge is given by the teacher, the syllabus, or
must be created by the student for themselves (Prosser et al., 1994;
Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). In some apprenticeship categories, the source
of knowledge is to emulate the teacher themselves (Kember, 1998). Again,
the influence of the student/teacher continuum can be seen here from
teacher-centred transmission of knowledge to a constructivist informed
student generation of understanding. In various studies the source of
knowledge may be referred to as the ownership of knowledge (Samuelowicz
& Bain, 1992), source of knowledge (Prosser et al., 1994), or role of
knowledge (Kember, 1998).
Table 2.5
Summary of dimensions of variation in studies cited.
Dimension of variation
Kember (1997)
Samuelowicz and Bain (1992)
Prosser et al. (1994) - edited
Åkerlind (2004)
Teacher role (a) Teacher role
(a) teachers’ and students’ roles,
Role of the teacher
Benefits teachers’ find in teaching.
Student role (c) Student role
Role of student
Role of learning
(b) theory of learning,
Role of teaching
(b) Act of teaching
(e) The relationship between theory and practice.
Benefit to the student Breadth of benefit
Role of content
(d) Content (c) students understanding
Source of knowledge
(e) role of knowledge
(d) ownership of knowledge
Source of curriculum content
Other potential dimensions of variation are mentioned, such as the
role of students’ prior learning, the role of assessment, role of materials, role
of the real world (such as is used to define apprenticeship categories), and
the role of learning. The benefit to teachers is mentioned in several studies,
49
at times explicitly (Åkerlind, 2004), as well as the benefit to students
(Åkerlind, 2004). No one quality is explicitly mentioned in all studies, though
the role of the teacher is commonly included. Also, it does not appear that
any one quality is given equal weighting, or equivalent definition, in studies
that discuss the same dimension. The situation is further confused when
there is no attempt made to distinguish between quality of variation and
levels of those qualities of variation. For example, Prosser et al. (1994) speak
of four structural components when they appear to be referring to one quality
of variation – the teachers’ role.
There is generally a lack of research which rigorously defines the
dimensions of variation that make up conceptions of teaching. Also, Åkerlind
(2004) indicated that more research is required in this area since more
dimensions of variation might yet remain to be uncovered. This thesis will
contribute to the understanding of the dimensions of variation that make up
teachers’ conceptions of teaching, in the specific context of teaching science
through inquiry in primary schools.
2.4.2 Conceptions of inquiry teaching in science education
There has been no research with primary school teachers which has
used a phenomenographic approach to investigate teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching. Three studies are cited in this section as being closely
related to this topic, however, the gap still remains in the literature.
One study briefly discussed high school teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching in science education, though it was not phenomenographic
in nature. Withee and Lindell (2006) in a preliminary study of high school
teacher educators at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, compared
five participant responses to 14 online questions regarding inquiry based
learning, the 5E’s method of instruction, and conceptual change teaching. In
terms of preservice teacher educators’ conceptions of inquiry teaching two
categories were developed: (a) inquiry as discovery, which included the
discovery of concepts in place of being told; and (b) inquiry as
accommodation which discussed the role of conceptual change teaching in
inquiry teaching. In terms of the summary of the literature into teachers
conceptions of teaching (see Table 2.4), the first category might relate to
50
student-centred transmission, and the second category to conceptual change
conceptions of teaching. It is interesting to note that this means that no
matter how the Withee and Lindell (2006) results map on to the present
study, they successfully relate to the teacher/student-centred continuum in
that the first category appears teacher-centred, and the second category
student-centred. The categories are discussed in little more detail than that
which is reported here, although it is to be noted that their study was
preliminary and no further research has been reported from these early
findings.
Another high school study was conducted by Crawford (2007),
however, it focused on beliefs and not conceptions (see introduction to
Section 2.4). This study examined the knowledge, beliefs and efforts of five
prospective teachers as they attempted to use inquiry teaching during a one-
year high school fieldwork experience. Data sources included interviews, field
notes, and student work collected while the prospective teachers engaged in
learning how to teach science. Again, it was found that teaching strategies
ranged the full spectrum of teacher/student-centred approaches. In support
of the current study, the Crawford study concluded that the most critical
factor in determining teacher intention and ability to use inquiry teaching was
their complex set of personal understandings of teaching and of science
itself. As with many other studies on teacher beliefs, Crawford (2007) did not
try to group understandings against anything other than the teacher/student-
centred dichotomy, again developing as many categories as there were
participants. The study of conceptions in a phenomenographic sense allows
the data to be grouped into categories, which is provided as one of the
justifications for this study.
Finally, the Harwood et al. study (2006) developed a blended
qualitative/quantitative instrument (a card sorting activity) for measuring
teacher beliefs of inquiry instruction. This instrument is called the Inquiry
Teaching Beliefs (ITB) instrument, which was developed from researcher
generated statements of what was or wasn’t inquiry based instruction. While
this is a suitable measure for inquiry beliefs against the theoretical
perspective of the researchers, it was not able to generate an understanding
of the teachers’ beliefs from the teachers’ perspective, let alone describe the
51
variation in teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, while this study
claimed to be based on a phenomenographic theoretical foundation, it does
not make use of phenomenographic artefacts such as an outcome space,
variation theory, or structure of awareness (see Chapter 3).
Conclusion to section 2.4.2
The lack of phenomenographic studies on primary school teachers’
conceptions of inquiry teaching clearly indicates the importance of the current
study addressing this gap in the literature. This literature review has reported
a lack of research which investigates primary school teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching, as conceptions can influence approaches to teaching, and
thus, student outcomes. This review now investigates this relation between
teacher conceptions and their influence on teacher practice, which also
includes a justification for the focus on teacher conceptions as integral to
addressing the research problem.
2.4.3 Relationship between conceptions and practice
This section will now review literature regarding the influence of
teacher conceptions on teacher practice in order to provide a justification for
the use of conceptions in this study. Although a substantial body of research
argues that teacher conceptions of teaching have a clear and important
influence on teaching practices, other studies have cast doubt on the nature
and quality of this relationship. This issue will be reviewed and the extent or
limitations of these arguments explored. This section draws on many studies
from outside the phenomenographic literature, and thus makes use of the
term teachers’ conceptions in the broadest sense as informing behaviour as
well as a way of experiencing the world.
Many studies indicate that teacher practice is influenced by teacher
conceptions of teaching (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001; Buelens, Clement, &
Clarebout, 2002; Ho, 2001; Koballa, Glynn, Upson, & Coleman, 2005; Porlán
& Pozo, 2004; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Watkins, Dahlin, & Ekholm, 2005).
For example, Trigwell and Prosser (1996) interviewed 24 physics and
chemistry lecturers in Australia. They found a clear relation between what
they called a conceptual change intention teaching conception and the
teachers’ enactment of student-focused strategies in the classroom. In
52
referring to conceptual change teaching, the authors were referring to a
teaching practice which focuses on “…their students’ world views or
conceptions of the subject matter rather than their own [teachers’]
conceptions or the texts’ concepts. They see their role as helping their
students develop their conceptions in terms of further elaboration and
extension” (Prosser et al., 1994, p. 224). Alternatively, an information transfer
intention was related to teacher-focused teaching strategies. The article
concluded that professional development programs that focus on teaching
strategies without regard to the conceptions underlying the strategies they
promote (and their relationship to teacher conceptions of teaching) were
unlikely to be successful.
At least two other studies also indicate that teachers’ conceptions of
teaching are influential in teacher practice and provide evidence to support
this claim. For example, Porlán and Pozo (2004) claimed that teaching
practices were influenced by teacher conceptions of teaching. Their study
was performed with over 260 teachers in Spain in an effort to describe their
conceptions about teaching and learning science, and found that most
teachers held to a transmissive/reception of knowledge view. Also, Watkins,
Dahlin, and Ekholm (2005), in their phenomenographic study into the effect
of changing student assessment on student learning practices, indicated that
changes in conceptions of teaching preceded changes in approaches to
teaching.
However, other researchers have found what they term a puzzling
dissonance between teachers’ espoused conceptions and actual practice.
Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) spoke of this dissonance as one of the
“mysteries of higher education” (p. 110). Murray and MacDonald (1997)
interviewed 39 lecturers from a business school in a new university in
England where the staff were predominantly engaged in teaching. The three
main areas assessed in the study were teaching attitudes, teaching and
assessment strategies, and teaching methods used (teaching aids used and
assessment methods employed). These researchers developed a survey
based on a qualitative analysis of responses of 13 staff members to a series
of questions about teaching. After preliminary trialling of the survey they
surveyed some 80 staff in the university. They derived four categories of
53
what they termed teacher conceptions of teaching: (a) imparting knowledge;
(b) enthusing, encouraging, and motivating students; (c) facilitating student
learning; and (d) supporting students. Rather than considering their
categories as discrete, the authors noted overlap, especially between
categories 2 and 3. The interesting finding of this study was that in comparing
conceptions of teaching with reports of actual lecture and tutorial use, the
only responses consistent with practice were from teachers who held what
were termed lower approaches to teaching; the four individuals who held the
enthusing, encouraging, and motivating students conceptions and all eight of
the individuals who held transmissive or imparting knowledge conceptions.
Murray and MacDonald (1997) speculated that this dissonance could
be explained by three assumptions. First, influence of context, in particular
the influence of large student numbers in tertiary courses might have
constrained lecturers to adopt transmissive approaches (Pratt et al., 2001)
even if they held student-centred conceptions of teaching. Second, drawing
on the work of Argyris and Schön (1974), they explain the results in terms of
“espoused theories” which are the public presentation of theories or beliefs,
and “theories-in-use” as undeclared values or strategies which influence
practice. In this analysis they meant that teachers drew upon one set of
beliefs in the practice of teaching, and another different set when responding
to questions about their practice. Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) spoke of a
similar concept when they talked about working and ideal conceptions of
teaching. Third, the cause of the dissonance may not be so much a
misunderstanding of teachers’ own practice, but related to teacher inability to
verbalise and operationalise their role. They concluded that more staff
development was needed to help teachers explain and describe their
practice.
More recent studies continue to find a dissonance between teacher
conceptions and teacher practice. For instance, Eley (2006) interviewed 29
university academics from the same institution in an explicit attempt to
identify issues teachers consider during planning. In essence he sought to
explore the influence of conceptions of teaching on teaching practice
regarding lesson preparation; however, he did not make use of
phenomenography as a research methodology. The study generated six
54
categories which are important to understand not as conceptions of teaching,
but as considerations teachers use regarding planning. These categories
were labelled category events rather than categories of description to
represent this important distinction. However, the study does contribute to
understanding the issue at hand– that of the relationship between teacher
conceptions and teacher practice. The study found that only five of the 29
teachers explicitly made use of some form of conception of teaching in their
preparation, and support the Murray and MacDonald (1997) speculation that
the cause of dissonance is that teachers draw on one set of beliefs to explain
their practice and another to engage in it. The study concluded that
“conceptions of teaching might not be directly and functionally involved in the
day-to-day detail of planning for teaching” (Eley, 2006, p. 207).
A study which used the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI)
(Prosser & Trigwell, 1999) reinforced the findings of Eley’s (2006) study.
Twenty-five of the 29 participants in the interview process responded to the
written survey designed to explore teaching intents and strategies relating to
a single unit of work. However, no results were found to be significant at the
p = .05 level, leading the authors to conclude once again that conceptions of
teaching might not “directly and functionally” be related to daily planning
events (Eley, 2006, p. 207). As this following quote emphasises (Argyris &
Schön, 1974):
… no matter how well crystallised or articulated a conception of
teaching might be, there need be no necessity that teachers
might yet evoke such conceptions during subsequent detailed
planning. Those later planning activities might still rely on
enacting specific teaching practices used in previous teaching
contexts seen to be similar. (p. 209)
This quotation reinforces the contention that conceptions of teaching
might not have a direct or even highly predictive influence on teacher
behaviour. It is therefore important to ask what role teacher conceptions play
in teacher practice in light of two contrasting bodies of literature. Richardson
(2005) argues for an integrated model, which sees approaches to teaching
as being drawn from two sources; conceptions of teaching (which are drawn
from disciplinary characteristics – the subject area for example), and
55
perceptions of the teaching environment which are again drawn from
situational factors. This model is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Influences on teacher approaches to teaching (Richardson 2005).
The Richardson (2005) model indicates that actual teacher practice as
expressed as approaches to teaching is informed by two factors –
conceptions of teaching and perceptions of the teaching environment. The
first factor, conceptions of teaching, is constructed by the teacher from
personal experiences such as preservice training and represents, in part, the
verbalised expression of what it means for them to teach. The second factor
takes into account issues of context; the day-to-day exigencies of the
classroom such as class size, whole school curriculum pressures, as well as
other social factors such as the student-teacher relationship.
This influence of context has been noted by several studies as
important in this area (Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes,
2005; Richardson, 2005; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Context also refers to
variables such as the discipline context, that is, whether it is a maths or
science class. For example, Norton et al. (2005) found that conceptions of
teaching varied across disciplines, but that teachers from the same discipline
at different institutions had very similar conceptions of teaching. Issues of
context can also refer to the nature and quantity of the students’ level of
schooling. Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) found their most sophisticated
conception support student learning was only present at the postgraduate
level. Richardson (2005) summarised the literature in regards to the influence
of context and concluded that differences in conceptions of teaching due to
56
context are related to teachers’ underlying beliefs about the nature of the
subject discipline in which they work.
In the current study, the influence of subject discipline context is
considered to be relatively minor. Participants are all primary school
teachers, discussing their impressions of teaching in the discipline context of
science, and that through inquiry teaching as well. In this way, the context is
relatively narrow, being a single context for all participants compared to
studies which explore the influence of multiple contexts. Thus, a narrow
context may have actually benefited this current study; for example, Ajzen
(2005) in summarising literature on attitudes found that attitudes more closely
aligned to behaviours when the context was specific rather than general.
While the context of this study may be narrow, variation among participants
was deliberately broad in terms of such variables as years of teaching,
teacher gender, or past experience with science (see Section 3.2.1 for a full
explanation of participants’ background) in order to maximise variation in
teacher conceptions.
It may be inferred from this section that although teacher conceptions
of teaching have an influence on teacher practice, this practice is also
influenced in varying degrees by such things as the “working conceptions” of
teachers (see Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992, p. 110), the habits of practice that
have been invoked in the past (Richardson, 2005), and the exigencies of the
day to day classroom and learning environment (Keys & Bryan, 2001).
Therefore, the literature supports the argument that teacher conceptions
have an influence on teacher practice, but that they are not the only
influence.
Also, Eley (2006) argued that conceptions of teaching, as represented
in past studies, were reflections on experience derived from the open-ended
questions of the research studies which investigate the phenomenon.
Conceptions of teaching are not “… cognitive tools in the minds of teachers”
(p. 194) which have a detailed day-to-day influence on teacher planning and
actions. In this manner, conceptions of teaching may be considered as
reflections on experience, not schematas used in planning and teaching. In
this regard, conceptions of teaching can be seen as indicators of teacher
practice and not as the cause of teacher practice. This supports the Ericsson
57
and Simon’s (1980) caution that responses to the question What is teaching?
might not serve as direct recounts of teacher thinking, but rather the
outcomes of thinking and reasoning about teaching.
Finally, Porlán and Pozo (2004) demonstrated that teacher
conceptions of teaching which are not congruent with new methods and
practices may hinder the successful adoption of these new methods. This
argument supports Kember’s (1998) belief that conceptions of teaching have
an influence on the impact of professional development programs in that the
practices of professional development programs were not likely to be
adopted if they represented a conception of teaching that differed from the
teacher’s own conception. For example, the adoption of new teaching
approaches such as inquiry teaching may be filtered against the espoused
theories that teachers hold (Kember, 1998). Also, Prosser et al. (1994) found
that professional development programs that focused on teaching strategies
without regard to the conceptions’ underlying the strategies were unlikely to
be successful. Thus teacher conceptions serve as important indicators of the
practices teachers are likely to take up in professional development and
inservice programs.
Synthesis of literature
It is now possible to synthesise the two contrasting bodies of literature;
those which find dissonance in teacher conceptions and behaviour, and
those that find a clear influence for teacher conceptions. Conceptions of
teaching are seen as reflections on experience which are indicators of
teacher practice (Eley, 2006) at times closely aligned (e.g., Ho, 2001), and
other times not (e.g., Murray & MacDonald, 1997). However, the more
specific the context of the conception (i.e., teaching science through inquiry
rather than teaching science, or even teaching) the more they are closely
aligned to actual behaviour (Ajzen, 2005; Norton et al., 2005). Conceptions of
teaching serve important functions in that they: (a) serve as indicators of
teacher practice (Ericsson & Simon, 1980), and (b) moderate the uptake of
new and more effective teaching behaviours (Kember, 1998; Porlán & Pozo,
2004; Prosser et al., 1994).
58
Therefore, conceptions of teaching as a way of experiencing a
phenomenon are considered important but not perfect indicators of the
teaching practices teachers are currently undertaking, and powerful
indicators of the kinds of practices likely to be taken up and supported by the
teachers. These two indicators have important implications for teacher
education.
This section has explored the differences between conceptions and
belief studies, and found that belief studies, while having much to contribute,
are lacking in that they do not generate a parsimonious categorisation
scheme of participants’ conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, in reviewing the
literature on teachers’ conceptions of teaching, this study found that most if
not all studies contrast teacher conceptions on a teacher/student centred
continuum, reporting student–centred conceptions as more inclusive and
desirable. Finally, this study indicates that conceptions of teaching are
important influences in education, particularly as indicators of teacher
practice and moderators of the uptake of new practices.
2.5 Conclusion
Inquiry teaching has a long and challenging history in education.
However, there are no phenomenographic studies which investigate
practicing primary school teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching in
science, in spite of the contributions of a large body of literature dealing with
teacher conceptions of teaching, and teacher beliefs about inquiry teaching.
This study addresses this gap in the literature, and contributes to our
theoretical understanding of inquiry teaching in science through the
development of a parsimonious categorisation scheme highlighting the
qualitatively different ways in which primary school teacher’s experience
inquiry teaching.
It is possible that this study may have many other benefits, such as
adding to the literature regarding teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and
more specifically to teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Also, since
conceptions of inquiry teaching assist as indicators of teacher practice, this
study may be used to explore the impact of local and international initiatives
59
to promote inquiry learning in science education. Finally, by mapping teacher
conceptions this study is expected to provide an indication of which ideas are
likely to be more readily accepted by teachers during preservice, inservice
and professional development programs.
60
61
Chapter 3 Methodology and Research design
Inquiry teaching has much to contribute to the modern primary science
educators’ goals, yet its inclusion in the primary school curriculum is
problematic at best. One reason sought to explain the problematic
implementation of inquiry teaching is a failure on the part of teacher
educators and curriculum developers in understanding the conceptions, or
experiences, of primary science teachers engaged in inquiry teaching.
Phenomenography allows us to look at the problem though a different
methodological lens. This study contributes to our theoretical understanding
of inquiry teaching in primary science through describing the limited number
of qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers’
conceptualise, or experience, inquiry teaching.
The previous chapter discussed the theoretical background to the
study. The following chapter describes and justifies the selection of
phenomenography as the appropriate research approach for this study
(overviewed in Section 3.1). This section begins with a discussion of some of
the most salient ontological and epistemological assumptions of the research
methodology (3.1.1), and situates the current phenomenographic research
within the paradigm of qualitative research (3.1.2). Variation in approaches to
phenomenography is dealt with in Section 3.1.3 in order to contextualise the
current research in the contemporary field of phenomenography. The
structure of awareness, a theoretical foundation for the data analysis, is
explicated in Section 3.1.4. This theoretical foundation for data analysis is
further expanded (3.1.5) with the definition and usage of conceptions,
categories of description, and the outcome space which are used to present
the results of the research. To complete this section, a necessary discussion
of the theoretical model of the nature of learning by Marton and Booth (1997)
is adapted to this study of conceptions of teaching (3.1.6).
The research design and methods used for the study are then
examined in Section 3.2 in order to establish the approach this particular
study must take. Participant data and selection procedures are discussed in
Section 3.2.1, followed by the detailed description of data collection
procedures as part of the demonstrative procedure to help establish the
62
validity and reliability of the study (3.2.2). Section 3.2.3 contains a record of
data analysis procedures, and issues of ethics are dealt with in detail in
Section 3.2.4. Research rigour, including the validity and reliability of the
study, are discussed in Section 3.2.5.
The chapter on methodology is concluded in Section 3.3, summarising
major methodological considerations for the research. An overview of
phenomenography now follows.
3.1 Overview of phenomenography
Phenomenography is a methodology developed by a research group
at the University of Goteborg in Sweden in the 1970s (Pang, 2003).
Phenomenography was described by Marton (1994) as:
… the empirical study of the limited number of qualitatively
different ways in which various phenomena in, and aspects of,
the world around us are experienced, conceptualized,
understood, perceived and apprehended. (p. 4424)
Phenomenography attempts to explore the different ways in which a
phenomenon is understood by a group of individuals. A phenomenographic
approach is credited with being able to assist in the description and
clarification of complex ideas without simplifying those ideas, and has the
potential to uncover new understandings of a phenomenon (Dean, 1994).
Thus phenomenography provides another strategy to develop theoretical
perspectives. Reports of any attempt to understand primary school teachers’
experiences of inquiry teaching in science education through a
phenomenographic lens are missing from the literature, and hence this study
has the potential to respond to this gap (Section 2.4). Thus findings from this
study will contribute to our theoretical understanding in this area and that
may inform teacher education programs.
3.1.1 Ontological and epistemological perspectives
This section discusses the ontological and epistemological framework
in which phenomenography, and thus this study, is placed. Svensson (1997)
argued that since phenomenography is a research tradition, it may be
underpinned by a range of epistemological and ontological beliefs. However,
63
it is considered important to articulate the researcher’s understandings and
beliefs for the purpose of substantiating the quality of the findings of the
study. Ontological assumptions are taken to refer to the nature of being
(Miles, 1999), whereas epistemology is given to refer to beliefs about
knowledge (Searle, 1995).
Marton (2000) believes that phenomenography rests on a non-
dualistic ontological perspective in which the aspect of reality under
consideration exists as a relationship between the person (the knower) and
an object (the phenomenon). Marton and Booth (1997) explained:
There is not a real world ‘out there’ and a subjective world ‘in
here’. The world is not constructed by the learner, nor is it
imposed upon her; it is constituted as an internal relation
between them. (p. 13)
From this perspective, phenomenography assumes that whether or
not the world has an existence in and of itself, it is only perceivable through
the lens of the knower. The object of study in phenomenography therefore is
the participants’ ways of experiencing the world, and not the world in and of
itself. Thus non-dualism is taken as the ontological perspective in this study.
In terms of epistemology a distinction is also made in this study
between first and second order perspectives (Marton & Booth, 1997). First
order perspectives are those with which the researcher has had direct
experience and of which he or she may make personally informed comment.
Second order perspectives are where the researcher reports on the
experiences of others who have had the experience. Phenomenography is a
second order perspective, in that it comments on participants’ experiences of
a phenomenon, not on the researcher’s personal experience of the
phenomenon itself. To illustrate, a first order perspective might entail
researcher perspectives on the quality of inquiry teaching in primary schools,
while in this research a second order perspective will report on the
researcher generated categories of teachers’ experiences. A second order
perspective is advantageous in addressing the research problem as the aim
of the study is to document conceptions as a way of resolving the broader
problems relating to the implementation of inquiry teaching in schools.
64
3.1.2 Phenomenography and the paradigm of qualitative research
In order to situate phenomenography in the broader context of
qualitative research methodologies in general, comparisons are now made,
drawing in particular on the work of Åkerlind (2005a), who proposed six
qualities that help to compare phenomenography with other qualitative
research methodologies.
1) Related, not independent meanings. The different categories that
emerge from phenomenographic research are generated with relation to
each other and are not independent ways of experiencing (Åkerlind, 2005a).
Thus each category is presented along with other categories, and not
individually. This is opposed to, for example, a case study analysis in which
each conception is viewed as a separate way of experiencing, tied to a
specific individual. Participants’ conceptions are also connected (or related)
through the phenomenon experienced (Marton & Booth, 1997). This
relatedness is also important especially in light of the justification for this
study that a limited number of qualitatively different categories can be
generated from the data.
2) Awareness, not beliefs. Phenomenography is not a study of
peoples’ beliefs, but of their recollections of their awareness of a
phenomenon. What aspects of a phenomenon participants are aware of can
change as participants move towards more complete or complex
understandings (Åkerlind et al., 2005), while beliefs are considered resistant
to change (Pajares, 1992).
3) Context-sensitive awareness, not stable constructs.
Phenomenography also assumes that one individual might experience the
same phenomenon differently, given a different context, such as when
moving from the classroom to the research lab. This capacity to hold different
experiences contrasts with other concepts such as learning styles and
personality, which are expected to be stable across contexts.
4) Interpretive, not explanatory focus. Phenomenography is also a
descriptive, rather than explanatory methodology. Thus it is similar to other
forms of qualitative research such as those used in belief studies, as
opposed to experimental studies that often use quantitative methodologies in
an attempt to explain and predict (Kadriye & Wolff-Michael, 2006). The goal
65
in phenomenography is to document or interpret participants’ experiences,
rather than predict or explain the origins of their experiences through
developing an understanding of cause and effect, as might be the case in
many ethnographic studies.
5) Collective, not individual experience. Also a given in
phenomenography is that the categories are representative of the collective,
and not the individual experience (Åkerlind, 2005a). For example, during data
analysis, the interview transcripts can be treated as a whole, and not as
discrete individuals in attempting to probe participants’ awareness (Leveson,
2004). The aim of this thesis to document the group experiences of the
phenomenon. This can also be contrasted with qualitative methodologies
where the aim is to describe an individual’s experience such as participant
observation and some action research.
6) Stripped, not rich descriptions. Phenomenography strives to
describe the ways of experiencing a phenomenon in terms of their core or
most salient features (Åkerlind, 2005a). Thus the descriptions in Chapter 4
will focus on the qualitative variation amongst categories, while qualities that
remain the same among categories are not highlighted. Phenomenography
strives to describe the variation and to represent this in an outcome space
(see Section 3.1.5) using the most stripped, or parsimonious description
reasonable, as opposed to most other qualitative methodologies that seek for
rich, detailed descriptions.
Conclusion to section 3.1.2
This section has briefly outlined some of the salient differences
between phenomenography and qualitative research in general, which helps
to provide a justification for the use of phenomenography as the research
approach as opposed to other qualitative methodologies in answering the
research question. Differences in ways of approaching the
phenomenographic research practice itself will now be discussed.
3.1.3 Variation in approaches to phenomenography
It is worth noting that a large range of approaches to
phenomenographic research exist. This section overviews this diversity and
situates this thesis within the field of contemporary phenomenography.
66
Changes in phenomenography as a research approach may be
presented as two distinct generations (Pang, 2003). In the first generation,
phenomenography was concerned mainly with methodological issues of how
to research and document different ways of conceptualising a phenomenon.
Later, phenomenographic studies focused on how to document and describe
variation within those conceptions. This change may be seen as a difference
between “What is a way of experiencing something?” to “What is the actual
difference between two ways of experiencing the same thing?” (Pang, 2003,
p. 147). This thesis reports a study that is considered to be a second
generation phenomenographic study, in that it focuses on the underlying
qualities of participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon, and strives to
explore and express variation that is experienced by participants.
Although historically phenomenography itself has experienced
changes in approaches over time, diversity is also evident within the more
recent examples of phenomenographic research (Bowden & Green, 2000).
Bowden (2000) described two main forms of phenomenographic research.
These were pure phenomenography, which strives to explore the nature and
quality of the qualitatively different conceptions that exist in everyday life, and
that what Bowden called developmental phenomenography which seeks to
use the outcomes to help affect change, specifically in the areas of learning
and teaching. This study is considered a developmental phenomenographic
study as it seeks to understand teachers’ conceptions in order to inform the
field of teacher education.
Phenomenography can also be further differentiated into five modes
which differ from one another in terms of the way data are produced and the
reasons data are produced (1997). First, experimental phenomenography
explicitly sets out to evaluate the outcomes of a pre-directed exercise. The
Marton (1975) study of approaches to learning is given as one example.
Second, discursive phenomenography explores participants’ conceptions as
opposed to evaluating the outcomes of a pre-directed exercise or tests.
Third, naturalistic phenomenography gathers data from authentic situations
and is similar in its data gathering procedures to ethnographic research, as
opposed to interview data such as are used in the current thesis. Fourth,
hermeneutic phenomenography focuses on exegesis, which is: “…to
67
understand things in their own context and on their own terms, however
difficult it may appear” (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997, p. 198). Studying texts
not originally intended for phenomenographic analysis is an example of how
hermeneutic phenomenography is set apart from other forms. Finally,
phenomenological phenomenography focuses on understanding the essence
of the phenomenon as it appears to the individual, in a sense, finding out
what is going on inside the participants’ mind. However, unlike
phenomenology, phenomenological phenomenography attempts to
categorise this understanding across many individuals (Hasselgren & Beach,
1997). This study draws from a discursive phenomenographic tradition, in
that it seeks to understand participants’ conceptions of a phenomenon
without assessing them through pre-directed activities such as participant
responses to written material or observations of teachers in the act of
teaching.
Another important kind of variation in phenomenography exists in
terms of the analysis of data. One form of variation relates to contextualised
and decontextualised approaches to data analysis (Åkerlind, 2005c).
Contextualised approaches to analysis use each transcript of an individual
interview independently when analysing the data. Decontextualised
approaches “abandon the barriers between individuals” and treat the entire
data as a whole during analysis (Åkerlind, 2005c, p. 327). In support of the
decontextualised approach, Åkerlind (2005c, p. 327) stated “the meaning a
phenomenon holds for an individual may vary during the course of an
interview.” Thus, a decontextualised approach, which allows for multiple
conceptions within a single individual, was considered the most appropriate
approach for this study as it was found that individuals did indeed hold
different conceptions of inquiry teaching at different points in the interviews.
Another way in which data analysis varies in phenomenography
relates to whether the researcher acts alone or in a group with other
researchers. Åkerlind (2005c) and Bowden and Green (2000) clearly
supported the group effort as being able to generate more desirable
outcomes. However, as with most doctoral studies involving
phenomenography (Bowden & Green, 2000), the analysis in this study has
been the primary responsibility of the researcher, supported and challenged
68
by the contributions of the supervisory team. To strengthen the analysis
further, the emerging categories of description have also been scrutinised by
the University research community in a series of workshops, thus providing
group assistance with aspects of the data analysis as well as establishing an
element of validity to the findings (see Section 3.2.4).
This section has situated this thesis within the contemporary field of
phenomenography, and will now turn to a discussion of the theoretical
framework for the methodology itself in terms of variation theory and the
structure of awareness, which are key characteristics of phenomenography
distinguishing it from other methodological approaches in qualitative
research.
3.1.4 Variation and the structure of awareness
It is necessary at this point to turn to a more in depth discussion of the
participants’ understanding of phenomena using the phenomenographic
concept of variation theory. As explained by Pang (2003), experiencing a
phenomenon is dependant upon the participant’s ability to discern qualities in
that phenomenon, and that the act of discernment involves discerning
variation within and between said qualities. Marton and Pong explain that
“meaning always presupposes discernment and discernment always
presupposes variation” (Marton & Pong, 2005, p. 336), and give the example
of a noisy air conditioner going unnoticed until once switched off; the
observer then perceiving the variation between the noise, which until then
had gone unnoticed, and the following silence. Variation in discernment of
phenomena also influences both researcher and participants, since
participants can only perceive the experience of inquiry teaching as it varies
from other experiences of teaching. Also, the researcher is able to discern
potential ways of experiencing from one another as, again, each way varies
from other experiences of inquiry teaching.
Many factors influence participants’ ways of experiencing variation.
For example, it is assumed that different people experience the world in
different ways. Also, the same person might display multiple ways of
experiencing the same phenomenon, even captured in the same study
(Åkerlind et al., 2005; Marton & Pong, 2005), and, since both phenomenon
69
and participants may change over time, individual’s conceptions may also
change over time.
Variations in qualities that participants perceive make up their
awareness of a phenomenon. The totality of that experience is described in
phenomenography through the use of the structure of awareness (Marton,
2000). Marton and Booth (1997) made use of referential and structural
aspects of the structure of awareness to describe the grouped experience of
participants clearly.
The referential aspect refers to the overall meaning given to the
experience, which may differ among participants or even for the same
participant over time (Pang, 2003). Marton and Booth (1997) give the
following example; if an observer comes across a deer in the woods this
phenomenon would hold a certain meaning for them. Perhaps it is an
unwelcome experience as deer are considered frightening and dangerous?
Or perhaps it is a neutral experience as deer are often viewed in this wood
and are considered very harmless and easily startled creatures? This overall
meaning is considered the referential aspect of the experience.
Structural aspects represent those discernable qualities that make up
the phenomenon itself. The structural aspects are of two kinds; the internal
and external horizons.
The internal horizon comprises the parts that are discernable as
making up the whole; a deer has certain parts that make it recognisable as
such; four legs, a head, antlers and a tail. As Marton (2000) explained, the
internal horizon represents how the object of study and its parts “are
delimited from and related to each other and to the whole” (p. 113). As will be
seen in Chapter 4, the teaching of science through ways which foster student
inquiry can be seen to be composed of certain ideas about what can and
cannot be taught (such as life cycles or process skills), different opinions
regarding how it is taught appropriately, and diverse reasons teachers give
regarding why they use these methods.
The objects of the internal horizon may be further understood using
Booth’s (1997) description of the structure of awareness as consisting of the
theme – the object in the focus of the awareness, such as force in a physical
sciences question regarding the forces acting on a cyclist, which is
70
surrounded by a thematic field of related concepts and ideas that are directly
related to the theme such as gravity, mass or weight. The border between
theme and field is not one of rigid exclusion, but ideas within the field may
become the theme and vice versa depending on the shifting awareness of
the individual. Further, the objects within the thematic field are not isolated,
but joined logically to one another through “unity of context or unity of
relevance” (Booth, 1997, p. 141). As one moves between conceptions it can
be seen that different aspects will move from the focus (theme) to field of
awareness (thematic field), and vice versa (Cope, 2004).
The external horizon includes those features that help discern a
phenomenon from its context (Marton, 2000), for example, a deer differs from
a cat, a tree, or a person. It also extends to all other contexts (Marton &
Booth, 1997) in which deer have been observed; in parks or on postage
stamps for example. As will be seen in Chapter 4 the method of instruction
employed during inquiry will differ from other forms of possible instruction, or
which content material is considered appropriate differs during other ways of
approaching the teaching of science.
Another way to understand the external horizon is through Booth’s
(1997) description of the margin of awareness. The individual is aware of
many things that do not bear relevance to the task at hand, things that “are
unrelated to the theme but coexist with it in space and time” (Marton, 2000, p.
113). Some of those things can be used to help delimit the phenomenon from
its environment. In a science question relating to the forces on a cyclist, the
related but unnecessary science concepts of energy, matter and
wave/particle duality, which are not called on in experiencing the
phenomenon and therefore give context to the awareness, may be
considered as constituting the margin of awareness. Again, objects in the
margin are not affixed there permanently, but may have been part of the
thematic field or even theme at different times.
These qualities taken together: the referential and structural aspect,
which is again comprised of internal and external horizons, make up the
structure of awareness which will be used to explore the variation between
and within categories of descriptions of teaching science through inquiry
learning in this study. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
71
Figure 3.1. Referential and structural ways of experiencing (Marton and
Booth, 1997, p. 88).
Booths’ (1997) structure of awareness will also be employed in this
study to help clarify understanding of the external and internal horizons. The
theme of the category is that which is central in awareness in teachers’
conceptions of inquiry teaching. The thematic field embraces those ideas that
relate to the theme and are called upon during teachers’ discussion of their
conceptions. Finally, the margin is made up of those ideas that are not called
upon in teacher thinking and therefore delimit the border of the experience.
The theme, thematic field and margin are seen as belonging to the structural
aspect as described above. The theme and thematic field are seen as
belonging to the internal horizon, and the margin explains the external
horizon. Objects within the theme, thematic field and margin are discerned by
their variation to other objects and potential objects in these areas, as
described by variation theory. This model of the structure of awareness is
presented schematically in Figure 3.2.
As noted, the structural and referential aspects of a phenomenon are
discerned by their variation by participants (Pang, 2003). Discerning variation
in the participants’ experience of the phenomenon is a fundamental part of
phenomenographic data analysis (Marton & Pong, 2005). Participants’
experiences in this study will use referential and structural aspects to
The Experience
(Is described in terms of …)
Structural aspects
(Are made up of…)
Referential aspects
(The global meaning)
Internal horizon (Parts and their
relationships) Theme and thematic field
External horizon (How the object is discerned from its context) – margin of
awareness
72
describe variation among them. The structural aspect is made up of the
internal horizon (theme and thematic field) and external horizon (including the
margin of awareness). This structure of awareness as used in this study is
discussed in further detail in the next section.
Figure 3.2. A schematic presentation of The structure of awareness (Booth,
1997)
3.1.5 Conceptions, categories of description, and outcome space
An individual’s way of experiencing a phenomenon is referred to as a
conception (Marton, 2000). However, Bowden (2005) asserts that the
researcher-developed categorisations of those conceptions are known as
categories of description. He argues that a single category of description thus
expresses one possible way in which many participants, or the same
participant at different times, might experience a phenomenon (Marton &
Pong, 2005). Although conceptions represent the experiences of the
participants, categories of description are the creation of the researcher in
relation to the data. Variation among the categories of description in this
study will be described using the referential and structural (internal and
external horizons) aspects of the structures of awareness, which include the
theme, thematic field and margin of awareness.
Theme: central in
awareness
Thematic field: associated with awareness but not focal
Margin : that which gives context to the experience
73
Dimensions of variation will also be used in this study to highlight the
qualitative differences between categories (2004). Dimensions of variation
are those qualities that vary among categories helping to delimit them. These
dimensions may include the role of the teacher or his/her epistemological
beliefs. In some cases, a dimension of variation may be present in each
category of description yet the dimension expands as it moves from lower to
higher levels. Thus a higher category will include the qualities of the
categories below it. For example, a dimension of variation among categories
might be the breadth of benefit from the teaching learning process (Åkerlind,
2004). At a lower category teachers may see their work as benefitting
primarily themselves, whereas in later categories the breadth of benefit
includes themselves but also extends to society as a whole. In this case, the
dimension of variation is known as a theme of expanding awareness
(Åkerlind et al., 2005).
The categories of description, including structural and referential
aspects, and the relationships between them are known as the outcome
space. Marton and Booth (1997) explained “[The] categories of description
depict the different ways in which a certain phenomenon is experienced and
the logical relationships between [sic] them constitute the outcome space for
that phenomenon” (p. 136). In order to facilitate clear comprehension, the
tabulated presentation used by Cope (2004) will be adapted to this study. An
example of this tabulated presentation of the outcome space is presented in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Outcome space as presented in this study
Structural aspects Category Referential aspect (meaning)
Internal horizon (theme and thematic field)
External horizon (context or margin)
Category 1 Meaning 1 Theme and thematic field Context (Limited) Category 2 Meaning 2 Theme and thematic field Context Category 3 Meaning 3 Theme and thematic field Context (broadest)
Certain rigour must be adhered to in developing an outcome space.
As explained by Åkerlind (2005c), “Ideally, the outcomes represent the full
range of possible ways of experiencing the phenomenon in question, at this
74
particular point in time, for the population represented by the sample group
collectively” (p. 323). Marton and Booth (1997) presented three criteria for
judging the quality of the outcome space:
• that each category in the outcome space reveals something
distinctive about a way of understanding the phenomenon;
• that the categories are logically related, typically as a
hierarchy of structurally inclusive relationships; and
• that the outcomes are parsimonious – that the critical
variation in experience observed in the data be represented
by a set of as few categories as possible.
Richardson (1999) claimed that the categories of the outcome space
in phenomenographic analysis should be seen as constructions of the
researcher, and not as externally existing entities. Viewing the outcome
space as a researcher-developed construction was supported by Svensson
who argued that the “description developed will be dependent on the
perspective of the researcher and the empirical and theoretical context of the
research” (Svensson, 1997, p. 168). In support of the non-dualistic ontology
of phenomenography, the outcome space and categories of description are
not there waiting to be discovered by the researcher, but must be constructed
by the researcher from the evidence presented in the data (Walsh, 2000).
As noted, no studies have yet attempted to define the dimensions of
variation, or have made use of an outcome space, to describe the
relationships between primary school teachers’ conceptions of teaching
science through inquiry teaching (Section 2.4). This study intends to address
this gap in the literature.
3.1.6 The experience of teaching
The phenomenon under investigation in this study is teachers’
reflection on their experience of inquiry teaching. This study now draws on
the literature of phenomenography engaged in analysing the experience of
learning (Marton & Booth, 1997). Thus parallels are drawn between the
experience of learning and the experience of teaching. Marton and Booth
argued that the experience of learning can be described in three aspects,
75
and that variation (as explained in 3.1.4) can be found in each of these, as
Figure 3.3 shows.
Figure 3.3. An analysis of the experience of learning (Marton & Booth, 1997,
p.85)
Learning is seen to be composed of the how and what. The what of
learning includes the content material to be covered, such as information on
volcano formation or the life cycle of silk worms. This content is known as the
direct object of learning. How this learning takes place can be seen to be
comprised of two distinct qualities – the act of learning which includes
activities such as copying notes or performing experiments, and the indirect
object which is seen as the “type of capabilities the learning is trying to
master” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 84.) For example, attitudes towards
content material and teacher goals related to managing student behaviour.
However, this study is about the experience of teaching, rather than
the experience of learning. Parallels are now drawn for further use in this
study. Every experience of teaching is argued to be composed of the same
three primary aspects (McKenzie, 2003), which parallel the model frequently
employed in studies of learning – the act of teaching (the act), the indirect
object of teaching (I.O.), and the direct object of teaching (D.O.). Variation is
expected among conceptions regarding the act, I.O. and D.O. Figure 3.4
presents the experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study.
Learning
How What
The indirect object of learning
The act of learning
The direct object of learning
76
Figure 3.4. The experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study.
These three qualities, the act, indirect and direct objects will be used
in this study to elucidate the experiencing of teaching for teachers in this
study. This section has reviewed the methodology for this study,
phenomenography, and will now describe the specific research design that
was used to answer the research question: What are the qualitatively
different ways in which primary school teachers’ experience inquiry teaching
in science education?
3.2 Methods
The following section addresses the phenomenographic research
methods adopted including; selection of participants, data collection,
interview setting, contextualising statement, interview protocol, and
bracketing. Issues of data analysis, ethical clearance, and research rigour
are also dealt with.
In line with the recommendations of Giorgi (1998) for strengthening
the reliability of the research through a demonstrative procedure (see section
3.2.5) some personal characteristics of the researcher are presented here.
These revelations help to unpack the perspective of the researcher and
theoretical context of the research (Svensson, 1997). During work as a
supply teacher in primary schools, and having worked as a secondary
science teacher, I completed a Masters degree in science education with an
D.O. The direct object of teaching (content covered
and other curriculum objectives)
I.O. The indirect object of teaching (goals teachers
give for teaching in this manner)
Act The act of teaching (what teachers do)
How
What
Teaching
77
independent project on inquiry learning in science. This led to a curiosity
about what other practicing teachers thought of the teaching of science in
ways which fostered inquiry based learning in science. This question led to
the current research into categorising teachers conceptions of inquiry
teaching in science.
The research followed three main phases. Phase one was a pilot
study involving two participants. Phase two began the main study and
included ten participants. Phase three involved actively seeking individuals to
round out variation in the sample and included eight participants. Full details
of the transitions between phases are included in Section 3.2.3.
3.2.1 Participants
The goal of a phenomenographic study is to describe the variation in
ways of experiencing a phenomenon. Therefore, rather than seeking a
homogenous sample of participants, the participants were purposefully
selected to represent diversity within their experiences of the phenomenon
(Åkerlind et al., 2005; Bowden, 2005). Twenty practicing primary school
teachers participated in this study. Traditionally phenomenographic studies
use between 20 and 30 participants (Åkerlind et al., 2005), as fewer may fail
to express the variation in the data and many more may make the data set
difficult to manage (Bowden, 2005).
The acronym T# stands for a participant in the study (such as teacher
1, teacher 17 and so forth.) And the acronym “J” stands for myself as
researcher. As a phenomenographic study where the lines between
participants are drawn down and data are treated as a whole (Leveson,
2004), participant details such as gender or year level are not included with
quotes, however, full details of the participants are presented in Appendix A.
During phase one, pilot study, two participants were sought for the
study by accessing the social networks of the researcher. Both participants
(T1 and T2) were asked if they would like to participate in an interview based
on a recent science inquiry teaching experience, and both were practicing
primary school teachers.
During phase two the researcher asked several school principals in
the local area to invite their teachers to participate in the study, but also
78
approached teachers who had recently participated in professional
development initiatives on inquiry learning. Ten teachers responded
(participants three through ten, as well as participants T14 and T16) which
represented five schools in total. This approach managed to source a wide
variety of participants across several variables including years teaching, age,
gender, and the schools in which they taught. Teachers varied greatly in
qualities such as years teaching (2 to 28) and classes taught (preparatory
through primary school Year 7).
During phase three, at a meeting with the supervisory team, it was
decided that the data might be skewed towards those who were actively
using an inquiry approach. It was therefore felt that it would be beneficial to
the study to seek out and enlist those less inclined to use inquiry teaching.
Thus a second round of volunteers was sought in order to provide greater
variation. The researcher then sought out a local school and offered a free
educational science show in exchange for the chance to interview teachers
about their experience of inquiry teaching. Seven participants, T11, T12, T13,
T15, T17, T18, and T19 were from this second intake. Again, teachers varied
greatly in qualities such as years teaching (6 to 28) and classes taught
(preparatory to year 7).
Finally, to round out the analysis, it was decided that the research
lacked the perspective of a young, male teacher of upper primary school
students who was relatively new to teaching. A teacher explicitly fitting this
criterion, and one willing to participate in the research, was accessed from
the broader social networks of the researcher and enlisted into the study
(T20).
Of the participants, 25% were male, which is approximately
representative of the broader teaching population (Australian Bureau of
statistics, 2003; Cushman, 2007). Eight participants were under 35 years of
age and the remaining 12 were over 35 years of age. Although teachers had
been teaching for, on average, 12.2 years, the sample ranged from 2 to 30
years experience. Teachers taught in every primary year from the
preparatory year to grade seven.
79
3.2.2 Data collection
Data were collected via fairly typical data collection techniques for
phenomenography (Åkerlind, 2005b). This study made use of a semi
structured interview as the data collection tool. Interviews were audio
recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to analysis.
Interview setting
The interview setting was nominated by the participants in order to
maximise their sense of comfort during the research interview. In all cases
this meant the teacher’s classroom, usually after the students had left for the
day. Three of the interviews were conducted before school started (T12, T15,
T17) and one during a lunch break (T2). Participants were interviewed in situ
in order to assist them in recalling their teaching practices and experiences,
and in an attempt to empower them in the place of their familiar work space
to position the teacher as knower and the researcher as learner (Åkerlind et
al., 2005). The full interview schema is available in Appendix B.
Contextualising statement
After meeting the teacher, often for the first time, and engaging in
general conversation the interview would commence. The interview formally
began with a contextualising statement which explained the title and purpose
of the research, ethical issues and expectations, data handling issues as
expected by NHMRC, and gave the participant time to ask any questions
they may have had and the right to withdraw if they had changed their minds.
This contextualising statement was:
There is a lot of discussion in education and curriculum
documents about inquiry learning. I am doing a study to find out
about what perceptions teachers have of teaching in ways that
foster inquiry based learning in science. There are no wrong
answers here. I am predominantly interested in exploring your
ideas and experiences. I want you to feel that I am the learner
here and you the expert regarding your own practice, I will try to
be like a blank slate. I want you to do all the talking and I’ll do
the listening. I just want you to tell me about your experiences
with inquiry, and dig down into your understanding and practice
of the what and why of inquiry in your classroom! OK?
80
Do have any questions?
Interview
In order to get an open discussion started, the interview usually began
with gathering general information, predominantly as a form of icebreaker to
help relax the participant and make the data gathering environment more
natural:
Well, can you tell me a bit about yourself as a teacher? (Who do
you teach, how long have you been teaching, what experiences
led you to teaching, have you any past experience with science
as a profession?)
A fundamental aspect of the phenomenographic interview is that it
makes use of concrete examples embedded in the actual practice of
participants to expose variations in teachers’ conceptions of the
phenomenon. Conceptions of inquiry teaching are abstract considerations
that may prove difficult for many participants to immediately talk about. It was
therefore important that the discussion remained grounded in illustrative
examples of practice (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Other techniques used to help
participants explore their conceptions of the phenomenon included the use of
why questions, for example, “Why did you do it that way?” (Åkerlind et al.,
2005, p. 79). The phenomenographic data gathering began with the question:
Can you tell me about a recent teaching experience you have
had in which you feel you taught science through inquiry
particularly well?
The interview outline (see below) included advised prompts for
probing further into the practices and pedagogical reasoning of teachers.
However, the prompts were not necessarily given as exact or explicit
statements during the interview. As Åkerlind (2005a, p.113) pointed out, “any
resulting suggestion that as many questions as possible should be phrased
in precisely the same way comes from an objectivist paradigm, where one
can assume that if interviewees are presented with the same stimulus they
will then be responding to the same object or phenomenon.”
The following five areas were used as prompts to probe more deeply
into the rich expanse of teacher experience:
81
• Teacher role. How did you go about teaching? Where and
how did this take place?
• Student role. How did the students go about learning during
the teaching experience you just described?
• Assessment. How did you know that the students had learnt
something? What was the role of assessment in your
program?
• Goals. What were you trying to teach? What did you want
students to learn? Why did you choose to do it that way?
• Outcomes. How do you know if your approach is working?
What do you feel were the results of this approach? What did
inquiry offer?
The study also sought to explore some of the practical difficulties of
implementation by asking such questions as “What is easy about inquiry
science, what is difficult, what challenges you in implementing an inquiry
science program?”
Finally, three questions were used to help contextualise teacher
experiences. The first was used to contextualise the teacher experience of
inquiry teaching: “When did you first hear about teaching science through
inquiry?” The second question “Can you think of a time when you thought
differently about what it means to teach science through inquiry?” was used
to enable a better understanding of their current conception. Finally, in order
to clarify teacher understanding of the related concept of inquiry learning, and
to derive a single sentence through which to compare teacher
understandings of inquiry teaching and learning, each interview ended with
the phrase “Complete this sentence ‘Inquiry learning is…’?“.
Interview environment
The nature of the interviewer’s relationship with the interviewee is
considered a very important influence on the quality of the data gathered.
Establishing effective rapport was done carefully so that researcher’s ideas
did not contaminate the study (Candy, 1989). This included listening politely,
validating participant concerns, and making sure participants were aware of
their ethical rights (Section 3.2.4). Rather than presenting as a dispassionate
82
researcher, the interviewer attempted to present an attitude of gentle
enthusiasm (Ireland, Tambyah, Neofa, & Harding, 2008), which involved
active listening and open body language, to help participants feel safe to
discuss private concerns regarding the phenomenon. That participants felt
that they could explore their awareness in an environment of safe
professional acceptance was of vital importance to the research environment.
Ashworth and Lucas (2000, p. 303) explained that “thoughts such as
‘why doesn’t the student answer the question?’, ‘how can I prompt this
student on to a more relevant line of thought?’ or feelings of impatience
should be noted and taken as potential warning signals that standards of
empathy are not being met”. Marton (1986) explained “let the subjects
choose the aspects of the question they want to answer. The aspects they
choose are an important source of data because they reveal an aspect of the
individual’s relevance structure” (p. 42). Often clarifications of participant
comments were desired, whether due to a sense of misunderstanding on the
part of the researcher or as part of the perpetual search for understanding
between researcher and participant. Clarifications were sought using
comments such as “You said earlier…, would you like to elaborate on that?”
(2000, p. 65), “Can you explain what you mean by that” (Dall’Alba, 2000, p.
89) and finally ”Is there anything else you’d like to add?” (Bowden, Dall'Alba,
Laurillard, Marton, Masters, Ramsden et al., 1992, p. 263).
Bracketing
Another important attribute of the phenomenographic interview
involves setting aside the beliefs and preconceptions of the researcher in
order to focus on what the experience means to the participant. This process
is known as bracketing (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Bowden, 2005). However,
the researcher is not required to bracket all their preconceptions or they may
have nothing to talk about, as Ashworth and Lucas (2000) point out “It seems
that we cannot suspend our commitment to certain guiding notions. But we
must hold these tentatively lest they subvert the very aim of entering the life
world” (p.299). The aim was to bracket any presuppositions which might
inaccurately colour the researcher’s perceptions of the participants’
experience of the phenomenon. To, in a sense, get out of the way of the
83
participant’s attempts to express their relationship with the phenomenon.
Following the advice of Ashworth and Lucas (2000) a conscious attempt was
made to bracket the following during the interview: (a) mentioning the current
research findings, rather than allowing each participant to discuss their
experience personally and without comparison; (b) assuming pre-given
theoretical structures or particular interpretations, allowing participants the
chance to explain such themselves; (c) presupposing the participants’
personal knowledge and beliefs rather than seeking clarification of such; (d)
the researcher’s notions of what constitutes cause and effect in a situation,
rather than uncovering participants’ perceptions
Another aspect of bracketing was the need to bracket the inclination to
categorise different conceptions during the interviews rather than trying to
understand the individual participant’s conception. Although categorisation
was the objective of the research, it could have led to imposing responses
upon participants rather than allowing them to openly explore their
experiences in the phenomenographic interview.
One particular notion that the researcher was keen to bracket was the
inclination to see teacher-centred approaches as faulty in some way,
especially given the trends in curricular documents towards student-centred
and constructivist approaches. Terms such as constructivism, teacher- or
student-centred were not brought up until they were used by participants.
Likewise, it was considered important not to direct the interview by
mentioning aspects of the phenomenon participants did not mention, outside
the specific themes mentioned in the interview schema. Åkerlind (2005b)
suggested exploring further the terms and phrases that seem most significant
or meaning laden for participants by asking them to discuss those issues
further. In a sense the researcher tried to keep within the vocabulary of the
participant.
Bracketing also included suspending the expectations and
presuppositions of the researcher, including considerations of what
constitutes fact or truth. Indeed, it was taken as a given that the researcher’s
conception of inquiry teaching may have little or no meaning to the practicing
teacher. The goal of the research was, as much as possible, to understand
the particular and unique experience of the participant, to look for variation
84
between and among participants’ descriptions, and to construct categories of
description from that and not from the interviewer’s perception of the
experience.
3.2.3 Data analysis
The previous section dealt with issues of the phenomenographic
interview. This section will now explore how the data were analysed via a
phenomenographic approach in four sections: the pilot study, initial data
analysis, finalising data analysis, and ending with a focus on the derivation of
the structure of awareness and the How and What as the data analysis was
completed.
Pilot study
Initially a pilot study was undertaken to test the interview protocol and
hone the skills of the interviewer as recommended by Bowden (2005). Two
participants were recruited from the social networks of the researcher. In
general, the interview protocol followed the protocol of the main study with
some minor editorial changes in the latter. The same general topics were
covered, and most questions and the contextualising statement remained the
same in both.
During the pilot study, however, some difference occurred in the
phrasing of the questions of the interview schema. The pilot study organised
questions around three topics: “What concepts were you trying to teach?”;
“How did you and your students act during the inquiry activity?” and; “Why
did you choose to do it that way?” During the main study, questions were
organised around general themes instead, which provided the same data but
were more easily managed by the interviewer. They were teacher role,
student role, purpose of assessment, teacher goals, and teacher expected
outcomes for inquiry teaching.
The pilot study clearly indicated the efficacy of the questions in
eliciting qualitative variation among participants, revealing two distinctly
unique conceptions of inquiry, which were labelled developing children’s life
experiences and student ownership respectively. After the pilot study was
completed, the supervisory team and researcher agreed that the interviews
85
were of sufficient quality, and discussed the phenomenon sufficiently, to
include in the rest of the study becoming interviews one and two.
Initial data analysis
Interviews one, three to seven, and 17 to 20 were transcribed by the
researcher. Interviews two, as well as eight to 16, were transcribed by a
professional transcription service. The following transcription protocols were
used; while interviews were transcribed verbatim, cursory or tangential
comments (such as “umm” and “like”) were deleted if they did not contribute
meaning when cited in the final thesis. Words and phrases that were
emphasised by participants were highlighted in italics in the transcription.
Finally, all transcriptions were checked for accuracy against the audio
recording by the researcher.
During transcription the researcher developed a personal profile for
each transcript, similar to the participant summary used by Lupton (2008).
Åkerlind (2005b) recommended that understanding each participant’s
perspectives must precede any attempts at arranging or structuring
perspectives within the study. At this point of data analysis the individual’s
conception was focused on so that it could be deeply understood, and the
question was asked “What is this person trying to tell me?” This reflective
question was used to in order to help develop an understanding of how the
individual participant understood inquiry teaching. Thus, the researcher drew
up individual profiles for each participant to help maintain fidelity to
participants’ experiences and comments (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). This
fidelity was particularly important as the research drew toward the process of
categorisation where the lines between individuals were drawn down and the
diverse categories of descriptions were created. Individual profiles also
helped maintain the internal validity (or credibility) of the study by, as
accurately as possible, preserving the meaning intended behind all quotes in
the context of their own interview. Profiles also assisted the researcher to
remain familiar with all participant conceptions during data analysis. An
example of a personal profile is available in appendix D for participant 3, an
experienced female teacher of early childhood (preparatory year), illustrating
major themes of the interview through actual participant quotes.
86
As data were being gathered and interviews transcribed, the
researcher attempted as far as possible to prevent inadvertently imposing
any emerging categorisation scheme on future interviews with participants
(Bowden, 2005; Walsh, 2000). Åkerlind (2005c) emphasised the requirement
for maintaining an open mind during the data analysis stage to allow the
categories of description to emerge as much as possible from the data,
making further use of the bracketing procedures discussed above.
After interview nine was completed, the researcher presented an
unpublished conceptual paper at a science education research conference
entitled “‘Inquiry learning is… difficult to define!’: Primary school teachers’
conceptions of teaching science through inquiry learning.” (Ireland, 2008).
The preparation of this paper involved a very general analysis of the data
obtained up to that point, based primarily on an intuitive familiarity with the
data obtained thus far. Three categories were presented: inquiry as
“Experiencing it themselves” (experience centred conception), inquiry as
“Don’t give the answer” (process centred conception) and inquiry as “What
do you want to know” (life skills centred conception). As will be seen, the first
category shares the same general title as the first category in the eventual
outcome space; however, the remaining two categories are far more
rigorously defined. Also, the categories were described only in terms of the
referential dimensions rather than the structural aspects. Even so, this
presentation provided valuable general feedback regarding the emerging
categories and reinforced the ability of phenomenography to develop a
parsimonious yet representative categorisation scheme of participants’
diverse experiences.
Finalising the data analysis
The researcher then returned to interviewing and transcribing, setting
aside the tentative categorisation scheme of the initial data analysis. After the
final interview was transcribed data gathering was complete, and the
researcher began to focus on the development of the phenomenographic
outcome space. This analysis developed through a search for the essential
aspects of the experience as revealed from the transcripts, and the
87
categorising of the limited number of qualitatively different experiences
initially in terms of their referential components.
In order to assist data analysis the computer program NVIVO was
initially used, though in the final analysis, NVIVO was not needed as either a
data analysis or data organising tool. Participant’s responses on a similar
topic were grouped together into nodes of meaning, which were initially
intended to be worked together into a few categories of meaning. This,
however, was unsuccessful as the analysis rose to over 100 nodes of
individual meanings derived from the interview transcripts, and data became
quite unworkable.
In response, an Excel spread sheet was created with the basic
qualitative data of the participants. An holistic approach to the generation of
the referential component (or global meaning) of the categories was then
initiated, looking specifically for variation in participants experiences of inquiry
teaching. Data were specifically examined for variation among the
dimensions of variation of student’s role, teacher’s role, the role of
assessment and teacher goals for inquiry teaching. Two items of data were
particularly important in keeping each participant’s interview in working
memory; the topics teachers discussed, and their answer to the question
“inquiry learning is…”. Personal profiles were referred to regularly, and whole
interview transcripts when necessary. The researcher attempted to
categorise each individual’s conception or conceptions numerically, that is,
when a unique conception of inquiry teaching appeared to be expressed it
was given a unique number. This was achieved by searching primarily for
qualitative differences in the referential aspect of teachers’ conceptions,
reading and rereading profiles and transcripts while comparing quotes for
accuracy in supporting an emerging categorisation scheme. The initial
categorisation scheme ran to 12 potential categories, but repeated iterations
with the data revealed that the categorisation schemes were not
parsimonious in terms of representing the data.
For example, an early preliminary categorisation scheme had three
tentative categories. In this categorisation scheme the referential component
of participants’ conceptions was compared. Participants talked about inquiry
teaching as meaning: (1) giving students’ experiences of content; (2) giving
88
student’s confidence through solving problems and (3) allowing student
ownership of content or topic. However, reviewing the personal profiles of
participants created some difficulties. For example, participant 3, while taking
about student ownership and students leading the class, was still enacting a
curriculum focused on the personal experiences of students rather than
student creation of knowledge, and on students understanding teacher driven
content. Thus this categorisation scheme was abandoned.
As another example, as data analysis progressed it was noted that in
any categorisation scheme that focused on teacher presentation of problems
(later becoming category 2), there were two distinct forms. One made use of
general knowledge and materials, for example teacher 14 using a box and
plank to create a lever. The other form made use of specific scientific
knowledge and materials, such as teacher 7 using stop watches, marbles
and various liquids to discover viscosity. It was hypothesised that there may
be four, not three ways of experiencing inquiry teaching. Repeated iterations
of reading the data then began to reveal that student led investigations could
also potentially be divided into scientific and general investigations, which
lead to further complexity in the emerging categorisation scheme. At length it
was determined that in either event; scientific or general, the teachers focus
was on the role of problems in learning or the role of student led
investigations, thus the four categories were merged into two which became
category 2 and 3 in later analysis.
At least five unsuccessful categorisations followed, failing to express
parsimoniously the variation in the data. Returning to the analysis, the main
researcher then encountered a “eureka!” moment (11:56am on 29th January
2009) primarily from trying to understand the qualitative differences in the act
of teaching. This understanding was that no matter what topic the teachers
were discussing, or how they talked about inquiry and inquiry teaching,
participants’ conceptions could be successfully and succinctly categorised
into one of three ways of experiencing: (a) giving students interesting sensory
experiences; (b) providing students with challenging problems or; (c) helping
students to ask and answer their own questions. These three general
guidelines directed the data analysis from that point on.
89
The categorisation at that time was as follows: Student-centred
experiences (SCE), Teacher-generated problems (TGP), and Class-
negotiated questions (CNQ). During this attempt, it was apparent that sub
categories might exist within each main category. These three main
categories contained six sub categories of inquiry teaching, which were
called Free inquiry, Illustrated inquiry, Solution inquiry, Process inquiry,
Topical inquiry and Guided inquiry. However, the sub categories tended to
describe only an act and indirect object of teaching, which closely describe a
teacher’s “approach to teaching” (McKenzie, 2003, p. 42 emphasis added),
and not actual teacher conceptions, and thus sub categories were excluded
from the analysis from that point on.
Analysis of the structure of awareness and the How and What
Data analysis then continued to establish the final outcome space.
The following report is somewhat artificial in that at all times during data
analysis the researcher needed to be conscious of the developing outcome
space, but for ease of comprehension it is presented in a linear fashion. At all
times an iterative process was employed, checking and rechecking
quotations with the outcome space. Also, justifications for quotations
belonging to certain categories included deliberate attempts to find counter
examples which might break down the categorisation scheme. In the end,
quotations that best described the categories were drawn from the data and
used to represent the various categories and dimensions of variation.
In terms of the development of the structure of awareness, as from the
recommendations of Ashworth and Lucas (2000), derivation of the referential
component preceded derivation of the structural component. The referential
components were the most immediately obvious qualities of the outcome
space to identify. Naming of categories evolved continually during data
analysis, almost to final printing, until the conceptualisations were clearly
defined. It was determined that the name of the category that was most
appropriate was what teachers were focused on during their experience of
inquiry teaching, and that what teachers were focused on could also be taken
90
as the global meaning (or referential component) of the experience for the
teacher.
In terms of the structural components, initially the dimensions of
variation were included as part of the internal horizon, as has been done in
some phenomenographic studies (for example, see Cope, 2004). However, it
was felt that the internal horizon should be parsimonious in terms of detail,
and represent only that which moved into and out of focus in the categories.
The internal horizon was then determined to be the focus and thematic field
of the current category.
The margin, or external horizon, helped define the context of the
category. Again, this was determined through repeated iterations with the
data and discussions with research supervisors. For a large part of the data
analysis teacher generated problems were considered outside the
awareness of teachers experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1.
However, further insight was gained answering questions at a second
science education conference (Ireland, 2010), where the main researcher
realised that teachers did use problems to focus student attention in
Category 1. The research team in discussion realised, however, that the
quality of teacher generated problems did differ between categories 1 and 2
in a manner discussed in detail in the results section (4.2.2). Thus, teacher
generated problems were removed from the margin of awareness and placed
in the thematic field of Category 1.
The dimensions of variation were determined through repeated
iterations with the data to uncover the qualities that differed between
categories, helping to define and clarify the kinds of things teachers were
talking about as they experienced inquiry teaching in a particular way. That
is, the question was specifically asked: “In what specific ways does each
category vary from the others?” Several dimensions of variation were
considered but eventually rejected as not varying sufficiently or at times at all
between categories. For example, breadth of benefit, issues of assessment,
and general beliefs of the nature of science are excluded from reporting,
though teachers did discuss them during their interviews. After final analysis
the suggestion was made that the level of student knowledge increases
between categories, that is, that students require a deeper level of
91
understanding to tackle a teacher’s use of Category 3. However, again it was
felt that this was not the case; indeed, the most frequent application of
Category 3 was in early childhood settings.
The What and How of teaching were developed at the same time
through repeated attempts to clarify variation in the teachers’ experience for
each category, returning to the transcripts to find supportive quotations. The
act of teaching was immediately apparent by comparing the referential
component with the kinds of teacher strategies necessary to bring it about.
Teachers were assigned a category in terms of their prevailing conception
and appropriate examples of their teaching drawn from the transcripts. These
were then compared and assessed to develop the general understanding
that is presented in the how and what.
An understanding of the direct object, or the learning outcomes
teachers were striving for, developed during this time as the examples of
teacher practice were compared for the kinds of outcomes teachers were
aiming to achieve. Teachers, it was discovered, talked about three kinds of
learning outcomes (skills, attitudes, concepts), but each outcome was in
focus at a different category. This discovery was tested by returning to the
transcripts with a deliberate attempt to find quotes that conflicted with this
understanding. However, it was found that teachers clearly focused on a
different kind of learning outcome in each category.
The indirect object, or the goal teachers were attempting to achieve
during the experience of each category, was uncovered in a similar way.
Greater difficulty was experienced in that the indirect objects are quite similar
in this study (see Section 4.5.1), but subtle qualitative differences are noted.
This understanding was uncovered through researcher familiarity with the
data set, and by reading and re-reading quotes related to the topic of what
teachers were trying to achieve though using inquiry in their classroom. This
information on teacher goals was predominantly gathered by the teacher
profiles, but also through supporting documentation in the interview
transcripts.
In order to maintain the integrity of the research process a conscious
process was adopted in order to search out disagreements and conflicts with
traditional approaches to organising conceptions of inquiry teaching, as
92
recommended by Ashworth and Lucas (2000), in particular the
teacher/student- centred continuum. Findings were also presented at
workshops for staff and postgraduate students at Queensland University of
Technology, including a group of postgraduate researchers, and numerous
meetings with doctoral supervisors. Analysis was also presented at two
science education conferences (mentioned above). These processes were
employed to assist in the establishment of communicative validity of the
study (Kvale, 1996) as detailed in Section 3.2.5 on research rigour.
The outcome space was again thoroughly re-assessed during write-up
for its appropriateness in describing the complete set of data. Once the
outcome space was developed and validated, the data analysis phase was
complete.
3.2.4 Ethics
The primary concern with regards to ethics is the disclosure of
personal information during the research process. As per university
guidelines, participants were free to withdraw at any time, and interview
transcripts for all participants were strictly confidential. Numerical assignment
(in order of interview conducted) was used in this final report, and there is no
reasonable way individual teachers may be traced back to their quotes used
in this study.
Human ethics level 1 clearance was obtained from QUT ethics
committee prior to beginning phase two of the study (# 0700000841). In
accordance with official University and National guidelines (Australian
Government, 1999; Queensland University of Technology, n.d.), voluntary
and informed participant consent was gained via a written consent form.
Participants had access to all information regarding the project from the time
they elected to participate. Level 1 (low risk) ethical review was permitted as
the study involved interview data taken at participants’ place of work, and as
the answers to Section 2 of the guidelines are all negative (no use of human
tissue, no participation of minors). All research fully complied with the
publication “A national statement on ethical conduct in researching involving
humans” (Australian Government, 1999) in terms of protecting participants
rights and managing any risk in relation to the study.
93
3.2.5 Research rigour
This section discusses issues of research rigour, including the validity
and reliability of the research results.
In qualitative research many arguments have been made that the
concepts of validity and reliably do not apply as they belong to a positivist
(and dualist) mindset, which is incompatible with qualitative research, and
that terms such as credibility and trustworthiness are more appropriate
(Åkerlind, 2005c; Lincoln & Guba, 1991). However, recent calls have been
made to return to such terms as representing a high standing of scientific
knowledge creation, and not just a positivist world view (Kuzel & Engel, 2001;
Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). The argument is given that
validity and reliability are still important standards for even qualitative
scientists to apply (Cope, 2004). This study responds to such calls by dealing
with the validity and reliability of the study as follows.
Validity
Validity refers to the ability of the study to actually investigate what it
sets out to investigate (Giorgi, 1988). As a phenomenographic study, that is,
a study into the diverse ways of conceptualising an object by the participants,
issues of validity are expressed as an attempt by the researcher to reflect
and communicate actively as accurately as possible the thoughts of
participants. Furthermore the non-dualistic ontological position of
phenomenography expects that an objective reality is unknowable outside
the human experience of it. Therefore, positivist notions of a knowable and
describable reality outside our experience of it are rejected. However,
although validity is a term originally derived from a quantitative research
paradigm, it is just as much an important issue in the qualitative
phenomenographic approach employed in this study. A phenomenographic
study is considered valid in as much as it sufficiently “corresponds to the
human experience of the phenomenon” (Åkerlind, 2005c, p. 330). Issues of
validity are dealt with through three main processes: Communicative,
pragmatic and face validity.
Communicative validity is defined as providing a defensible
interpretation of the data as opposed to a right interpretation to the
94
appropriate community of interested readers (Kvale, 1996). Various
communities included in the research include supervisors, the participants,
and interested colleagues at various workshops and the science education
conferences. Each of these communities was given the opportunity to
respond to the outcome space during the data analysis stage, and this
strengthened the communicative validity of the study. For example, the
supervisors worked closely together to provide several perspectives on the
data analysis. Supervisors also played the role of provocateurs to challenge
the researcher’s interpretations and conclusions. Also, the developing
outcome space was presented on more than one occasion to staff and
educational research colleagues at QUT at various workshops, which
included several practicing teachers and teacher educators.
Pragmatic validity is used to refer to a measure of validity in terms of
the eventual usefulness of the research to the academic community (Kvale,
1996) and in the current context the meaningfulness of the outcome space to
the practicing teacher and teacher education. Again, this has been
established by direct questioning to peers and colleagues as outlined
previously, in particular the interest shown in the presentation at the
Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference (Ireland,
2008) as well as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in
Education Conference (Ireland, 2010), and in general the interest show in
inquiry teaching nationally and internationally.
Face validity is the ability of a study to describe what it intends to
describe. After careful consultation with the research supervisory team, it was
concluded that the research met this criteria. A major contribution to the face
validity of the study was granted due to the pilot study, where the interview
based on the interview schema managed to reveal two distinctly different
conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, the phrase inquiry teaching was
eventually adopted in the thesis title over the more syntactically precise
teaching in ways that foster inquiry learning in students in that the former was
sufficient in describing the phenomenon it represented. Finally, in order to
clarify teachers’ understanding of inquiry teaching, inquiry learning is also
discussed during the interviews. However, this thesis focuses on the
95
phenomenon of inquiry teaching and does not comment directly on the
separate yet related phenomenon of inquiry learning.
Reliability
Reliability is defined in this study as the use of thorough and
appropriate research methods to strengthen the interpretation of the data
(Cope, 2004). Two processes are generally used.
Coder reliability check is where, essentially, two researchers
independently analyse the data and then compare categorisations (Kvale,
1996). Since inter-rater reliability is not considered appropriate
philosophically (Sandburg, 1997), as the categories are at least in part
created, not discovered (Walsh, 2000), the study has not made use of a
coder reliability check. Coder reliability differs from the peer assessed
workshops (see Section 3.2.3) in that during the workshops educated
colleagues had the opportunity to critically respond to the categorisation
scheme of the researcher, rather than independently analysing the data for
themes from the beginning.
Dialogic reliability check occurs where separate researchers
categorise the data and discuss, alter and review their categorisations until
agreement is reached (Sandburg, 1997). Although many different
perspectives are sought for this study, dialogic reliability checks have not
played a major role in this research. However, since the final outcome space
has been discussed with peers and supervisors it does have a measure of
dialogic reliability.
Marton (1986), however, argued that reliability in phenomenography
may be measured by having researchers ask themselves the following
question after data analysis: Would different researchers allocate
conceptions to the categories of description in the same way as the original
researcher? It is expected that once the categories are established by the
researcher, other researchers would allocate the quotations to the categories
in a relatively reliable manner. The peer assessed workshops have played an
important role in helping determine the reliability of this research as quotes
representing the categories were presented on two occasions and tentative
agreement reached that they were indeed reliably representative of the
96
categories, though a full review of all 20 transcripts was only undertaken by
the researcher and supervisors.
Most importantly in terms of reliability, however, a demonstrative
procedure has been employed in this study to make the research method
transparent (Giorgi, 1988) in order to improve the reliability and validity of the
research study (Cope, 2004; Leveson, 2004). Demonstrative procedures are
further discussed by Åkerlind (2005c) as the researcher makes their
interpretive analysis methods clear through fully detailing the stages of the
research and presenting examples that illustrate them. Demonstrative
procedures also include a self reflective or critical stance towards their own
perspectives, and attempts to counteract or deal meaningfully with their
particular perspective on the research outcome. The values of demonstrative
procedure have been adhered to in this research, for example, through the
personal discloser of the researcher in Section 3.2 and the detail given in the
data analysis Section (3.2.3).
3.3 Conclusion
This chapter has argued the appropriateness of the
phenomenographic methodology to study variation in primary school
teachers’ ways of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education. With a
diverse sample of participants, adherence to strict ethical procedure, and
sensitivity to phenomenographic procedures and theoretical framework, a
thesis has resulted which makes a beneficial contribution to our
understanding of this important aspect of teacher knowledge in science
education.
.
97
Chapter 4 Results
The purpose of this study was to explore primary school teachers’
experiences of inquiry teaching in science education. Prior to this study
phenomenography as a research methodology had not yet been applied to
this problem, and was chosen to address this issue as it generated a limited
number of qualitatively different categories of experiences. This chapter will
now describe the results of this phenomenographic study into teachers’
conceptions. The outcome space comprises the three qualitatively different
categories arranged in terms of what was focal in teachers thinking during
their experience: Student Centred Experiences (Category 1); Teacher
Generated Problems (Category 2); and Student Generated Questions
(Category 3). However, it was noted that teachers did not make mention of
educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically with regards to
there being levels of inquiry (National Research Council of America, 2000) or
terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002).
An overview of the results is dealt with in Section 4.1. Sections 4.2
through 4.4 contain detailed descriptions of the main categories, including an
examination of the how and what of teaching (see Section 3.1.6), a
demographic comparison of category frequency among teachers, the
structures of awareness of the phenomenon, and a comparison of the
dimensions of variation. Section 4.5 contains a summary of the categories
and rich description of the outcome space. Section 4.6 then concludes the
chapter highlighting major research findings.
4.1 Overview of the Results
This section overviews the outcome space and dimensions of
variation.
4.1.1 The outcome space: an overview
As is customary in phenomenography, logical relationships within
categories are represented by an outcome space (Cope, 2004), see Table
4.1.
98
Table 4.1
Outcome space for the phenomenon of inquiry teaching.
The outcome space was created from the researchers’ analysis of the
data and not an analysis of the literature. The outcome space is presented as
an overview here, and will be fully explicated in Section 4.5. As a hierarchy,
Category 1 and 2 are seen as subsumed within Category 3. This means, for
instance, that teachers who based their teaching around helping students to
ask and answer questions would also occasionally make use of student
centred experiences and teacher generated problems within that context. In
contrast to the literature which typically aligns categories from teacher- to
student- centred, each of the categories in this study was found to take a
student-centred approach. Category 3 was the most student- centred and
Category 1 the least. Category 3 was used the least by teachers in this study,
while Category 1 was used at some time by every teacher.
Finally, it was noted that teachers themselves did not discuss different
levels of inquiry, or use terms such as open or guided in their description of
their conceptions of inquiry. As one teacher explained regarding their
Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning) Internal horizon
(Theme and thematic field)
External horizon (context or margin)
Category 1-Student Centred Experiences
Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students
Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field-Student generated questions, Teacher generated problems
“Chalk and Talk” (transmissive approaches to teaching)
Category 2-Teacher Generated Problems
Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems for students
Theme-Teacher generated problems Thematic field-Student centred experiences, Student generated questions
It’s not inquiry if it’s just “wow, look at that” experiences. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context through providing a challenging problem.
Category 3-Student Generated Questions
Meaning 3: Inquiry teaching is experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions
Theme-Student generated questions Thematic field-Student centred experiences, Teacher generated problems
Most inclusive definition, thus also saw “chalk and talk” as belonging outside inquiry teaching.
99
experience with learning about inquiry teaching and how it can apply in their
curriculum:
T8 I’ve seen the nice little piece of paper that says “This is inquiry
and you’ve got this and you’ve got that and then you do this and
you do that.” But to me that just seems like a lot of jargon and it
didn’t mean a lot.
Category 1 summary: Student Centred Experiences
Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Centred Experiences
(Category 1) when teachers structure their teaching around a concern for
students’ personal experiences during learning with a focus on sensory
events. That is, there is an expectation that the students will see, hear, feel
and do interesting things that will focus their attention, have them asking
science questions, and improve their engagement in learning. The teacher
sets up opportunities for students to capitalise on their curiosity and to ask
questions about their experiences.
Category 2 summary: Teacher Generated Problems
Inquiry teaching is experienced as Teacher Generated Problems
(Category 2) when teachers structure their teaching around a given problem
they have designed and that the students are required to solve. The problem
is central to the teaching experience as teachers feel it helps students
engage with the topic at hand and produce productive work. In this category,
teachers expect students will have greater ownership over the content
material covered than other teaching methods through resolving the problem
themselves.
Category 3 summary: Student Generated Questions
Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Generated Questions
(Category 3) when teachers structure their teaching around helping students
to ask and answer their own questions about phenomena. The students’
questions are central to the teaching experience as teachers see students as
being more motivated and engaged with science content and materials when
they are seeking to answer their own questions than with traditional teaching
methods.
100
4.1.2 Dimensions of variation
Six dimensions of variation were found to delimit the qualitative
variation among categories. They were: (a) the role of the teacher; (b) the
role of the student; (c) the purpose of student centred experiences; (d) the
purpose of teacher generated problems; (e) the purpose of student
generated questions; and (f) teacher epistemological beliefs with regards to
the source of knowledge. These dimensions will be discussed in detail during
each section following (4.2 through 4.4).
Several dimensions of variation, some of which were noted in other
studies, were not found to vary between categories and thus are excluded
from this results section even though teachers did discuss them. They
included the benefit teachers find in teaching and breath of benefit to the
community at large (Åkerlind, 2004), epistemological beliefs of the general
nature of science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), role of assessment, year level of
student, and level of student knowledge required to engage in inquiry.
4.1.3 The how and what
As a developmental phenomenography study, this research made use
of the concept of the how and what of learning as applied to the study of
teaching (see Section 3.1.6). An overview of the how and what of inquiry
teaching as expressed by teachers in this study is presented here in Figure
4.1, elaborated in further detail during each category, and compared as a
whole in Section 4.5.1.
101
Figure 4.1. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.
4.1.4 Conclusion
This section has overviewed the outcome space including the three
main categories of teachers’ experiences of inquiry teaching as well as
related dimensions of variation. A detailed exploration of the categories now
follows, including the justification and evidence supporting the construction of
these categories.
4.2 The Student Centred Experiences Category
This section will describe category 1, as teachers’ experience inquiry
teaching as Student Centred Experiences. First, a general summary of the
category is presented. Next, the detail of the category is explored in terms of
the how and what of the phenomenon, structure of awareness, and
D.O. Attitudes, Skills (concepts)
I.O. To encourage students
Act Provide problems
Teacher Generated Problems category
how
what
D.O. Concepts, Attitudes (skills)
I.O. To engage students
Act Provide experiences
Student Centred Experiences category
how
what
D.O. Skills (attitudes, concepts)
I.O. To empower students
Act Provide guidance
Student Generated Questions category
how
what
102
dimensions of variation. Last, the section is concluded summarising the
evidence supporting the category.
4.2.1 Summary
Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Centred Experiences
(Category 1) when teachers structure their teaching around a concern for
students’ personal experiences during learning with a focus on sensory
events. That is, there is an expectation that the students will see, hear, feel
and do interesting things that will focus their attention, have them asking
science questions, and improve their engagement in learning. This
expectation is illustrated in the following quote which exemplifies the nature
of this category, demonstrating that teachers expect the learning to be more
valuable as students are “experiencing it themselves”:
T19 …they’re finding things out for themselves and it’s more
meaningful to them, I think. Like if we try and tell them
something they may not remember it. But if they have done it
themselves that learning is more valuable. (Italics added).
The focus of this category is educating and engaging students through
their physical interaction with science in the classroom. In particular, students
are engaging with materials in some way that produces useful learning in
science. Examples presented by teachers included growing tomato plants in
various conditions to observe what qualities made them flourish (T1), playing
with live worms after reading about them (T5), and watching videos about
volcanoes to highlight science content material (T20). Examples of this
category also included allowing students unstructured play with equipment
during a science lesson (T3, T4, T5), as free choice activities during students’
free time (T16), or when teachers teach students how to perform an activity
and allow them to re-perform it before school (T6, T9). Scientific proofs, that
is, science content demonstrations by teachers or students making use of
experimental procedures to obtain expected results, also belonged to this
category (T6, T12).
In this category teachers expressed the opinion that the benefit of
inquiry to students was that students were “experiencing” science for
103
themselves. Thus they were more engaged in their learning; enjoying
themselves playing with materials and seeing the relevance of science to
their own lives more readily than with traditional transmissive approaches.
Students would thus be more engaged and interested in doing science at
home and during school, and would gain a deeper understanding of
educational learning outcomes teachers may have generated. This includes
the concepts, attitudes and skills teachers were trying to develop in students.
The Student Centred Experiences category was seen as inquiry in that
students were encouraged to ask questions about the experiences they were
having, however, student questions did not guide the teaching experience. In
essence the first conception of inquiry teaching follows a very inductive
process. Students were exposed to the environment as a stimulus to
generate interest and knowledge. This perspective seems to assume
scientific ideas are developed through direct experiences.
This category was seen by participating teachers as a predominantly
student -centred way of teaching, since teachers were focused on how
students learnt and not on how teachers taught, although of the three
categories it was the least student - centred. Some teachers described this
as their predominant way of experiencing inquiry teaching (T1, T5, T10, T16,
T20), while others used it as one activity among many during a science unit
(T2, T4, T7). One teacher in the early childhood curriculum mentioned that
this was how she taught “all the time” (T3).
4.2.2 Detail of the Student Centred Experiences category
The how and what, structure of awareness, and dimensions of
variation for this category will now be discussed.
The how and what
The details of the how and what (from Section 3.1.6) of teachers’
experience of teaching science as Student Centred Experiences are
represented in figure 4.2, which illustrates the relationships between the act
of teaching, the indirect object (the goals of teaching), and the direct object
(learning outcomes) that teachers strived for as they were experiencing
inquiry teaching as Category 1.
104
Figure 4.2. Category 1: Student Centred Experiences category how and what
The act of teaching occurred as teachers provided engaging sensory
experiences in which students participated. This action may have involved
bringing in materials for students to experience such as worms or tomato
plants, or purely visual stimulus such as showing videos or interesting
science demonstrations. Teachers may have allowed students to play with
equipment freely (T3, T4, T5), or provided a structured experience around
students observing certain facts (T3, T20). Students were encouraged to
explore, discuss, and ask questions arising from their engagement with the
materials. In one way or another, teachers saw students as learning through
inquiry because they were experiencing something. As teacher 1 explained,
students were able to better recall content material because they had
experienced it during a unit on growing plants:
T1 … I feel that they learn by seeing and doing more than they do
by me standing up at the blackboard telling them that this plant
is going to die because it's got no water, etcetera. Ask them the
next day and they've forgotten about it. Do it this way and they
remember “oh, yeah, that was the plants that we put in the
cupboard! Or, “but that's the plant that we didn't give any water
to!” They can identify the particular scenario by what we did or
didn't do.
The indirect object of teaching was predominantly to engage students;
to help them enjoy science through having interesting science related
experiences. This was evident from teacher 1 later explaining that during
inquiry “you have to… engage with their scientific minds … and be fun.” In a
sense, teachers provided students with experiences in order to promote their
D.O. Concepts, Attitudes (skills)
I.O. To engage students
Act Provide experiences
Student Centred Experiences category
How
What
105
future ability to engage with and enjoy experiencing science. This in turn
helped students learn science content better because they found science
interesting and were better able to see the relevance to their own lives. That
such experiences made science more engaging and “real” is illustrated in this
quote from teacher 20:
T20 … And I think, for me, that was a good way of trying to make
things like earthquakes and volcanoes a bit more real. Because
it’s not like we’ve got a volcano down the road that we can go
and visit, or that we see every day. Particularly for this age
group, you know, probably haven’t travelled a lot. … the
multimedia stuff is good way of actually engaging them and
getting them interested and thinking “wow, the power of that
thing” or “that’s destructive” or whatever it might be. (Emphasis
added)
The educational learning outcomes aimed for (direct object, or the
what), covered three areas: concepts, attitudes and skills. The main objective
of Category 1 was the teacher selected science concepts the teacher
intended be learnt, such as life cycles or tectonic plate theory. These
concepts were experienced through students’ personal engagement with
materials, for example, seeing the tomatoes rather than just learning about
them. To a lesser extent, but also quite important, inquiry teaching was used
to teach science skills such as listening, recording and measuring. Finally,
inquiry teaching also had an important role in teaching attitudes towards
science, such as that it is “fun” (T3), and that students should become “the
scientists in the room” (T5) by overcoming their squeamishness over
touching worms. The following quote from the practice of teacher 5 illustrates
this desire to develop positive attitudes towards science as students were
“completely engaged”, and “switched on”:
T5 … English was my focus but I used science to bring it in, OK.
And I was doing an information report. So what I did was I just
got earthworms, and we discovered earthworms. We sat there
and we studied them in all sorts of ways, under microscopes,
we did things to these poor earth worms that um, you know, the
kids were completely engaged. We got over the initial “ooh
yuck! Touchy touchy worms!” with “we are scientists in this
106
room, and we are looking at the worms from a scientific
viewpoint. We want to see what they do, how they move, how
they react to noise, how they react to light, that sort of stuff.” …I
gave them that parameter of “we are scientists” [sits up straight,
places hand thoughtfully on chin] straight from the word go, and
they were fantastic with it. They were so engaged and switched
on, and their information report was magnificent. (emphasis
added)
This section has discussed the how and what of inquiry teaching, and
will now explore the awareness structure for teachers’ conceptions as they
experience inquiry teaching as Student Centred Experiences.
Structure of awareness
The structure of awareness for the Student Centred Experiences
category is illustrated in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Structure of awareness for Category 1
The referential aspect describes the overall meaning of the experience
for participants (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, in Category 1 inquiry teaching
is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students. As per
Cope (2004), the structure of this awareness is made up of the internal and
external horizons.
The internal horizon comprises the theme and thematic field of
awareness. The theme relates to that which is focal in teacher’s awareness
Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning) Internal horizon
(Theme and thematic field)
External horizon (context or margin)
Category 1-Student centred experiences
Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students
Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field-Student generated questions, Teacher generated problems
“Chalk and Talk”
107
as they are experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1. During this category
teachers focused on providing engaging learning experiences for students.
Teachers assume inquiry teaching is structured around physical experiences
for students such as handling material objects, watching videos, or talking to
guest speakers. Having students experience is what drives the teaching
experience for teachers during this category.
The thematic field includes that which is present in awareness, but not
the focus of it (see Section 3.1.4). In this category, student generated
questions are in the thematic field of teacher awareness. Teachers are aware
of the role student generated questions can play, but they are not focal in
teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching. That is, teachers used student
generated questions to engage students in learning and to assess student
understanding, but answering such questions were not the basis of educative
programs in teacher thinking; giving students the experiences teachers had
planned for them was the basis. For example, this quotation from teacher 14
illustrates how she used questions to direct and guide student attention and
assist in the assimilation of experiences, helping them to “explore” by
scaffolding them with the kinds of questions she hopes they will ask:
T14 I see the students’ role as being an exploratory one; one where
they are the ones to do the exploring. I guess me as a teacher,
my role in that is to guide them and help guide their thinking. If
they’re struggling and way off track, maybe bringing in a
question to help bring them in but … my idea was just to ask
questions and get them to do the thinking “Well, is this going to
work? How is it going to work? If it’s not going to work, why
isn’t it going to work? What can we do to fix it?”
Teacher generated problems are also part of the thematic field of
teachers awareness in this category. Teachers do use problems to help
focus student attention and engage them in the learning. However, the kinds
of problems posed by teachers are simpler in comparison to Category 2, as
discussed in greater detail in dimensions of variation in the next section.
The external horizon is the context which delimits the phenomenon
from its environment (Marton & Booth, 1997). In this category, teachers
contrasted inquiry teaching with transmissive approaches to science
108
teaching, usually referred to as “chalk and talk” (T1). Inquiry teaching is
claimed to be more engaging for students as it involves direct experiences
with materials rather than just hearing about them. Teachers felt students
could “work it out for themselves” (T18) as it were, “through their own
experiences” (T1) rather than teachers “just feeding them information” (T20).
Teachers were answering student questions and illustrating desired learning
outcomes by direct reference to student experience. Inquiry was very much a
“learning by doing” (T1) process, which also meant the passive act of simply
“reading stuff … is not inquiry” (T4). As teacher 16 explained, “Inquiry based
learning is learning through … doing, not just writing.”
Dimensions of variation
The section will now discuss the dimensions of variation that make up
this category of description. As a parsimonious description that focuses on
the qualitative variation between categories, this results section does not deal
with the similarities between categories, but their qualitative differences.
Dimensions of variation that did not vary between categories are not included
(see Section 4.1.2).
Role of the teacher: The teacher saw their role as providing
experiences for students. Teachers sought to draw out student
understanding rather than give students the answers where possible, usually
by referring students to their own experiences rather than interpreting a
situation for students. For example, teacher 1 showed the children the
withered tomato plant that had been left in the cupboard for a week and
compared it with the healthy garden ones, asking students to explain this
situation as opposed to immediately using it to illustrate desired concept
outcomes. This practice of referring students to their own experiences rather
than giving them the answer is referred to as being a knower, but not a teller
in this study. Students do learn science content, but the teacher’s aim is to
have them experience it, rather than just hear about it, which would constitute
a transmissive “chalk and talk” (T1) approach by teachers.
In the interviews teachers consistently claimed their role to be
facilitators, yet Category 1 had many qualities of a teacher directed
approach. Teachers chose the topic to be studied, how it was studied, and
109
the student experiences that were intended to lead students to acquire the
content understandings they intended. Teacher 19, from the early childhood
context, explained that her role was as a “guide”, however, it was a very
teacher focused guidance; making sure students were working to plan and
finding out what she intended them to find:
J And what’s the teacher’s role during inquiry lessons?
T19 [whispers] Control behaviour [laughter]. And really, I just think to
guide. To guide what they're doing: make sure they’re on track
and make sure that it is working to plan, that they are going to
find out what you had hoped them to find out I suppose. Yeah, I
think it’s just more to facilitate that everyone’s on track and that
they are learning what you had hoped for them to learn I
suppose.
Although teachers fulfilled this same role as facilitator in all three
categories, it will be seen that they relinquish partial authority over some
aspects of the teacher role in the latter categories, thus allowing for greater
levels of student autonomy in terms of the direction of learning in Category 2,
and noticeably more during Category 3.
Role of the student: Students had the lowest level of input into
planning during inquiry teaching in the Student Centred Experiences
category. Students did not choose content or activities. However, even within
these teacher directed activities students were often highly active; being
encouraged to see what happens, try out their ideas, and decide for
themselves as long as they decided what the teacher intended. The following
quote from teacher 5 illustrates the role of the teacher in choosing the
activities, the role of the student as being active learners seeking to
experience content, and the indirect object of the inquiry as having students
engaged through active experience:
T5 But when you’re reading through and saying “ok, well these
worms lay eggs and they look like this” and then the children
find them and say “yeah, that’s an egg”… that sort of stuff.
J So they saw it in the book.
T5 Yeah, and then they found it in the dirt. And [student] said “oh
look, look, this is an egg, and this is whatever”. And you know,
110
they saw the way the muscles move by the way they move. So
they were reading about this information, but then they were
actually looking at it happening in front of them. Which was,
yeah, really good and they were, they were very engaged.
Purpose of student experiences: Student experiences were focal in
teachers’ awareness during the Student Centred Experiences category as a
means of engaging students in learning and encouraging their interest in
science. This quotation from teacher 20 illustrates that “experiments” (or
teacher demonstrations) are a means to engage and educate students:
T20 I love getting the kids [to do] hands on stuff. Experiments, you
know, maybe start at that point and through those experiences
see what they can interpret from what they’ve experienced.
Rather than saying “here it is, this is how it works, this is why it’s
happening, write it in your books.” … that’s how I interpret
inquiry.
Purpose of teacher generated problems: In Category 1, the kinds of
problems teachers proposed were simple, and used mainly to help students
observe and thus experience content more closely. For example, teacher 3
would often ask students “why do you think…?” in order to challenge her
students into a more active engagement with science and scientific materials.
The kinds of teacher generated problem differed qualitatively between
categories 1 and 2. In Category 1, students were encouraged to notice
events or features of a system and express explanations, store up
experiences, propose causal links, show interest and so forth. In Category 2
a clearly defined question was posed by the teacher which students would
explore by applying some strategy. Category 2 required a definable, feasible
and researchable question emerging from some observation of a natural
phenomenon, while Category 1 problems simply focused student attention
and heightened their ability to experience.
Purpose of student generated questions: While student questions
were not the focus of Category 1, they did guide student and teacher
behaviour. For example, in the practice of teacher 5 a student asked
regarding worms:
111
T5 “well why is it doing this?” and then I went “well, lets have a look
why, what’s going on here.” … so it was, you know, questions
would crop up and then we’d stop the class, and we’d look at
that, as see if we could find out why these things were
happening.
This quotation from teacher 5 illustrates that student questions had a
role to play during the Student Centred Experiences category. Student
questions were not the focus of the teaching, however, teachers would allow
certain student questions in order to improve and maintain student
engagement in the experience. Teachers also used student questions to help
assess student understanding. The purpose of student questions develops in
Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2), and evolves further during
Student Generated Questions inquiry (Category 3).
Teacher epistemological beliefs: The source of knowledge in
Category 1 was the teacher themselves, who had gained their knowledge
from books, internet, and other authoritative sources. While teachers overtly
described student personal experiences as the ultimate source of knowledge,
students and teachers were still looking to teachers to provide accurate
interpretations of events, as illustrated in the practice of teacher 9:
T9 …there was a few results that didn’t really quite go the way that
we should according to our knowledge about moulds so we
thought why that might have been the case? If there were
errors or---?
J For example?
T9 There was one where [students] had different liquids. They had
milk, cordial and water and control and so you’d think that the
cordial would grow the most with the sugar to supply the mould
and energy but it didn’t. The milk actually grew the most and we
thought “Well maybe the cordial was undiluted so maybe the
problem there was that there’s too much sugar and sugar acts
as a preservative so that should stop the mould from growing
because the milk provided some nutrients as well the moisture.”
Yeah, but that took a while to work out.
J Did you think that one up?
112
T9 Yeah.
J What did the class conclude on the matter?
T9 I’m not quite sure.
4.2.3 Conclusion
This section has explored the teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching
in science as Student Centred Experiences. Whether placing a bunch of
worms on the table for children to play with, bringing in a volcano video for
children to watch, or doing exciting science demonstrations with bottles and
balloons, teachers use inquiry teaching to help students engage with science
through enjoyable sensory experiences with science materials. This study
will now explore Category 2 experience of inquiry teaching as Teacher
Generated Problems.
4.3 The Teacher Generated Problems Category
This section will examine teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching as
Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2). First a general summary of the
category is presented. Next, the detail of the category is explored in terms of
the how and what of the phenomenon, structure of awareness, and
dimensions of variation. Last, the section is concluded summarising the
evidence supporting the category.
To clarify, the kind of problem referred to in this category is an
investigatory problem that the students engage in, solving the problem
though some inquiry or manipulative process to find the solution. The
problem involves the use materials and of scientific concepts such as force
and energy.
4.3.1 Summary
Inquiry teaching is experienced as Teacher Generated Problems
(Category 2) when teachers structure their teaching around a given problem
they have designed and that the students are required to solve. The problem
is central to the teaching experience as teachers feel it helps students
engage with the topic at hand and produce productive work. In this category,
teachers expect students will have greater ownership over the content
113
material covered than other teaching methods through resolving the problem,
as is illustrated in the following quotation.
T17 … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and
there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then
we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this
problem. So it might be through acting it out, it might be making
a model, it might be drawing diagrams, whatever we’re going to
do and then we go about doing it. … So that’s how I see
inquiry-based learning is beginning with some sort of question
or story so that that’s the stimulus to move on and helping them
to find ways of “Well what are you going to do about it?”
Examples include: working out how to lift a heavy box using only a
cylinder and plank (T14); responding to an imaginary letter from an
underwater theme park world for information on how to set up a new exhibit
(T18); building a tower using paper and sticky tape that would support a
tennis ball (T10); setting students the task to find out about natural disasters
(T17) from the internet or library. Examples may also include designing,
building and testing energy efficient shoebox houses (T4); testing water
absorption into the atmosphere (T15); developing tests to compare towel
absorbency (T16); measuring viscosity, the co-efficient of bouncing, or the
hardness of rocks (T7).
As with Category 1, some teachers made use of teacher generated
problems as part of a broader curriculum (for example, T4, T16), while others
considered the Teacher Generated Problems category as what it meant to
teach science though inquiry all the time (for example, T10, T17). In contrast
to Category 1 and 3, no teacher spoke of inquiry teaching as what they do in
all areas of education.
In this category teachers expressed the opinion that the benefit to
students was that because students were focused on solving a problem, they
were more committed to the learning and could more readily see its
relevance than with other teaching methods. This would also help students
develop confidence and competence in problem solving through successfully
meeting the challenge, and this would benefit students in other curriculum
areas and life in general. By giving students problems to solve, teachers
114
aimed at giving students a deeper understanding of science, more so than
just experiences of science as was the case with Category 1. As teacher 16
explained, the experience of science “experiments” alone is not enough to
educate students through inquiry:
T16 And so you go out to the supermarket and you get all the things
and you grab the random science book and you find
experiments that you know you’re going to be able to do at
school. I find that, yes, while the kids enjoy it-it lacks content. It
lacks the depth of learning because each different experiment
will cover a different facet of science so it doesn’t really get into
the hows and whys. It’s a bit Professor Sumner Millar. You
know it’s like “The glass and a half” and they go “Wow” and
then that’s about it. (Emphasis added).
Category 1 and 2 are hierarchical in that during the Teacher
Generated Problems category teachers would occasionally use student
centred experiences to help students solve problems, while in Category 1,
the kinds of problems teachers proposed to help students experience inquiry
were relatively simple.
4.3.2 Detail of the Teacher Generated Problems category
The how and what, structure of awareness, and dimensions of
variation for this category will now be discussed.
The how and what
The details of the how and what of teachers’ experience of teaching
science as the Teacher Generated Problems category are represented in
Figure 4.3 within a phenomenographic framework.
Figure 4.3. Category 2: Teacher Generated Problems category how and what
D.O. Attitudes, Skills (concepts)
I.O. To encourage students
Act Provide problems
Teacher Generated Problems category
How
What
115
Figure 4.3 illustrates the relationships between the act of teaching, the
indirect object (the goals of teaching), and the direct object (learning
outcomes) that teachers strived for as they were experiencing inquiry
teaching.
The act of teaching occurs as teachers present students with a
problem to be solved. Teachers usually give students specific materials to
help experience solving the problem. This action of giving materials is similar
to what the teacher does in Student Centred Experiences, however student
experiences are structured as a means to an end (solving the problem) rather
than as a means in themselves as was the case in Category 1 (engaging
students and illustrating concepts). This is demonstrated in the following
quote by teacher 4 where a teacher challenge is the focus of the teaching,
not simply having the students experience circuit work:
T4 We did some [activities] on some circuit stuff, so I gave them a
battery, a couple of bits of wire and said, and a little bulb, “make
the bulb light up”.
J You just left it to them?
T4 Yep, just left them, just let them go. So some of them got very
frustrated … But I wanted them to figure that out. I wanted them
to think about what they had, think about their knowledge of
how batteries work. So I sort of went to those groups and
started talking to them about “well, do you have toys with
batteries, and how do you think it works?” And that type of
thing, and then, just gave them a little bit to think about. … So
they eventually, all of them got this little light bulb to light up and
they were just thrilled about that.
The goal of teaching, that is the indirect object in a phenomenographic
sense, is to encourage students. Teachers encouraged students to develop
perceptions of high self efficacy through meeting and overcoming a challenge
in the form of a teacher generated problem. By successfully solving a
problem, students were not only taught how to solve problems, but teachers
explained that this improved students’ confidence and self image that they
are able to solve problems (see quote from teacher 10 below). This
encouragement would then flow into other learning areas where students
116
could build on the previous successes in problem focused inquiries to tackle
new challenges, even in different curriculum areas. This transfer is illustrated
by teacher 10 who instructed the children to build the paper towers. Some
time later, students faced a new challenge in another subject area and
teacher 10 reports:
T10 … when I gave them this topic which was “Make something the
early settlers might have used, it can be a diorama, a bar cart.”
You know they thought and I said to them “You know you didn’t
think you could do the first one. You didn’t think you could do
the towers. Okay now you know with a bit of thought, a little bit
of guidance, maybe a bit of help from Dad, you’re going to
come up with something good.” And they said “Yeah, I think I
might.” And so there was that confidence.
This quote from teacher 10 illustrates how the indirect object is
achieved in inquiry teaching as teachers use the students’ success at
previous inquiry lessons to encourage students to attempt new challenges in
other curriculum areas.
As with the preceding category, the direct object involved three
learning outcomes; skills, attitudes and concepts. The development of
student attitudes was a primary goal and effective problem solving skills
secondary. Scientific concepts, depicted in brackets in Figure 4.3, were a
tertiary goal. For example, teachers aimed to develop student attitudes so
they begin to feel like capable problem solvers, that school science is
enjoyable, and something that they are capable of doing. The quote from
teacher 18 illustrates this focus on attitudes, as the teacher strives to help
students develop confidence and independence:
T18 … teachers and parents aren’t going to be standing there every
time they want to find something out. So it’s being able to
realise, and I know in the work force your boss doesn’t want you
running to him every five minutes of the day “how do I do this?
How do I do this? How do I do this?” He wants you to be a self
sufficient person that can say “OK, this is what I have to do,
how am I going to get to my objective?” You know, the end
result.
117
However, learning outcomes related to skills were also valued by
teachers. These included generic skills such as group work and problem
solving skills. Science process skills such as testing, writing reports, and
observation abilities were also often important. As teacher 12 explained: “I
don’t think knowledge is the important thing. It’s all those skills of how to go
about working in a team.” In this category teachers occasionally required but
did not teach directly the experimental method, for example; defining and
controlling variables, use of control groups, repeated trials. If required, these
skills were taught using a transmission approach during non-inquiry science
lessons, as illustrated again in the practice of teacher 12:
T12 At the moment I’m still teaching kids about fair testing. They’re
not really understanding all the concepts of fair testing so until
we get there then an open-ended investigation [i.e. inquiry] one-
on-one won’t work. (Parenthesis added).
The following quotation by teacher 10 again illustrates how the
development of student attitudes is the primary direct object of this category
as they develop an attitude of confidence first, and skills at lateral thinking
second:
T10: The student’s role? … hopefully is to develop a bit of
confidence in themselves; to think outside the square.
Finally, science concepts were less important as a learning outcome
(see quote below), but were still apparent. In particular, the content related to
the problem under investigation was considered important. For example; the
problem of lifting a heavy box was used to introduce concepts regarding
simple machines, and writing a letter to an underwater theme park was used
to motivate students to explore the needs of saltwater fish. The Teacher
Generated Problems category usually aimed at teaching content by having
students experience it, as in the Student Centred Experiences category, but
also strived to give them some ownership over this understanding by placing
content within the context of a given problem. However, the science concepts
were usually taught using a transmission approach previously, and the
problem was used to motivate and encourage students.
These three learning outcomes (attitudes, skills and concepts) are
illustrated in the following quote regarding the strengths of the Teacher
118
Generated Problems category by teacher 9. Inquiry is “engaging” (attitudes),
and gaining skills such as group work and problem solving are very
important. However, the “pressure is off the teacher” to be the “holder of
knowledge” (content):
T9 Strengths? … It is engaging. You really are putting it into the
hands of the students and acting as facilitator so it takes the
pressure – well, no. It takes the pressure off the teacher being
the holder of knowledge but there is quite a skill in being a good
facilitator. So it’s a different skill. Strengths; I think it also
teaches a lot of real life skills where they need to be able to
problem solve, figure out where to get information so sort of
some researcher skills there. The way that we teach inquiry,
they also have to learn how to work in a team which I think is
very valuable. … Often that might be some sort of sharing or –
yeah sharing and thinking about what they’ve learnt. But also
going a little bit further so how it does apply to the real world
can be very difficult to get the time to do that.
Structure of awareness
The structure of awareness for the Teacher Generated Problems
category is illustrated in Table 4.3
Table 4.3
Structure of awareness for Category 2
The referential aspect describes the meaning of the experience for
teachers (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, in Category 2 inquiry teaching is
Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning)
Internal horizon (Theme and thematic field)
External horizon (context or margin)
Category 2-Teacher generated problems
Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems for students
Theme-Teacher generated problems Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Student generated questions
Its not inquiry if it’s just ”wow, look at that” experiences. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context through providing a challenging problem.
119
experienced as providing challenging problems to students. The internal
horizon is made up of the theme and thematic field of awareness. Thematic
in teacher awareness is that inquiry teaching is generating problems for
students to solve. Teachers assume inquiry learning is structured around a
challenge such as a critical event, a problem, or puzzle.
In this category, student generated questions are in the thematic field
of teacher awareness. That is, teachers used student generated questions to
engage students in learning and to assess student understanding, but
student questions were not focal in the inquiry teaching experience. Thus, in
contrast to Category 3 but similar to Category 1, student generated questions
play a supportive but not focal role in the teaching experience.
Student experiences are also seen as belonging to the thematic field.
That is, student experiences were valued as supportive in helping students
solve the problem at hand, but were not used to direct the teaching
experience. Student experiences are no longer the focus as with Category 1,
but instead must now play a supportive role in helping teachers to structure
an environment where students can meet appropriate challenges.
The external horizon is the context which delimits the phenomenon
from its environment (Marton & Booth, 1997). Compared with Category 1,
teacher generated problems have moved from the margin of awareness into
the focus of it. Also, in direct contrast to Category 1, student centred
experiences are seen as external to inquiry if they are not in the service of
solving a problem the teacher has given. This is demonstrated by the quote
from teacher 16, cited previously, where the experience of science
“experiments” alone is not enough to educate students through inquiry:
T16 And so you go out to the supermarket and you get all the things
and you grab the random science book and you find
experiments that you know you’re going to be able to do at
school. I find that, yes, while the kids enjoy it-it lacks content. It
lacks the depth of learning because each different experiment
will cover a different facet of science so it doesn’t really get into
the hows and whys. It’s a bit Professor Sumner Millar. You
know it’s like “The glass and a half” and they go “Wow” and
then that’s about it. (Emphasis added).
120
Finally, as a hierarchical structure of awareness, transmissive
approaches such as “chalk and talk” are considered external to inquiry
teaching. This section has now explored the structure of awareness for
Category 2 of teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching. The next section will
discuss the dimensions of variation that make up this category.
Dimensions of variation
Role of the teacher: The role of the teacher experiencing inquiry
teaching as Category 2 was to provide students with problems to solve, and
then to scaffold them in solving and reporting the solution. Much like
Category 1, Category 2 had many qualities of a teacher directed approach.
However, teacher practice adapted more of the qualities of a student centred
approach. For example, in Category 1 teachers would occasionally not
answer student questions, referring students to their own experiences from
which to draw conclusions. In the present category teachers expanded this
role of being a knower, but not a teller, by actively feigning ignorance in order
to force the students into more active mental engagement with the problem at
hand. That is, teachers not only refused to answer student inquiries directly,
but now would also actively claim to not know the answer, thus encouraging
students to confront the problem alone. The quote from teacher 4 above
illustrates the practice of feigning ignorance by not knowing how to light the
light, or teacher 14 who was feigning ignorance regarding how to lift the
heavy box.
The next quote from teacher 7 can be used to demonstrate that
Teacher Generated Problems category has some qualities of being teacher
directed. Furthermore, it supports the hierarchical structure of the categories
by demonstrating how focusing on student questions (Category 3) to guide
the learning can be seen as existing outside teacher curriculum objectives.
The example was later given of students wanting to repeat the vinegar and
sodium bicarbonate volcano activity with the variables of hot and cold water,
which the teacher did not see as fitting into her curriculum goals and thus did
not continue as part of the regular classroom teaching:
T7 My role is more to facilitate their learning. To throw the ideas
out, see where it will take us – because that’s one of the things
121
with inquiry based learning – sometimes children have, you
know, children being children, they go off on tangents. And
trying to see whether the tangent they’ve taken, or the tact
they’ve taken actually fits into the learning experiences that you
want them to have – will it be worthwhile to use that as an extra
activity that perhaps we hadn’t considered with our planning. Or
whether it’s actually not going to add value to the outcome, the
essential learning that we are covering and therefore it won’t tie
in. But see in those sorts of cases we have a science activity
corner. So if they’ve got something like that that doesn’t really fit
in, they can use the equipment, and use it before school at 8:30
when they come in of a morning, or if they finish work tasks in
class early they can go over and they can have a go at it then.
So it’s just the kids who are interested in it will go and have a go
rather than all of them.
Role of the student: In this category the students’ role has developed
from the role they played during the Student Centred Experiences category.
In Category 1 students were active learners, now they are considered
engaged learners working on resolving a problem. Students are given more
agency to determine the course of their learning. That is, not only are they
paying attention and participating, they now are proposing and testing
solutions to a problem that the teacher has given them. As teacher 10
discussed:
T10: An ideal inquiry lesson? I suppose by definition it would be
dividing them up into groups and giving them a task to discuss
and have some very open ended question with a science
element to it. I suppose it would be something like “Well, this
group you go away and perhaps discuss why you think the sky
is blue”, something like that. Or “Why does the grass go so well
there and not over here?” Those sort of things and just see
what they come up with.
As further examples, teacher 4 had students trying to turn on a light,
teacher 10 had students building towers out of paper, and teacher 9
challenged students to find out which liquid was more viscous. In this way,
teachers appear to be attempting to move students beyond being active
122
explorers of their own experiences, to helping students develop skills in
creating and testing their own ideas through the resolution of teacher driven
problems. Students therefore experienced a greater level of student
autonomy in Category 2 than Category 1.
However, some teachers believed that general research did not mean
inquiry, as the quote from teacher 17 below indicates. While students were
facing the challenge of finding information at the library (what this study
would consider a teacher generated problem), they were not given a
“problem to solve” and thus it was not really considered inquiry teaching:
T17 The most recent science that we’ve done here in our class has
not really been inquiry based so much in that it was based
around weather and natural disasters. That was last term and
the children were encouraged to go out and find out recent
things from the newspapers. So I guess they were doing some
inquiring there but they weren’t given a particular problem to go
out and see if they could solve in that way.
Purpose of student experiences: The purpose of student experiences
can be seen to build on the role students’ experiences played in the Student
Centred Experiences category (Category 1). That is, teachers arranged
various sensory experiences for students, as with Category 1, however now
these experiences served the aim of helping students to solve the problem
(Category 2).
Purpose of teacher generated problems: In this category problems are
the focus of teachers’ awareness. Teachers structure the learning around set
problems that they have given to the students to solve. This contrasts with
Category 1 where the teacher does not use problems to direct their teaching,
though they did pose occasional problems to students in order to help them
engage in their learning. The role of teacher generated problems is perhaps
best illustrated in the following quote from teacher 17 that was used to
illustrate this category.
T17 … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and
there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then
we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this
problem. So it might be through acting it out, it might be making
123
a model, it might be drawing diagrams, whatever we’re going to
do and then we go about doing it. … So that’s how I see
inquiry-based learning is beginning with some sort of question
or story so that that’s the stimulus to move on and helping them
to find ways of “Well what are you going to do about it?”
Purpose of student questions: The purpose of student questions was
similar to the Student Centred Experiences category, playing a supportive but
not focal role in teachers’ awareness during inquiry teaching. The purpose of
student questions is here illustrated in the long narrative of the lever and the
heavy box as provided by teacher 14. Although teacher questions are used
to set up the problem to be solved, student questions also assist to focus
student attention and learning:
T14 And I made up this story that I was in the desert and then I was
on this plane by myself. And I couldn’t lift [the box] up by myself
but I had to raise it up high enough to get it into the plane so I
could take off. There was no-one else around and so I’m asking
all these questions going “Okay. So how am I going to do it?
And I went for this walk and I found this cylinder, and I went for
this walk and I found this plank and then I had all these things,
how am I going to get this to work? And so I asked the kids that
and they put it a certain way and we tried that. And it was going
to topple over and do all sorts of things and so I asked the kids,
“Is that going to work?” No. So we needed to find another
solution to the problem.
J Yeah.
T14 And so we did that and it was funny. One boy had this great
idea and he toppled it over and the cylinder landed on its side...
And I looked at it and they looked at it and they went “Stop,
stop!! Let’s try that! Let’s try that!” And so we tried that
because it landed perfectly and the plank was on top of the
cylinder and everything/
J When it all fell over.
T14 When it all fell over. So it fell into perfect position and then the
kids went “Stop!” and I said “What?” and they explained what
they were thinking. They explained that they thought that that
124
was [a] different way that could work and then we tried it out. It
worked well. Everyone went “Hooray…!”
Teachers’ epistemological beliefs: In this category teachers explicitly
attempted to ensure that the source of knowledge was the students’
interpretation of their results. However, just as with Category 1, teachers
expected students to find the answers the teacher thought were correct. The
primary example of this was in their feigning ignorance technique – teachers
expected students to find an answer similar or exactly like the one they were
pretending to not know. As an example of teacher epistemological beliefs, in
relation to writing up a conclusion regarding a class inquiry, teacher 7 was
assessing:
T7 … how they did it, and what the results show. What their
observations were, and what the results proved. Did they prove
or disprove the initial statement that they had made at the
beginning.
This quotation illustrates that teacher 7 still expected science to prove
rather than support or provide evidence for student claims, as well as to
disprove rather than fail to provide support for knowledge claims. In terms of
epistemological beliefs it is apparent that not withstanding any claims to the
contrary, teachers expected the source of knowledge in science education to
be themselves, rather than student interpretations of the results.
4.3.3 Conclusion
This section has discussed the teachers’ experience of inquiry
teaching as Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2). Whether challenging
students to design a tower of straws that will hold a tennis ball, confronting
students with the problem of lifting a heavy box, or organising students to find
out about something specific at the library, teachers use inquiry teaching to
help students develop self efficacy, skills, and understanding by confronting
and solving problems. I will now explore the Student Generated Questions
category.
125
4.4 The Student Generated Questions Category
This section describes teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching as
Student Generated Questions (Category 3). First a general summary of the
category is presented. Next, the detail of the category is explored in terms of
the how and what, structure of awareness, and dimensions of variation. Last,
the section is concluded summarising the evidence supporting the category.
4.4.1 Summary
Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Generated Questions
(Category 3) when teachers structure their teaching around helping students
to ask and answer their own questions. The students’ questions are central to
the teaching experience as teachers see students as being more motivated
and engaged with science content and materials when they are seeking to
answer their own questions than with traditional teaching methods. This is
illustrated in the following quote which illustrates the nature of this category,
showing that the focus of teacher thinking is on helping students to find out
what they, the students, want to know:
T18 I mean to me inquiry learning is giving children the opportunities
to find out new things, and to ask the right questions to learn
about new things in a collaborative way, and to be able to not
just be given the knowledge and stand out the front. I think
that’s the traditional approach, is that the teachers stand there
and give the children the knowledge that they’re expected to
know. Whereas inquiry is taking it to that other side, where the
children find out what it is that they want to know, and we give
them the tools to be able to do that.
Examples of this category include negotiating a topic with students,
such as under the sea (T6, T18) or micro-beasts (T8), then organising
students to generate questions and research their answers within that topic.
This category also includes scientific investigations where the teacher selects
the topic, but helps students to generate and answer their own questions in
relation to that topic, such as developing a way of testing advertising claims
for superior products (T4), or exploring the qualities of successful balloon
126
rockets (T2). The focus is on helping students to ask and answer their own
questions.
In this category teachers expressed the opinion that the benefit to
students was that students are better motivated because they are answering
their own questions and learning about what it was that they wanted to know
than with traditional approaches. As illustrated in the practice of teacher 2:
T2 … When I think of inquiry based learning, that is where the
children are posing questions, and formulating ways to answer
that question. In science, testing hypotheses or what have you,
going through the scientific process testing their own questions
that they have posed and finding conclusions to their own
questions. In my mind, that’s what inquiry based learning is for
me.
As part of a hierarchy, teacher generated problems were sometimes
used by teachers as part of helping students to answer their own questions.
This may cause some confusion regarding the qualitative difference between
categories 2 and 3. As mentioned, the categories are delimited by what the
teacher was focused on as part of their experience of teaching. In Category
2, the teacher generated problem defined what activities were appropriate
and when the teaching had drawn to a close. With Category 3, it was the
student generated questions that defined what teaching activities were
appropriate and when the activity was appropriate to close. What the teacher
focused on defined the qualitatively different experiences of each category.
As with Category 1 some teachers saw inquiry as the way they teach
“all the time”, again exclusively in an early childhood setting (T6, T8). Other
teachers reported that inquiry was only one way among many ways of
teaching (T4, T2). I will now discuss the details of what it means to
experience inquiry teaching as the Student Generated Questions category.
4.4.2 Detail of the Student Generated Questions category
The how and what, structure of awareness, and dimensions of
variation for this category will now be discussed.
127
The how and what
The details of the how and what of teachers’ experience of teaching
science as the Student Generated Questions category are represented in
figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4. Category 3: Student Generated Questions category how and
what
Figure 4.4 illustrates the relationships between the act of teaching, the
indirect object (the goals of teaching), and the direct object (learning
outcomes) that teachers strived for as they were experiencing inquiry
teaching.
The act of teaching occurs as teachers structure their teaching around
helping students to ask and answer student generated questions. For
example, a teacher may either choose or negotiate a topic with students to
explore. Teachers then assist students in expressing and selecting questions
to work on. Students would find answers to those questions through a broad
range of activities including library and internet searches, watching
demonstrations, solving teacher generated problems, talking to visiting
experts, and occasionally concluding from their own experiments as
illustrated from this quote by teacher 8:
J So what does it mean to teach science through inquiry then?
T8 … inquiry you’d have focused questions and then you would
explore that way. So I just think everything you do is trying to
answer their questions. So with the insects they were like, "Why
are those bugs there? Why do they want to be in that garden?"
And then we research, recording and trying to find the answer.
So I just think if you’re doing an inquiry they’re inquiring into
things and posing questions and trying to answer questions that
How
D.O. Skills (attitudes, concepts)
I.O. To empower students
Act Provide guidance
Student Generated Questions category
What
128
it would be more meaningful for them. And they can see how
science is in their everyday life that it’s not a separate thing at
all. It’s just part of everything that we do.
Occasionally teachers focused on using what they considered as the
scientific method as a means of answering questions; however, this method
was in all cases taught previously as a non-inquiry lesson. This is illustrated
from the practice of teacher 4:
T4 Ok, we did a design a fair test. So they had to design a test to
test basically that things that were advertised on TV were
actually doing what they said they were doing. So some of the
children – we talked about advertising and how it can be
perceived as being not honest sometimes and that type of
thing. So, um, they had to design a fair test to test a product, a
popular product or whatever. … one child did nappies – like
Huggies verses Snugglers. They did three different paper
towels – so Viva verses whatever. Bubble gum, brands of
bubble gum, which ones made the biggest bubble. … and they
had to come up with the conclusions and that sort of thing. Start
off with the hypothesis, so they had to say which one they
thought would be the best. And then they tested it, and then
they came up with their conclusions and then they had to
present it to the class as a PowerPoint and a demonstration.
The goal (indirect object) was to empower students by building their
skills in asking questions, and then helping them to develop the competence
and confidence to answer those questions. This was different to Category 2
where the goal was primarily to develop confidence, and skills were seen as
a secondary objective. Also, the focus in Category 2 was on solving teacher
generated problems and not answering the students’ own questions.
Empowering students appears to have been a goal for education in general,
and inquiry learning was seen as a part of this objective; specifically through
empowering students with skills in asking and answering their own questions
and then being more successful at life in general. The following quote by
teacher 6 also illustrates many of the perceived benefits of the Student
Generated Questions category to teachers and especially students, in
129
particular, engaging students with topics they enjoyed, and empowering
students with skills for life:
J So what do you think worked differently during the approach
you took during the sea creatures unit?
T6 Um, I think to start with it was negotiated context. So right at the
beginning they were into it. And then I think that they were
learning just so much, and beyond their ability. Like I had one
boy that could read chapter books but the rest of the kids were
reading you know, level 4, level 5 sort of stuff. So the fact that
they could read non fiction books and research through it, and
get on Google and Google images and research, and they had
the skills that transferred into all different facets of education it
was just amazing, and I think that they could feel that they were
being empowered because it was more the skills that they were
getting from it, if you know what I mean. Like, they had the
physical things of the model sea animal that they had made.
But really it was the fact that they could research, and they’re
still able to do it. It’s a skill that was transferable. That’s the
other way that I knew that they learnt as well. (emphasis added)
As with previous categories the direct object involved three learning
outcomes. Primarily, inquiry learning was used to teach and practice skills
such as asking good questions, and finding ways to answer those questions
such as library and internet search skills. This contrasts with the Teacher
Generated Problems category where attitudes were more the focus rather
than skills, and the Student Centred Experiences category where concepts
are given greater emphasis, and skills and attitudes a secondary focus. The
following quote by teacher 6 illustrates the focus on skills a Student
Generated Questions category:
T6 ... I think that’s inquiry and if I can spark that in kids, in being
able to give them the skills to always be able to find the
answers to things, whether the answers be hugely complex or
just simple then I think that’s pretty much the inquiry approach.
It’s pretty much about the skills they can use forever.
During Student Generated Questions inquiry content outcomes also
involved, to a lesser extent, developing positive attitudes about self and
130
science such as science is fun and I can answer my own questions. Finally,
inquiry learning helped develop an understanding of certain science concepts
such as learning about life cycles of insects or undersea creatures. As
teacher 12 explained, content outcomes are seen as secondary to
developing life skills with inquiry teaching:
T12: I don’t think knowledge is the important thing. It’s all those
skills of how to go about working in a team. Yeah. (emphasis in
original)
Structure of awareness
The structure of awareness for the Student Generated Questions
category is illustrated in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4
Structure of awareness for Category 3
The referential aspect describes the global meaning of the experience
for teachers (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, in Category 1 inquiry teaching is
experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions. As
per Cope (2004), the structure of teacher awareness comprises the internal
and external horizons.
The internal horizon, is made up of the theme and thematic field of
awareness. Thematic in teacher awareness is that inquiry teaching is helping
students to ask and answer their own questions. Teachers assume inquiry
teaching is structured around the students’ questions, be those questions
highly structured or of a more general nature.
Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning) Internal horizon
(Theme and thematic field)
External horizon (context or margin)
Category 3-Student generated questions
Meaning 3: Inquiry teaching is experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions
Focus-Student generated questions Thematic field - Student centred experiences -Teacher generated problems
Most inclusive definition. Also, students must be asking the questions to be answered, though teachers may direct them.
131
In this category, teacher generated problems were in the thematic field
of teacher awareness. That is, teachers used teacher generated problems to
help students to both ask and answer their own questions, but teacher
generated problems were not focal in teacher awareness. Student
experiences are also seen as belonging to the thematic field awareness. That
is, student experiences were valued as supportive in helping students ask
and answer their own questions, but were not used to direct the teaching
experience.
The external horizon defines the context that helps delimit the
phenomenon from its environment (Marton & Booth, 1997). In this category,
inquiry teaching is at its broadest and most inclusive definition. Inquiry
teaching was seen as helping students to ask and answer their own
questions, and while teachers could scaffold students in which questions to
ask, or choose the topic from which students developed questions, it was
student and not teacher generated questions that were the focus of the
teaching. When asked to define the related concept of inquiry learning,
teacher 16 explained “being allowed to explore at your level to answer your
own questions,” which may be taken to exclude exploring at your own level to
answer the teacher’s questions. It can be assumed, therefore, that a
curriculum based on teacher generated questions would be considered as
outside inquiry teaching or at best, a Student Centred Experiences
experience.
This section has now explored the structure of awareness for
Category 3 of teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching. The next section will
discuss the dimensions of variation that make up this category.
Dimensions of variation
Role of the teacher: The role of the teacher in Category 3 was to
scaffold students in asking and answering their own questions. While still a
teacher directed approach in many ways (for example, defining the learning
environment for students, choosing learning activities), Category 3 had the
greatest potential as a student centred approach. Teachers now allowed
students a larger say in their learning compared with previous categories,
particularly with regards to the way to go about answering student questions.
132
Sometimes teachers would choose the topic (T4 unit on energy, T7 and T9
unit on microbes), and at other times teachers negotiated with students to
learn about what the students were interested in (T6 unit on under the sea,
T8 unit on bugs), but students still were allowed to select the question.
Teachers continued to describe their role as facilitators, but expanded
on this role from previous categories. As per the Teacher Generated
Problems category, teachers would often try to draw out student knowledge
rather than feed it to them, feigning ignorance of having an answer. However,
teachers were now also prepared to admit they did not know, but were willing
to learn the answer with students. The following quote from teacher 6 helps
to illustrate the teacher’s role as facilitator; getting materials ready for
students and teaching them skills through which they could answer their own
questions, as opposed to giving them the information ready made. This quote
also serves as an illustration of how questions guide the learning. For
example, student questions regarding the manta ray and how this teacher
was prepared to be a co learner by inviting a student’s father into the class to
answer that question:
T6 Um, I was pretty much a support role. Like they pretty much
steered themselves as I was just there to support with
resources, information, and materials pretty much. And
knowledge in the way that they wanted to know stuff, and I
didn’t want to learn all of a sudden about 32 different sea
creatures, so I had to teach them how to research. So I guess
my role was to show them the skills to get their own information
and, I don’t know, just to get them the materials that they
needed to find that information. So I was pretty much support
person rather than sitting up the front teaching them “electric
eels sting by doing this” and that, you know? And questions
would just come up like “oh, what’s the difference between a
manta ray and a sting ray?” and we had a question box and the
marine biologist father that came in answered a lot of those.
And then some he couldn’t even answer so we went ”oh, that’s
all right, we’ll just research it.” And a lot he didn’t know because
they were sea creatures in the abyss. So obviously that’s not
his forte. But the kids were able to research it themselves. So
133
that was pretty much my role, just teaching them the skills to
find the information themselves.
Role of the student: Students experienced the highest level of student
autonomy in their learning during the Student Generated Questions category.
Students were not only active participants as per the Student Centred
Experiences category and engaged participants contributing to the resolution
of the problem in Category 2, they could also become guided inquirers.
Students were striving to have the experiences and solve problems relating
to a question of their own choosing, with the teacher’s help. The following
long quote, illustrating the role of the student during the Student Generated
Questions category practice of teacher 8, will also be used to discuss
epistemological beliefs later on.
T8 And I think the challenge is getting the kids to ask. Even though
they’ve got a lot of questions, I think there’s still so many more
that we could be getting from them and there’s probably better
ways that I could get more questions and better questions from
them. … And then last year with the hot and cold thing [a
previous Student Centred Experiences category experiment], it
was getting them to just have a go at explaining why something
worked the way it did [a Teacher Generated Problems category
activity] and that was good because lots of children, who I didn’t
think would have been very good at explaining it, had a moment
to shine because they just came out of nowhere and came up
with these theories that I went “I didn’t know you had that in
you.” So I thought that was pretty exciting when they get to be
the scientist and they get to explain what happens. And then
what we did is … we would do the experiment then I would say
“Now why did that happen?” And they would give their reasons
for why it happened and then later we would read the – you
know, in the book it would tell us. “It happened because this did
this and this did that and that’s what happened.” And then we’d
go “Well, is that what we thought?” And we would discuss what
we thought happened and compare it to what the book said
happened and then expand their understandings that way. So
we come up with the interest. When they’ve got an interest,
they’ll do the questions and then we do activities to try and
134
answer the questions [a Student Generated Questions category
activity] and then we reflect on what we thought and what we’ve
learnt. So that’s probably how I do it. (Parenthesis added).
It is notable in the quote above that students were not free to explore
any question in any manner they felt appropriate. Teachers also expected
students to observe their instructions regarding which activity was to be
pursued at any one time, whether it was library searches, listening to videos
or visitors, participating or watching science demonstrations. As an example
from the practice of teacher 9:
J And what was the students’ role?
T9 I guess they were very much the investigators. A lot of them
they really did take ownership over it. I didn’t have to supply
materials. They were keen to bring it in from home. So on the
day, they brought in materials they wanted whether it was some
oil or apple or whatever. Yeah. They also had to work co-
operatively in a group. So that can always be a challenge!
The following quote from teacher 12 can be used to contrast Category
3 with Category 1, where the latter involves teacher selection of content, and
the former (Category 3) involves student selection of the questions that guide
the teaching. While the teacher holds an awareness similar to Category 3 in
that “[students] have to have a question”, this is actually an illustration of
what might be considered a Category 1 conception where students are
performing a scientific proof, answering a teacher generated question
through an activity with expected results:
T12 Okay. For students to do an experiment they have to have a
question and that they’re going to set out an investigation to
investigate the answer to this. At the moment I’m not getting
them to design the experiments ... But I will pose the question in
the introduction; I will provide the materials for them and a set of
instructions to follow. So really in my case it’s reading to follow
instructions and then this is where we are starting this unit to
develop observation strategies. …so part of what goes with the
experiment is making sure they answer the questions that you
ask. So it’s all the questions. (emphasis added)
135
Purpose of student experiences: In a pattern supportive of the
hierarchical arrangement of the categories, student experiences were
important, but not focal, in teachers’ thinking during the Student Generated
Questions category. Teachers arranged various sensory experiences for
students in order for the students to answer their own questions. However, it
was student generated questions that guided the learning, not a focus on the
potential of student centred experiences. For example, after deciding what
undersea animal they wanted to learn about, teacher 6 reported:
T6 … in our computer time I taught them how to log on to Google
and search images and click on the images so they could see
without all the text that that was the creature that they were
focusing on. And look at what it looked like, and what it ate, and
that sort of thing.
Teacher 6 went on to provide many more experiences to help children
answer their questions regarding their under the sea animal. This included
talking to a visiting parent marine biologist, watching movies such as Finding
Nemo, reading books to the class, building a model of their animal, and
placing that model on a giant poster representing the depth at which the
creature lived. This purpose of student experiences in Category 3 is the
same as with Category 2, and both contrast with Category 1 where student
experiences are focal in teacher awareness.
Purpose of teacher generated problems: In Category 1 simple teacher
generated problems were part of the thematic field of teacher awareness. In
Category 2 teacher generated problems were the focus, and were more
challenging. Now, in Category 3, teacher generated problems of both kinds
are again used as only one way among many in supporting students to find
answers to their own questions. For example, giving students the challenge
to “light the light” (T4), or the challenge to get a Google Images picture of
their “under the sea animal” (T6) as part of a broader, question based inquiry.
Teacher generated problems were no longer the focus of teachers’
awareness, but were more a specific activity teachers may have drawn upon
in helping students to answer their own questions. Thus, teacher generated
problems formed a part of the Student Generated Questions category in a
136
manner supportive of the hierarchical arrangement of categories by
supporting Category 3 inquiry.
Purpose of student questions: In this category, student generated
questions are focal in teachers’ awareness as being integral to guiding the
teaching experience. This focus differs from the experience and problem
centred categories where student generated questions were used only in
support of the learning, rather than to guide it. Teachers scaffolded students
in selecting questions to be answered using both scientific and non-scientific
processes. Inquiry was seen as more engaging and worthwhile for students
because they were gaining skills in asking and answering their own
questions, and more enjoyable for teachers because the students were more
engaged. As teacher 8 explained:
T8 I just think inquiry, as I understand, that you follow this path of
finding an answer to a question and going through those
processes, I just think that it’s teaching children that they can
think and that they can ask questions and that sometimes there
are clear answers and easy answers and sometimes they’re
just complicated answers to questions.
Teacher epistemological beliefs: The source of knowledge during the
Student Generated Questions category was found to be an expert, which at
times may be the teacher. However, since the teacher is prepared to take the
role of co-learner more so than in the experience and problem centred
categories, the expert may also be a book, a visiting parent, a correctly
performed experimental proof, or a website. Never at any point in this study
did student interpretation of the data become the source of knowledge, not
unless the interpretation was first qualified and accepted by the expert,
usually the teacher. As this quote from teacher 12 illustrates, a right answer
is there to be found, even if the teacher is not the one who knows it:
T12 I was a Primary teacher back in 1979. That’s when I first started
teaching. Now, I went out to Tara which was outside Dalby and
I had Brooks books Grade six science. And it told you what to
do. And it said “Write this in the board and---“. Well … I’m so
embarrassed that this happened, my lesson was on erosion,
right? Do this, do this and it was talking about contour farming.
137
I’m not very bright. I’m sitting there. I’m teaching and this little
boy in the front row, his name was [Student]. I can still see him.
And he’s sitting there shaking his head. Just like this. [covers
her eyes, looks down, and shakes head slowly] And in those
days kids were very quiet. It suddenly occurred to me “Why am
I teaching?” [this students], father owned a million dollars worth
of farming equipment, who was the biggest wheat farmer in the
area, [knew] about contour farming. I just handed him the chalk,
sat down and said “[Student], you tell them.” And that for me
was a bit of a changing point when I realised that teachers
didn’t have to be the font of all knowledge because I didn’t know
anything. Yeah there’s a few embarrassing moments in that first
year of teaching. I remember somebody sitting me down one
day in the pub and saying “Now listen [Teacher], I’ve got to
teach you some facts of life about cows. They don’t actually
produce milk unless they have a calf.” [laughs] Hello?!?
(parenthesis added).
4.4.3 Conclusion
This section has discussed the teachers’ experience of inquiry
teaching as Student Generated Questions. Whether allowing students to
study the animal of their choice, or using the scientific method to find out
which towel is more absorbent, teachers use inquiry teaching to empower
students to ask and answer their own questions.
4.5 The Outcome Space
Sections 4.2 through 4.4 argued for, and discussed in detail, the three
categories in which teachers experience inquiry teaching. A presentation of
the outcome space for this study now follows, beginning with a comparison of
the How and What of the phenomenon.
4.5.1 Comparison of the how and what of inquiry teaching
This section compares the three categories in terms of the how and
what of the phenomenon, as follows in figure 4.5. This figure illustrates that
while each category has the same three learning outcomes (the direct object
138
of learning), each category has a different main focus. During the Student
Centred Experiences category the focus is on science concepts and
attitudes, during the Teacher Generated Problems category the focus is on
attitudes and skills, and during the Student Generated Questions category
the focus is on developing student skills.
Figure 4.5. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.
In terms of the act of teaching, teachers provide interesting
experiences, challenging problems, or guidance to help students to ask and
answer their own questions. However, a hierarchical arrangement can be
noted in the act of teaching in that teachers make use of the previous
categories to enact the current one.
In terms of the indirect object, a subtle hierarchical order may be
observed in terms of teachers’ expectation of the students’ responsibility for
D.O. Attitudes, Skills (concepts)
I.O. To encourage students
Act Provide problems
Teacher Generated Problems category
How
What
D.O. Concepts, Attitudes (skills)
I.O. To engage students
Act Provide experiences
Student Centred Experiences category
How
What
D.O. Skills (attitudes, concepts)
I.O. To empower students
Act Provide guidance
Student Generated Questions category
How
What
139
their own learning. When teachers implement inquiry teaching aligned with
Category 2 they expect students are responsible to be engaged participants
in the experiences the teacher has chosen for them, for example; asking
questions, being involved, and taking notes. During Category 2 teachers
encourage students to connect with learning outcomes and gain valuable
skills as students are given a problem to solve and need to decide how best
to do so. Unlike Category 1, students may now choose some of the
experiences they will have in order to answer the teachers’ question. This
challenge may involve mistakes and dead ends, as well as requiring students
to be engaged participants as per Category 1. When experiencing inquiry
teaching as Category 3, teachers assist students to determine the questions
that will guide their learning and face the challenge of how to best answer
those questions, as well as being active participants. By choosing and
answering questions students are empowered in their science education,
while teachers also expect students to be engaged in their science learning
experiences, and encouraged as they overcome any teacher generated
problems included in the learning.
4.5.2 Quantitative comparison of category frequency
Typically, phenomenography does not compare demographic
information regarding the number of subjects which experienced each
category as their dominant conception. This is because during analysis the
interview transcripts are considered as a whole, thus a single category of
description may express one possible way in which many participants, or the
same participant at different times, might experience a phenomenon (Marton
& Pong, 2005). However, some readers may find it informative to gain a
general sense of the spread of categories among participants. It was found
that of the participants, ten experienced Category 1, six experienced
Category 2, and four experienced Category 3 as their predominant but not
exclusive way of conceptualising inquiry teaching. Participants often
expressed diverse conceptions depending on the context. For example,
participant 8 experienced inquiry teaching as helping student to ask and
answer their own questions in the early childhood context, but when
140
discussing her work in upper primary was very focused on the student
experiencing content material.
4.5.3 Outcome space for the awareness structures
Table 4.5 overviews the outcome space for the three structures of
awareness as discussed in sections 4.2 to 4.4. As can be seen, the three
qualities that move into and out of awareness are the teacher acts of (a)
providing interesting physical experiences to students, (b) challenging
students with problems to solve or (c) helping students to ask and answer
their own questions. Each of these qualities is a central theme at a different
time depending on what category the teacher is employing. External to all
categories is the idea of transmissive or “chalk and talk” approaches to
inquiry teaching. Category 3 is seen as being the most expansive way of
experiencing inquiry teaching in science education.
Table 4.5
Outcome space for the awareness structures.
Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning)
Internal horizon (Theme and thematic field)
External horizon (context or margin)
Category 1-Student Centred Experiences
Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences to students
Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field -Student generated questions -Teacher generated problems
Transmissive approaches to teaching such as “Chalk and Talk”
Category 2-Teacher Generated Problems
Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems to students
Theme -Teacher generated problems Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Student generated questions
Inquiry must move beyond simply experiencing content outcomes. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context a teachers provide a challenging problem.
Category 3-Student Generated Questions
Meaning 3: Inquiry teaching is experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions
Theme -Student generated questions Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Teacher generated problems
Most inclusive definition. Also, students must be asking the questions to be answered, though teachers may direct them.
141
It is important to note that, as a hierarchical structure of awareness,
teachers who made use of the most inclusive Category 3 did at times provide
interesting experiences or challenging problems in order to teach. At the
other extreme, teachers who focused only on providing interesting
experiences (Category 1) did not focus on teacher problems or student
questions to guide their teaching. In Category 2, while teacher generated
problems were focal, student questions and student experiences were in the
thematic field of teacher awareness. Another way to visualise the
relationships among the categories is depicted schematically in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of the outcome space of teachers’ ways
of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education.
Figure 4.6 shows the three categories represented as three concentric
circles. In the centre, Category 1, Student Centred Experiences, is
represented as the most limited way of experiencing inquiry teaching, but it is
still a fundamental part contained within the teaching experiences of the other
two categories. At the other extreme, Category 3, Student Generated
Questions is seen as the broadest and most expansive way of experiencing,
and is represented by the largest circle. However, both categories 1 and 2
are subsumed within the circumference of Category 3, indicating that student
Category 3
Category 2
Category 1
142
centred experiences and teacher generated problems were both used within
Category 3.
4.5.4 Comparison of the Dimensions of variation
In this section I now compare the dimensions of variation that were
found across the three categories. Some dimensions of variation can be seen
to have logical progression among the categories, and are thus considered
themes of expanding awareness (see Chapter 3.1.4), as overviewed in Table
4.6.
Table 4.6
Summary of the dimensions of variation across categories
Student Centred Experiences (Category 1)
Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2)
Student Generated Questions (Category 3)
Role of the teacher
Knower, but not teller
Feigning ignorance Doesn’t know, willing to learn
Role of the student
Lowest agency– students did not choose content or activities (but were still very active participants)
Higher agency – students could now propose some content by suggesting solutions. (considered engaged participants)
Highest agency – students had a large say in content through selection of questions to be answered, and may have helped choose topic. Considered guided inquirers
Purpose of student experiences
Focal – directed learning and teaching experience
Supportive – one way teachers used to help students solve problems
Supportive – one way teachers used to help answer student questions
Purpose of teacher generated problems
Simple problems used to assist students to experience content.
Focal – Teaching structured around complex teacher generated problems
Supportive – one way teachers may have used to answer student questions
Role of student generated questions
Supportive-helped students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Supportive – help students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Focal – directed learning and teaching experience for students and teachers
Epistemological belief-Source of knowledge
The teacher (via student experiences)
The teacher (via student experiences)
An expert (usually teacher, but not always. Correctly performed experiments would yield expected results.)
143
Table 4.6 is a summary of the dimensions of variation for this study
which may be used to highlight logical relationships among the categories.
For instance, it can be seen that the role of the teacher and role of the
student both are themes of expanding awareness, complementing each other
as teachers progress from a somewhat teacher directed approach to the
more student directed Student Generated Questions category.
Epistemological beliefs in terms of the source of knowledge also progress
from categories 1 to 3 as teachers progress from being the holders of all
knowledge to being prepared to be co-learners with students. The
dimensions of variation and their relationships among categories will now be
discussed in greater detail.
Role of the teacher: All teachers saw themselves as facilitators during
inquiry teaching. However, it was noted that what it meant to be a facilitator
differed in each of the three main categories of inquiry teaching in a pattern
supportive of the hierarchical arrangement. The Student Centred
Experiences category was somewhat teacher directed: The teacher’s role
was to decide what the students were to learn, how to learn, to gather
equipment and manage student behaviour. They were to know the content
material and express it to students in an engaging and hands on manner.
The Teacher Generated Problems category was slightly less teacher
directed. During the Teacher Generated Problems category the teacher had
the same role, but now added feigning ignorance to their role of drawing out
student understandings. Teachers needed to know the best ways to
challenge students to think about and interpret their experiences.
The Student Generated Questions category was the least teacher
directed, but to call it entirely student directed may be inaccurate as teachers
still directed many aspects of the learning as with the previous categories.
During the Student Generated Questions category however, teachers now
allowed students some say in the direction the learning took. In particular,
students contributed to the decision of what content was important as they
negotiated the questions to be answered with the teacher. The teacher’s role
was to support students in answering their own questions rather than support
them in learning the teacher-driven content material of previous categories.
144
Thus, the role of the teacher can be seen as a theme of expanding
awareness among the three main categories.
Role of the student: In all forms of inquiry teaching, teachers
considered their practice student-centred. Teachers were concerned with
how students learnt, that learning was engaging, and that students were
learning things that were important and that would benefit them in the future
and the community as a whole. However, it was noted that the students’ role
differed in each of the three main categories of inquiry teaching in a pattern
supportive of the hierarchical arrangement.
During the Student Centred Experiences category, students were
active learners, getting in and having the experiences the teacher had
chosen for them. Students were expected to do such things as ask
questions, make observations, take notes, play with the equipment, share
ideas, listen respectfully, take turns, and talk to their peers about their
experiences.
During the Teacher Generated Problems category students built on
their role during Student Centred Experiences category to become what may
be considered an engaged learner. Students were not only paying attention
and participating, they were now proposing and testing solutions to the
problem. Students therefore experience a greater level of self directedness of
their learning during the Teacher Generated Problems category.
However, students experienced the highest level of self directedness
during the Student Generated Questions category. They were not only active
participants as per the Student Centred Experiences category, and engaged
participants as per the Teacher Generated Problems category, but they now
were able to negotiate content to be covered, and may perhaps be
considered guided inquirers. This role does not mean students were free to
come to any conclusion, or to pursue any question they liked. Teachers still
placed many subtle and overt restrictions on students’ knowledge creation,
the questions that were appropriate to ask, and the answers that were most
congruent with teacher understanding. There was still an expectation that the
teacher was in control of the overall learning experience. However, in
Category 3, students experienced the greatest level of student autonomy with
regards to their work as compared with previous categories.
145
Purpose of student experiences: A focus on student’s sensory
experiences, as based on their engagement with science materials, is the
focus of the Student Centred Experiences category and thus is also a part of
all other categories of inquiry. For example, in Category 3 teachers would
strive to give students meaningful experiences with science materials in order
to answer their own questions (for example, teacher 8 bringing in a fish for
students to touch during the “under the sea” unit). Also, student experiences
were used to help solve teacher generated problems (for example, teacher
14 allowing them to play with the plank and heavy box to help solve a
problem).
This quality of a focus on sensory experiences with materials appears
to be a secondary attribute that can be used to separate inquiry from other
learning experiences such as “chalk and talk” (T1). The first attribute is that
someone is asking a question, even if it’s not the teacher (see ‘role of student
questions’). Indeed, even in subjects other than science, students are
inquiring not so much when they are asking questions, but when they are
playing with materials. Inquiry might occur as maths inquiries with blocks or
technology inquiries (e.g., T10.) The importance teachers place on student
engagement with materials as a necessary quality of inquiry teaching is
discussed further in Chapter 5.
Purpose of teacher generated problems: Teacher generated problems
form a hierarchical arrangement among categories. In Category 1, teacher
generated problems are relatively simple, and are used to help students to
notice events or features of a system and express explanations, store up
experiences, propose causal links, and show interest. In Category 2, where
teacher generated problems are focal in teacher awareness, the kinds of
problems presented to students become more complex. Category 2 problems
require a definable, feasible and researchable question which usually
emerges from observations of a natural phenomenon and to which students
must apply some strategy. Finally, in Category 3, both kinds of problems are
used by teachers in the service of helping students to ask and answer their
own questions. As part of a Student Generated Questions category, for
example, a complex problem may involve challenging students to light a light
during a unit on energy (T4), while a simple challenge might involve having
146
students research and arrange ocean animals on a poster indicating
preferred depth (T6) as part of answering their own questions regarding sea
animals.
Purpose of student generated questions: In all categories, someone is
asking questions. This seems to be the defining attribute that qualifies a
teaching experience as inquiry in the minds of teachers, even if it is the
teacher who is asking most of the questions. In categories 1 and 2, questions
are predominantly asked by the teacher, who used them to guide learning,
focus student attention, and draw out student understanding. It appears that
teachers encouraged students to ask questions for at least two reasons, (a)
to help teachers assess student understanding and (b) to help students learn
by benefiting from engagement.
However, during the Student Generated Questions category, student
generated questions became the focus of the learning, and answering those
questions directed the learning experiences that teachers chose for their
students; whether it was experiencing content materials, solving a problem,
or conducting an experiment. In this way, the role of student questions is also
a theme of expanding awareness for this study. Questions start in a
supportive role by helping teachers assess student understanding and
increasing student engagement, and then become the purpose of the
learning experience and the focus of teacher awareness.
Epistemological beliefs: This thesis found qualitative variation in one
kind of epistemological belief, the source of knowledge. During categories 1
and 2 the ultimate source of knowledge was the teacher. During the Student
Generated Questions category the teacher was no longer the holder of all
scientifically acceptable answers, and thus the scope for understanding went
beyond the teacher to other experts, such as books or the internet.
However, teacher beliefs regarding the nature of student
understanding of scientific knowledge did not differ among categories. In all
categories, knowledge is gathered rather than created, though the process of
gathering that knowledge did differ between categories; from watching
demonstrations or experiencing materials in the Student Centred
Experiences category, through solving a problem during the Teacher
Generated Problems category, to concluding (correctly) on the results of their
147
own investigations during the Student Generated Questions category. This
effect of teacher beliefs of student understanding of scientific knowledge, as
well as teacher beliefs of the source of knowledge is explored further in
Chapter 5.
This section completes the discussion of the outcome space in terms
of the structure of awareness, qualitative comparison of categories, the how
and what of teaching, and dimensions of variation found in the study. A full
tabulated comparison of all categories can be found in Appendix C.
4.6 Conclusion
In summary, the three main categories in which teachers experience
inquiry teaching in science are the Student Centred Experiences category
(Category 1), the Teacher Generated Problems category (Category 2) and
the Student Generated Questions category (Category 3). These three form a
hierarchy with the most inclusive way of experiencing inquiry teaching being
the Student Generated Questions category. Teachers did not make use of
the language of educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically
with regards to there being levels of inquiry (National Research Council of
America, 2000), or terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-
Hansen, 2002). Teachers displayed limited epistemological beliefs of the
source of knowledge in science. The implications of these findings and their
relationship to established theoretical perspectives of science education will
be discussed in the next chapter.
148
149
Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendations
This study investigated the qualitatively different ways in which
primary school teachers experience inquiry teaching, and presented three
categories of description which were: Student Centred Experiences
(Category 1), where teachers focused on engaging students through
providing them with interesting sensory experiences; Teacher Generated
Problems (Category 2), where teachers focused on encouraging students
through helping them overcome challenging problems; and Student
Generated Questions (Category 3), where teachers focused on engaging
students through helping them to ask and answer their own questions. These
three categories form a hierarchy with the Student Generated Questions
category being the most inclusive way of experiencing or conceptualising
inquiry teaching. In the following chapter, general findings are discussed
emerging from the research results (Section 5.1). The findings are then
analysed in relation to the inquiry teaching literature (5.2), such as the US
National Standards (National Research Council of America, 2000; National
Science Board, 2007) and various models of inquiry teaching (Bybee, 2001;
Martin-Hansen, 2002). Issues of epistemology are highlighted with regards to
the results of this study (5.3), in particular regarding the Nature of Science
(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000) and the authentic science debate (Chinn
& Hmelo-Silver, 2002).
Research limitations and related areas of potential research are then
addressed (Section 5.4), including: (a) student outcomes; (b) congruency
between reported and actual teacher practice; (c) experiences of individual
teachers; (d) influence of issues of context; (e) inquiry teaching in other
curriculum areas; and (f) use of equipment. Finally, this chapter ends
discussing recommendations developed from the findings of this study. This
is dealt with in two sections; first, six specific recommendations are made to
help teachers implement Category 3 inquiry (5.5.1). Next, two
recommendations are made regarding the potential of this study to contribute
to further research and teacher education programs (5.5.2). General findings
are now addressed.
150
5.1 General findings
This study set out to explore teachers’ ways of experiencing inquiry
teaching in primary science education. It was found that teachers experience
inquiry teaching as Student Centred Experiences (Category 1), as Teacher
Generated Problems (Category 2), or as Student Generated Questions
(Category 3).
Teachers did not make use of educational terminology such as open
or guided to describe their conception of inquiry teaching (Martin-Hansen,
2002), nor did they talk about there being levels of inquiry teaching (National
Research Council of America, 2000). Also, while all teachers welcomed
student questions, few teachers talked about using student questions to
guide the teaching experience, even those making use of the 5E’s method of
instruction (Bybee, 2001). Epistemologically teachers appeared to be
operating under an alternative conception regarding constructivism, for
example, expecting scientific knowledge to be derived from expert sources
rather than student analysis of the results of their own or others experiments.
These results also help inform the theoretical understanding of teacher
conceptions of inquiry teaching. Knowing what teachers actually experience
as inquiry teaching, as opposed to understand theoretically, is a valuable
contribution to the literature. This knowledge provides a valuable contribution
to educational theory, helping policy, curriculum development, and the
practicing primary school teachers to more fully understand and implement
the best educative practices in their daily work. Suggestions for how this
might come about are dealt with in Section 5.5, however, an in depth review
of the research findings as they relate to the literature as presented in
Chapter 2 is necessary in order to interrogate the findings in the light of
contemporary understandings.
5.2 Comparison with definitions of inquiry teaching
I will now consider definitions of inquiry teaching with the conceptions
uncovered in this study. The National Science Board of America (2007)
defines inquiry experiences as a “Process in which students investigate,
work-through, and solve problems” (p.83). The focus in this definition is on
problems and not on students asking and answering their own questions,
151
which as a related teaching practice would make it equivalent to Category 2.
This quote is contrasted with the definition of inquiry teaching in Justice et al.
(2009, p. 843) that “inquiry refers to instructional practices designed to
promote the development of high order intellectual and academic skills
through student-driven and instructor-guided investigations of student
generated questions” which as a teaching practice would be clearly
congruent with Category 3 in terms of the role of student questions. This also
shows that some formalised definitions of student inquiry and thus inquiry
teaching are built on teacher generated problems, not student generated
questions, and thus may not be representative of the broadest conception
among teachers of inquiry teaching as uncovered in this study.
DeBoer (2004) defined inquiry teaching as “…a broad array of
approaches that has as its most general characteristic a problem to be
solved or a question to be answered.” This definition appears to include both
categories 2 and 3 from this study; however, this definition does not say
whose question guides the teaching experience, the students or teachers.
Thus the role of student questions is left unclear in the literature, and it is
hoped that the findings of this study might clarify the issue, demonstrating
two distinct categories (categories 2 and 3). In the current study it is either
the students’ questions (Category 3) or teacher problems (Category 2) that
guide inquiry teaching, thus indicating what category of inquiry teaching they
are applying through their use of student questions in teaching.
The Deboer (2004) definition also excludes Category 1, though
perhaps student centred experiences may be assumed to be part of what it
means to solve problems or answer questions. However, the findings of the
current study indicate that some teachers focus on the hands on experiences
and do not structure their teaching around problems or student questions at
all. Inservice programs need to be aware of this potential limitation in teacher
conceptions should teachers be presented with DeBoer’s definition at
inservice. Teacher education may be informed by knowing that some
teachers will not perceive inquiry teaching as being able to be structured
around teacher generated problems or student generated questions, and
making teachers aware of possible variation in their thinking may assist in
152
helping them to experience broader and more expansive conceptions of
inquiry teaching than they might otherwise have experienced.
This discussion indicates that the teacher education literature has
developed and continues to develop definitions of inquiry teaching separate
from the language and knowledge teachers use in describing their
conceptions. None of the existing definitions of inquiry teaching adequately
encompassed the full range of teacher understanding as evidenced in this
study.
To further illustrate this point, many theoretically derived definitions of
inquiry teaching taken from the literature strive to base the pedagogical
approach on authentic scientific inquiry as it occurs in the community (Chinn
& Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Schwartz & Crawford, 2004; Watters & Diezmann,
2004). The definitions of both scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching given by
Sandoval (2005) may also be meaningfully contrasted with the results of this
study:
Inquiry generally refers to a process of asking questions,
generating and pursuing strategies to investigate those
questions by generating data, analysing and interpreting those
data, drawing conclusions from them, communicating those
conclusions, applying conclusions back to the original question,
and perhaps following up on new questions that arise… As an
instructional method, inquiry can occur along a continuum of
more to less structure. (pp. 636-7)
This quote demonstrates that inquiry teaching can be seen as an
instructional method based on authentic scientific inquiry as practiced by
scientists. Inquiry is seen as applying methods and processes to answer
questions. It may be observed that, at its best, Category 3 is most similar to
this definition, but it was noted in the current study that most teachers did not
achieve a Category 3 experience of inquiry teaching. Also, the phrase
“drawing conclusions from them [data]” (p. 636) is particularly telling as in
each category, the source of curriculum knowledge was the teacher or
another expert, rather than the empirical evidence from which students based
their own conclusions.
153
The decision to base scientific conclusions on expert advice rather
than empirical evidence appears to be another gap between school science
inquiry and scientific inquiry as it is practiced by scientists in the community,
(e.g. Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Goodrum et al.,
2001; Lotter et al., 2007; Watters & Diezmann, 2004). For instance, the US
NRC (1996) defines scientific inquiry as “…the diverse ways in which
scientists study the natural worlds and propose explanations based on the
evidence derived from their work.” It may be noted that few teachers in this
study were basing knowledge claims on student conclusions, most often
expecting an expert source of knowledge to define what knowledge was
accurate and what was not. However, each category of inquiry teaching in
this study drew on helping students learn from their experiences, which is
seen here as a positive step towards making decisions based on evidence.
This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.3 epistemology and the nature of
science.
This chapter now turns to a discussion of the formal models of inquiry
teaching that were introduced in Section 2.3.4.
5.2.1 Comparison with theoretical models of inquiry teaching
In general, it is concluded that the difference between teachers’
conceptions of inquiry teaching and formal models of inquiry teaching is
substantial. No formalised definition or model from the literature corresponds
to the teachers’ actual ways of experiencing inquiry teaching as found in this
study. This anomaly is especially apparent in the failure of teachers to use
any language promoted by theoretical models in describing their practice,
which also indicates that actual teacher conceptions are clearly not being
represented by theoretical models promoted thus far.
The results of this study are now situated in the broader context of
science teacher education. A significant finding of this research is that the
most expansive conception of inquiry teaching as found in this research
(Category 3) is not represented in some of the theorised models of inquiry
teaching (Section 2.3.4). Table 5.1 (page 177) compares the results of this
study with the NRC (2000), Martin-Hansen (2002) and Bybee’s 5E’s (2001)
descriptions of inquiry teaching.
154
Table 5.1
Comparison of results with major models of inquiry teaching.
Current thesis
NRC of America (2000) From less (level 1) to more (level 4) teacher direction.
Martin-Hansen (2002) Open (full), coupled, guided, structured (closed).
5E’s, Bybee (2001) Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate.
Student Centred Experiences
Most similar to level 4 teacher directed, however, students may have been encouraged to gather own evidence and conclude on it from their own experiences (albeit pending teacher approval)
Structured inquiry relates strongly to Category 1, however, Student Centred Experiences inquiry is more student centred than the “following recipes” description of structured inquiry in the Martin-Hansen text.
Both Category 1 and 2 fit very well within the 5E’s model.
Teacher Generated Problems
Category 2 relates to Level 2 (and somewhat 3), though they may have been told how to analyse data.
Guided inquiry matches well with Category 2 – both focus on having the teacher select topic and challenge students to answer teacher generated questions.
Both Category 1 and 2 fit very well within the 5E’s model.
Student Generated Questions
Category 3 of this study corresponds well with Level 1 in terms of students identify and posing questions, however students may not have been given data and told how to analyse when teachers are acting as knowers, but not tellers.
Open or Full inquiry (also, the open inquiry section of Coupled inquiry) match reasonably well with Category 3 – however the Martin-Hansen paper does not explicitly allow for material-less inquiry such as library search
However, Category 3 is not at all like the 5E’s model in that at all times a challenge or experience as designated by the teacher guides the teaching, and not student questions at all.
Many points of congruency may be found between the current study
and the studies cited, for instance, some similarity exists between Category 2
and each of the studies cited (Bybee, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002; National
Research Council of America, 2000). In other ways, there are clear
mismatches between the studies. The Martin-Hansen (2002) model is fairly
similar, with each category from this study matching on to a level of the
155
Martin-Hansen model. However, the Martin-Hansen model does not explicitly
allow for inquiry that does not require science equipment and materials, such
as library search, as this study does.
The theoretical model of the NRC (2000) is found to present a
mismatch in terms of teacher understanding and terminology. When teachers
are experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1 as per this study, the role of
the question may be level 4 teacher directed as per the NRC definition.
However, at the same time the role of evidence and attending explanations is
found to be more appropriate to level 2 in the NRC – teachers are striving to
help students decide or discover content material from their own
experiences. Knowing teacher understanding in terms of these qualities is
one of the great advantages of this study over theoretically derived
definitions.
The 5E’s model (Bybee 2001) was found to be lacking in that while
student questions are valued and encouraged, at no point does the model
explicitly consider that such questions could guide and structure the inquiry
teaching experience. While students may often select a problem during the
elaborate phase, questions are not guiding the teaching experience. In this
manner, Category 3 ways of experiencing inquiry teaching are potentially
absent from the 5E’s model of inquiry teaching. This absence leads us to ask
if the 5E’s model is limited in the following way – if authentic inquiry is taken
as structuring teaching around student generated questions, as in Category 3
of this study, is the 5E’s model, while engaging, failing to emulate authentic
inquiry if it does not explicitly solicit and explore student questions during the
teaching experience?
This continues to illustrate that curriculum documents and educational
theory are somewhat at odds with the actual teacher conceptions of inquiry
teaching as found in this study. Perhaps this disparity is made most clear by
the fact that teachers did not make use of educational theorist terminology in
reference to their actual work. Terms such as open, guided and free inquiry
(Martin-Hansen, 2002) were not part of teacher vocabulary when discussing
their practice of inquiry teaching in the classroom. Also, teachers’
understanding was not influenced by the idea of different kinds or levels of
inquiry teaching (for example, simple or authentic) – teachers spoke about
156
their work as being inquiry teaching or not: there were no levels in teacher
language. These points indicate that, at least with every teacher in this study,
such models of inquiry have not yet had a lasting effect on the meaning and
language teachers used to describe their conceptions of inquiry teaching.
The purpose of this study has been to find out what language and ideas are
being used by teachers, as part of their conceptions of inquiry teaching.
This section has compared the findings of this study with definitions of
inquiry teaching and theoretical models as presented in the literature, finding
that teachers hold several alterative beliefs compared to the literature. These
comparisons will now continue to be explored though a focus on teachers’
epistemological beliefs as uncovered by this study.
5.3 Epistemology and the nature of science
Similar to other studies performed in this area, this research found that
teachers’ scientific epistemologies, or beliefs about the Nature of Science
(NOS), were incongruent with the formal account of science presented in the
literature review (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Fazio, 2005; Seroussi, 2005).
To illustrate, the five characteristics given by Perla and Carifio (2008) on the
nature of science as distilled from the literature and national science
curriculum documents are compared here with the general results of this
thesis in Table 5.2.
Although these general findings are congruent with findings in the
NOS literature, some specific points need to be mentioned. In particular
teachers seemed to hold alternative beliefs rather than beliefs informed by
social constructivist learning theories. Teachers acted as though a correct
answer was waiting to be found in science (Section 4.5.3 teachers role,
epistemological beliefs), rather than being created and tested through
scientific processes of knowing (Prosser et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain,
1992). This may well be due to misunderstandings on the part of teachers in
regards to the nature of a constructivist viewpoint. For example, teacher 18
indicated that a constructivist viewpoint meant that the children “rule the
room”. However, constructivism as a referent for learning does not
necessarily mean this at all. Constructivism can be used to inform inquiry
157
teaching as teachers find ways to connect with student understandings and
student desires for learning, rather than simply making absorbing knowledge
more fun by bringing in interesting things to see and touch (Abruscato, 2001;
Hodson & Hodson, 1998).
Table 5.2
Comparison of Perla and Carifio (2008) and the current study
Perla and Carifio definition of NOS
Current study
Science is empirical
While scientific knowledge was experienced experientially, it was not created by forming and testing hypothesis.
Science is a human enterprise
These results do not comment on this quality. It is expected that individual teachers differed in their approach.
Science involves creativity and human imagination
Students were generally encouraged to involve creativity in terms of finding ways to experience and explore content, at times students were encouraged to simply play with materials. However, creativity in terms of the generation and testing of hypothesis was only observed, and then only briefly, in Category 3.
Scientific knowledge is subjective and theory laden
Scientific knowledge was not treated as subjective or theory laden.
Scientific knowledge is stable yet tentative.
Either scientific knowledge was treated as stable, or there was something considered at fault with the teaching process or learners themselves.
It was noted that teachers held limited conceptions with regards to the
epistemology of science in other important ways. For example there was an
idea, present in all categories, that experiments can go “wrong” (T3 and T10
mentioned this in particular), meaning that a scientific demonstration did not
go as planned and that, therefore, the students’ or teacher’s knowledge must
be faulty in some way. This idea is contrasted to the thinking, absent in this
study, that the experiment had performed exactly as it should as an
expression of the laws of nature. Teacher thinking along these former lines
also implies that experiments are used to prove a point, not to answer
questions and test hypotheses which is more congruent with the modern
account of the epistemology of science (Windschitl, 2004).
158
Teacher epistemological beliefs around the source of knowledge,
being from expert opinion or student’s analysis of evidence, has been
mentioned as one of the more significant findings of this study. From the
definition of Eastwell (2008); “An inquiry activity is one that requires students
to answer a scientific question by analysing raw, empirical data themselves”
(p. 31), it can be seen that all categories in this study involve answering a
question (student or teachers’) and all involve students interpreting data.
Thus, according to this definition, all forms of inquiry represented in this
thesis are potentially inquiry. The difficulty lies in teacher epistemological
beliefs – students were concluding what teachers expected, even incorrectly,
rather than using evidence and logic as the source of knowledge as this
definition seems to imply. This failure to meet the epistemological standards
of the literature is the motivation behind the NOS movement, especially with
regards to evidence as opposed to authority based decision making
(Osborne & Collins, 2003). Several studies strive to place evidence highly as
an epistemological standard in science, for example, “Students using
evidence to defend their conclusions.” (Harwood et al., 2006, p. 72) and
“Learner gives priority to evidence” (National Research Council of America,
2000, p. 42). Even certain definitions of scientific literacy require students to
be able to “draw evidence-based conclusions” (Goodrum et al., 2001, p. ix).
Teachers appear to be looking for a fun, hands on activity that
engages students and potentially helps make them better people. Teacher
educators are looking to train a scientifically literate generation (Goodrum et
al., 2001), through student experiences that are more closely aligned with
authentic science (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002) and require students to
create knowledge rather than absorb it in new and entertaining ways
(Colburn, 2000). Part of the reason for this difference in aims could be the
differences in epistemological beliefs of teachers and teacher educators.
Teachers appear to have limited epistemological beliefs with regards to
science: using it to prove a point rather than test an idea, using creativity to
explore content but not to create or test hypothesis. Section 5.5,
recommendations, continues the discussion regarding this gap and potential
ways to bridge teacher and teacher educators’ expectations for inquiry
teaching.
159
This section has discussed the role of several epistemological beliefs
held by teachers and their effects on their experience of inquiry teaching in
the science classroom. Before a discussion of the recommendations can be
enjoined, potential limitations of the study should be discussed in order to
explore the limitations of the current study, including discussions of potential
ways to address said limitations.
5.4 Limitations
Based on the findings and observations made during the study,
limitations and related areas of potential research include: (a) student
outcomes; (b) congruency between reported and actual teacher practice; (c)
experiences of individual teachers; (d) influence of issues of context; (e)
inquiry teaching in other curriculum areas; and (f) use of equipment.
It is important to note that this study does not compare teacher
experiences with student outcomes. That is, this phenomenographic study
cannot say what effect each category has in terms of outcomes for students.
This limitation is the first area of potentially fertile future research; that is, if
teachers are striving to engage students by giving them experiences that
empower students while helping them answer questions, what are the
outcomes for students? Such an experimental study could conceivably take
place by first interviewing teachers to assess their dominant conception of
inquiry teaching, then comparing their students’ results with national
averages, taking care to control for local factors such as socioeconomic
status of the school intake population. Other measures of data gathering
should also include viewing the teacher in practice to assess the teachers’
general style of teaching, such as may be achieved through video data.
Information about teacher views of science (such as the VNOS-C, Lederman,
Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) and science education in general
should also be gathered.
The purpose of such a study would be to uncover if teacher
implementation of Category 3 results in the highest outcomes for students. It
is expected that other qualities such as teacher experience with teaching,
160
views of the nature of science, or teacher engagement with the community of
science educators will be greater predictors of student achievement than the
categorisation scheme from this study. However, student ability to perform in
inquiry based situations is expected to be positively correlated.
Second, the study is limited in that it was not able to compare reports
of teacher practice with video/audio recordings of actual practice. Further
research should be conducted to compare observations of teacher practice
with their interview data (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Such research would
have the benefit of comparing the espoused categories of conceptions to
teacher practice. A measure of incongruence might be evident, though this
incongruence will have been minimalised by the use of practical examples in
the interview data and the use of a very specific, rather than general,
phenomenon under investigation (Ajzen, 2005, see also section 2.4.3).
Third, as a phenomenographic study data are analysed in such a way
as to categorise individual conceptions, blurring the line between individuals
and potentially diluting the richness of individual experiences for the purpose
of developing the outcome space. That is, the findings of this study do not
provide a detailed description of all the possible ways of experiencing, nor do
they describe individual differences in experiencing (Prosser, Martin, Trigwell,
Ramsden, & Lueckenhausen, 2005). Having grouped the individual teacher’s
conceptions of inquiry teaching, further research could therefore be
undertaken to compare individual teachers’ execution of inquiry teaching in
light of the research findings herein. Such research could serve to highlight
the individual differences in the expression of each category which could help
to unpack the underlying beliefs of teaching, learning and assessment that
inform a teacher’s decision to use a particular category.
Such a study would also help answer how some teachers come to
believe in allowing students to answer questions, rather than just providing
students with challenges or experiences. Adding to our understanding of the
influences in teacher belief in science education, such as helping students to
ask and answer their own questions, would be a valuable contribution to the
literature and a potential outcome of such research.
Fourth, an accepted limitation of phenomenography is that it is a
“snapshot” (Åkerlind et al., 2005, p. 81), commenting on only a small number
161
of people and only over the time of data gathering. Potential research should
be undertaken to explore whether the categories here uncovered are
represented in: (a) the primary school teacher population at large; (b) primary
school teachers in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts; and (c)
teachers at institutions such as early childhood and tertiary settings. It would
be valuable to explore teachers at different times to explore possible
variables that influence variations in understanding over time.
A fifth possible limitation is that the study was designed to uncover
conceptions in the science curriculum only. Potential research may include
other curriculum areas. As an inclusive yet parsimonious categorisation
scheme it may be that the three categories will be expressed in some form
even in other curriculum areas such as English, Mathematics, and Religious
Education. That is, for example, do Religious education teachers make use
of inquiry teaching to focus on: (a) providing interesting experiences to
students; (b) giving them problems to solve; or (c) helping students to ask
and answer their own questions. A phenomenographic study such as the one
undertaken here would suffice to answer this research question, and it is
predicted that similar results will be uncovered, given the unique
characterisations of each curriculum context.
Sixth, another finding of the study was the apparent perception among
teachers that science education is intrinsically tied up with the use of
equipment (see Section 4.5.3). This study was limited in that it could not
devote sufficient time to exploring this perception. This emphasis on
equipment included objects such as thermometers, special chemicals, and so
on, as well as more mundane equipment such as string, cups, and plastic
bags for the purpose of conducting class activities. Science education was
sometimes seen as hard not because of the content required, but the time
and expense it incurred on teachers to gather the necessary equipment. This
is an interesting perception which may be holding teachers back, and the
attending beliefs should be further explored. Questions should be asked such
as: (a) Do teachers’ perceptions of inquiry go beyond materials?; (b) Does
this idea contribute to a misunderstanding on the part of teachers that
science education is about demonstrating ideas rather than constructing and
challenging ideas?; (c) Does this idea indicate that science is seen as a
162
distinct curriculum area, and not a way of knowing that can inform many
curriculum areas?
Conclusion to section
This study has explored several limitations and proposed several
potential research agendas. It has been a major contention of this study that
one important cause of the inability of many professional development
programs to change teacher conceptions of teaching science though inquiry
might be a misunderstanding of their conceptions in the first place (Sandoval,
2005). The effect of developing and implementing a professional
development program based on the findings of this study, including sharing
the outcome space and discussing and comparing the conceptions therein, is
certainly an area of potential research, and is one of the topics discussed in
the next section.
5.5 Recommendations
This section will now discuss the recommendations ensuing from this
thesis. This will be dealt with in two sections; first, six specific
recommendations are made to help teachers implement Category 3 inquiry
(5.4.1). Next, two recommendations are made regarding the potential of this
study to contribute to further research and teacher education programs
(5.4.2).
5.5.1 Recommendations for implementing Category 3 inquiry
Having considered that Category 3, Student Generated Questions, is
the most inclusive and broadest way of experiencing inquiry teaching, I now
turn to a discussion of potential ways in which teachers may begin to
experience this category more often in their daily practice. As a second
generational developmental phenomenographic study (Section 3.1.3),
recommendations for assisting participants to implement the highest and
most inclusive category is seen as appropriate.
As a hierarchy, Category 3 is inclusive of activities typically connected
with the Teacher Generated Problems or Student Centred Experiences
categories. Examples include the teacher generated challenge to light a light
as part of an introduction into a student generated questions inquiry into
163
energy (T4), or structured library searches about insects as students strive to
answer their own questions about bugs (T6). The primary difference is that in
Category 3, questions generated by the students themselves play a far
greater role in the teachers’ thinking, planning and enactment of inquiry
teaching, rather than the supportive role students’ questions play when
categories 1 and 2 are the limit of teacher’s experience. By bringing Student
Generated Questions into the forefront of teacher thinking and planning it is
expected that teacher practice will draw nearer to emulating the best practice
advocated by expert teachers and teacher educators (National Curriculum
Board, 2009; National Research Council of America, 2000; Osborne &
Collins, 2003). For example, encouraging teachers to use Category 3 may be
seen as an important step towards students to develop the kinds of scientific
literacy advocated by in the literature where students are able to “identify
questions and draw evidence-based conclusions” (Goodrum et al., 2001, p.
ix).
Six specific recommendations are here proposed which could assist
teachers to implement Category 3. They are: (a) Making teachers aware of
the categories of conceptions uncovered in this study; (b) Making use of the
KWL technique in science education; (c) Challenging teacher epistemological
beliefs to allow the source of knowledge in science education to be evidence
and not just expert opinion, thus allowing students to be creators and not just
consumers of knowledge; (d) Using more appropriate terminology in the
classroom; (e) During inquiry units based on the 5E’s method, making special
effort to validate and explore student generated questions during the explore
and elaborate phases; (f) helping teachers see how Category 3 can be
successfully applied at all year levels.
The first way in which teachers could experience Category 3 inquiry
teaching more often is to make them aware of the outcome space as
presented in this study, highlighted with illustrative examples of teacher
practice and thinking. Making teachers aware of their own and other
teachers’ thinking can help them challenge their long term practices and
attending epistemological beliefs regarding science and inquiry teaching
(Porlán & Pozo, 2004). In a sense, by helping them experience variation in
ways to conceptualise the phenomenon, it is hoped they can begin to
164
challenge their own expectations and experience learning in this regard.
Naturally, research should be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of such
a claim.
Second, teachers should allow student questions to move more into
the focus of their curriculum and planning, which will also empower teachers
by improving student engagement in the science lessons (Windschitl, 2004).
One way this may hypothetically be achieved is to use the KWL technique
advocated by Primary Connections (Hackling et al., 2007) and other
professional development programs, and further research needs to be
undertaken to validate this claim. There appears to be a relation between
teacher experience of Category 3 and use of the KWL technique: Teachers
4,8,17 and 18 all mentioned the KWL technique in this study, all but teacher
17 expressing a Category 3 conception at least once.
During KWL technique, students answer the following question at the
beginning of a unit of work: “What do I know?”, then during the unit “What do
I want to know?”, then during and at the end of the unit “What have I learnt?”
One indication of this study is that good science teaching does make use of
student experiences and of teacher generated problems, but does so in the
context of helping students to ask and answer their own questions. The KWL
is one way in which more teachers may potentially experience Category 3
inquiry teaching.
Third, in line with many other studies of teacher epistemological
beliefs, teachers’ conceptions uncovered in this study do not match with the
literature regarding what is termed the source of knowledge in science in this
study. There appears among teachers in this study an underlying belief that
scientific knowledge is fixed, that science exists primarily as a body of
knowledge to be memorised. One implication from this study that may help
teachers to experience inquiry teaching as student generated questions
would be to help teachers understand science as a way of knowing as well
as a body of knowledge. Compared with previous categories, teachers in
Category 3 were beginning to relinquish the need to be all knowing and were
prepared to be co-learners with students. However, it was found that at no
point did student interpretation of data become the source of knowledge for
students or teachers.
165
This understanding would be achieved if students were encouraged
though inquiry teaching to be creators and not just consumers of knowledge.
For example, teachers could be encouraged to allow students to conclude on
the interpretation of data even if it contradicts formal understandings, and
present the formal interpretations as educated reasoning rather than divinely
appointed truth. This will have the result of making the correction of student
misconceptions a matter of evidence and discussion, rather than subjugation
and memorisation. By owning their own conclusions students are brought
into discussion (rather than compliance) with the ideas and conclusions of
scientists throughout history. Teachers should encourage student creation of
knowledge though analysis of the interpretation of data as it supports the
development of authentic scientific literacy in students.
Also, as teachers adopt Category 3 they allow themselves to become
co-learners with students, seeing their role no longer as the exclusive holder
of answers (see Section 4.4.2 ‘teachers role’ under dimensions of variation).
This will help teachers to bring student generated questions more into the
focus of their teaching as facilitators of student understanding. The message
of teacher educators is that science education is not just more exciting
experiments or making absorbing knowledge more fun (Hodson & Hodson,
1998). Science education is the creation of knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick &
Lederman, 2000). It is expected that teachers will be empowered as they
strive to teach students the strengths, limitations and actual processes
scientists use in the creation of knowledge – to convince students through
their own experiences that they too can be creators of scientific knowledge
and active participants in the scientific debates in society (Chinn & Malhotra,
2002).
Related to this point of helping students become creators of
knowledge, a fourth important recommendation from this study is that
teachers could make more appropriate use of scientific terminology in their
teaching. This recommendation may be implemented with the formal
understanding and therefore use of such teaching terms as open and
confirmation inquiries. Also, it may be helpful for teachers to begin to
discriminate scientific demonstrations of a concept from experiments where
the goal is to test an idea. This understanding may also be reflected in their
166
language use as they avoid calling every activity in science an experiment.
Teachers were found to hold alterative conceptions of the definition of the
word ‘experiment’ (see Section 5.3) in this study. The epistemological belief
inherent in the informal use of the word experiment to mean activity portrays
science in the classroom as an activity where scientific knowledge is
demonstrated and absorbed not where scientific knowledge is constructed
and rigorously tested.
Fifth, it was noted that the 5E’s approach, while engaging, might not
be sufficiently representative of authentic inquiry as it is practiced by some
teachers. This is especially pertinent in the Australian context as the
emerging National Curriculum intends to make extensive use of Primary
Connections, a professional development program that relies heavily on the
5E’s method (Hackling et al., 2007). One way in which the 5E’s method may
be improved towards more Category 3 inquiry might be if during the
Elaborate phase, students have the opportunity to ask and then later
research answers to their own questions, perhaps using such techniques as
the KWL mentioned previously. As is advised during the 5E’s method,
students should be encouraged to apply their knowledge to a problem that
might be of personal interest, and be allowed to play with equipment before
and afterwards, in order to help them express and explore the personal
questions they have regarding the content material. Asking and seeking
answers to student questions, even if no answer is immediately forthcoming,
should be seen as a more desirable outcome of science education than pure
content knowledge memorisation.
Finally, an important finding of this study was that teachers’
conceptions of inquiry teaching act somewhat independently of year level or
level of student understanding (4.1.5). In encountering professional
development and inservice training, some teachers may see Category 1 as
belonging to early childhood settings where students possess less
knowledge, and Category 3 as only possibly in settings where students have
greater knowledge such as upper year levels or even tertiary settings.
However, the ability to ask and answer one’s own questions should be
emphasised as possible at all year levels, indeed, even more so in the early
childhood setting where the majority of Category 3 examples from this study
167
are found. Category 3 does require greater scaffolding in order to help
students ask and answer their own questions than Category 1, yet even
preparatory aged children (4 to 6 year olds) engaged in the processes the
teacher employed. Certain kinds of Category 3 inquiries, such as testing for
viscosity or measuring the effectiveness of bubble gum, might be best left to
upper year levels after sufficient scaffolding in terms of necessary knowledge
has been applied. But it is strongly advocated that the general principal of
engaging children though asking and answering their own questions guide
teachers at any year level.
Conclusion to section
In conclusion, one significant finding in regards to the unity of the
indirect objects. Teachers are looking for students to have positive and
motivating experiences with science (engaged, encouraged, empowered).
With this aim in mind, it may be that teachers have less time and inclination
to focus on the content outcomes of science education during inquiry
teaching. Perhaps the Student Generated Question category can assist. If in
Category 3 students are answering their own questions and teachers really
are prepared to be co-learners with students; if expert sources are treated
more as evidence and not the final word on truth, then teachers may
experience a more inclusive conception of inquiry teaching. Seen this way,
even library research may potentially be a form of constructivist informed
inquiry, and not the gathering, memorisation and regurgitation of facts.
Perhaps by encouraging teachers to experience Category 3 more often, and
continuing the struggle to help teachers connect with the actual
epistemological understandings of modern science, the gap between the
teacher understanding of inquiry teaching and theoretically derived definitions
may be narrowed.
5.5.2 Recommendations for general education
The previous section dealt with suggestions for scaffolding teachers’
experience of Student Generated Questions inquiry. The following two
recommendations apply the findings of this study to general education in
regards to: (a) dimensions of variation in educational research; and (b) the
categories of description.
168
First, previous studies have mentioned the importance of using
dimensions of variation to understanding the nature of conceptions (Åkerlind,
2004), and that such dimensions may be more enduring than the
categorisation schemes of which they are a part (Samuelowicz & Bain,
1992). For example, the role of the teacher as a dimension of variation in
many studies has clearly outlived any individual categorisation scheme these
studies have presented. From this study, the role of student, role of teacher,
and the epistemological beliefs regarding source of knowledge are
dimensions of variation that are all mentioned in other studies. However, the
three main dimensions that make up the themes of the categories
themselves – purpose of student experiences, purpose of teacher generated
problems, and purpose of student generated experiences – are all new
dimensions in the literature, and are therefore worthy of further research to
uncover their relationship to other dimensions and influence on teacher
conceptions. The derivation of these new dimensions may be one of the most
important and unique contributions of this study. A recommendation is made
that these three new dimensions of variation be given far more attention in
future studies seeking to explore teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching,
even in non-science curricula.
Second, the primary aim of this study was to add to our theoretical
understanding of teacher knowledge by mapping teachers’ conceptions of
inquiry teaching. One use of this understanding may be to inform preservice
and inservice instruction. Prosser et al. (1994) found that professional
development programs that focused on teaching strategies without regard to
the conceptions underlying those strategies were unlikely to be successful. A
major contribution of this study is to inform teacher educators with regards to
teachers’ potential responses to professional development, especially as new
innovations in education are contrasted against pre-existing conceptions
(Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Sandoval, 2005).
For example, if a teacher’s conception of inquiry teaching is that it is
about engaging students through interesting sensory experiences, efforts to
change teacher practice through professional development programs to more
student-centred authentic inquiry may fail. To such a teacher, inquiry
169
teaching is about interesting experiences, and all new activities promoted as
inquiry are seen in light of that conception. Thus new activities are judged
valuable if they promote student engagement, and not because they help
students learn how to ask and answer their own questions. Epistemologically,
such teachers may be expected to see the source of knowledge in science
education as themselves, and not students’ conclusions on their own
experiences. Another potential error of perception may include that if a
teacher is expecting that inquiry teaching is about providing student centred
experiences (Category 1), then they may be expected to use student
questions to highlight and engage students, rather than as an important tool
to guiding the entire teaching experience (Category 3).
Likewise, if a teacher conceives of inquiry teaching as essentially
giving students challenging problems, it may be expected that most teachers
will mould professional development initiatives to fit this conception rather
than actively confronting their perceptions and altering their conception of
inquiry teaching itself. For example, they may see a program of soliciting
student questions for exploring circuit work as part of a process that engages
students, rather than the focus that can guide their teaching. In Category 2,
the role of student questions is downgraded to indicating student
engagement rather than fulfilling the potential of directing student learning.
Also, epistemological beliefs regarding the source of knowledge may be
expected to be as found in this study, and not as envisioned by program
developers. While solving problems, teachers are expecting students to find
the correct answer, rather than helping students to make informed decisions
based on evidence. Knowledge is treated as coming from the teacher as
illustrated by the experiment, not from students concluding on the data, as
Hackling (2005) envisioned.
These difficulties are distinctly different to the challenges of
implementing inquiry teaching outlined in Section 2.3.5. With the situation of
non-implementation of inquiry teaching in schools, studies must look
elsewhere to explore reasons why the best educative methods are not being
used. This study has found that one potential area is that many teachers’
conceptions are not congruent with the most expansive way of experiencing
inquiry teaching. That is – they perceive inquiry teaching as being about
170
providing interesting experiences or challenging problems, not as a chance to
help students to ask and answer their own questions. While these
conceptions still have their place, this study indicates that inquiry teaching is
more than helping students to solve problems as is the focus during problem
based learning (Kanter, 2010), and more than helping students experience
science as per the discovery learning movement (Kowalczyk, 2003).
Pedagogical practices that hope to achieve the greatest outcomes for
students through inquiry teaching should look beyond motivating students
through interesting experiences, and beyond challenging them with teacher
generated problems, to actually scaffolding students in asking and answering
their own questions.
Conclusion to section
Having teachers experience the qualitatively different ways of
experiencing inquiry teaching uncovered in this study is expected to help
teachers to move towards a more student-centred, authentic inquiry outcome
for their students and themselves. Going beyond this to challenge teacher
epistemological beliefs regarding the source of knowledge may also assist
them in developing more informed notions of the nature of science and of
scientific inquiry during professional development opportunities. The
development of scientific literacy in students, a high priority for governments
worldwide, will only to benefit from these initiatives.
171
Chapter 6 Conclusion
In spite of having a long history in education, inquiry teaching in
science education is still a highly problematic issue in education today (Abd-
El-Khalick et al., 2004; Goodrum et al., 2001), notwithstanding its potential to
benefit student learning (Wynne et al., 2003). When teachers attempt to
develop and implement science lessons they are influenced by their own
conceptions or understandings of science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) and the
nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2009). This study has revealed
insights into the range of teacher conceptions by identifying three
approaches adopted by teachers in this context. These approaches
represent the ways teachers say they see their approach to teaching science
so as to engage students in inquiry. These were categorised using
phenomenography as: Student Centred Experiences (Category 1), Teacher
Generated Problems (Category 2), and Student Generated Questions
(Category 3). This study has made a significant contribution to the literature
by developing a strong, workable categorisation scheme of the limited
number of qualitatively different ways in which a group of primary school
teachers experience inquiry teaching in science education.
Taken together, these results represent fundamental understandings
among teachers regarding the requirements of their profession, the learning
needs of children, and the nature of science and science instruction. Gaining
a better understanding of these categories adds positively to the science
education literature in many ways.
In terms of theory building, this study informs our understanding in that
teachers appeared to conceive of inquiry teaching in a different way to that
promoted in the literature, specifically that there are levels of inquiry.
Teachers appear to be thinking along the lines that they are either using
inquiry teaching, or they are using didactic “chalk and talk” methods of
instruction. When the conception of inquiry teaching is further analysed there
are three distinct ways of conceiving inquiry teaching as outlined in this
study, rather than a continuum from more to less teacher guidance as per the
NRC (2000).
172
This study also informs our theoretical understanding of the
epistemology of inquiry and teacher understanding of the nature of science.
In support of the findings of current literature, teachers still treat scientific
knowledge as gathered, not created, and rely on expert sources rather than
student interpretation of results to inform theory and knowledge generation.
Understanding teacher knowledge about the nature of science is important
for informing research around scientific literacy (Lee et al., 2004).
These results may also be used to begin to inform preservice and
inservice teaching programs regarding the underlying conceptions that
teachers actually employ. Before teacher educators can hope to improve
teacher implementation of inquiry teaching in the science classroom, they
should determine teachers’ current understandings of inquiry teaching
(Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Prosser et al., 1994). Professional and inservice
development programs, for instance, may begin to work with teachers who
conceive of inquiry teaching solely as giving students interesting experiences
or challenging problems in a broader and more inclusive manner, allowing
students own questions to take a greater role in their teaching.
Researchers and teacher educators can now work with this important
contribution to our understanding to help practicing and pre-service primary
school teachers to understand and implement the best educative practices in
their daily work. High quality science education is a priority in Australia and
internationally (Department of Education, Services, and Training [DEST],
2002; National Science Board, 2007). Inquiry teaching is encouraged
internationally as one of the most effective means of educating students in
science (National Curriculum Board, 2009; National Research Council of
America, 2005). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching had
made a clear and unique contribution the literature, which can be used to
inform our theoretical understanding of this important aspect of contemporary
science education.
173
Appendix A: Participant quantitative data
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
Sample topics
ants, tomatoes
balloon rockets
lux flakes, bad apples and mysterious insects
energy efficient houses
earthworms under the sea
marvellous microorganisms
opposites and bugs
stale bread paper towers and experi- ments
Sex m m f f f f f f f m Years teaching
10 2 4(9) 7 7 3 28 2 2 30
Class 2 4 p 7 3 4 1 7 prep 6 4/5 Age mature young middle young mature young mature young young mature Usually teaches
lower lower lower upper middle lower senior prep 6 music
Preferred level
lower lower lower upper ? lower senior prep 6 ?
Past exp with science
engineer minimal hated it at high school
geological researcher
none none minimal minimal research assistant - psychology
none
Like science?
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes y yes
Do they teach science
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes y no
team teaching
no no no no no T8 n T6 n n
Dominant category
1
3
1 3 1 3 (1) 1 (2) 3 (1) 2 2
174
T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
Sample topics
beans n underwater vehicles
flick flacs, mouldy bread, yeast
Body systems, technology items, space
the lever and the heavy box
water powered toys and evaporation
It's electrifying
natural disasters (and maths)
meccano, under the sea, what floats
volcanoes and cooking
buttered screw-drivers
Sex f f f m f f f f f m Years teaching
25 10+ 14+ 6 28 6 26 18 9 2
Class 6/7 7 7 prep 6 6 5 4 p 6 Age mature mature mature young mature young mature mature mature young Usually teaches
upper upper 7 6/7 upper upper primary lower lower -
Preferred level
? upper upper prep middle school
lower - lower lower -
Past exp with science
bad some at uni as little as possible - yr8
yr 12 physics
none none none none (bio at school)
- business
Like science?
yes love it no yes doesn't mind
yes yes y - yes
Do they teach science
y yes yes yes no yes yes not directly yes Yes
Team teaching
T18 n no n T17 n T15 T11 n no
Dominant category
1 1 (3) 1 2 1 2 2 2 (3) 1 1
172
175
Appendix B: Interview schema
Bracket: know their world
There is a lot of discussion in education and curriculum documents
about inquiry learning. I am doing a study to find out about what perceptions
teachers have of teaching in ways that foster inquiry based learning in
science. There are no wrong answers here. I am predominantly interested in
exploring your ideas and experiences. I want you to feel that I am the learner
here and you the expert regarding your own practice, I will try to be like a
blank slate. I want you to do all the talking and I’ll do the listening. I just want
you to tell me about your experiences with inquiry, and dig down into your
understanding and practice of the what and why of inquiry in your classroom!
OK?
Do have any questions?
Well, can you tell me a bit about yourself as a teacher? (Who do you
teach, how long have you been teaching, what experiences led you to
teaching, have you any past experience with science as a profession?)
“Can you tell me about a recent teaching experience you have had in
which you feel you taught science through inquiry particularly well?”
Regarding a specific teaching experience:
Teacher role
Student role
Assessment
Goal
Outcomes
Cues
Teacher role: How did you go about teaching? Where and how did this
take place?
Student role: How did the students go about learning during the
teaching experience you just described?
Assessment: How did you know that the students had learnt
something? What was the role of assessment in your program?
176
Goals: What were you trying to teach? What did you want students to
learn? Why did you choose to do it that way?
Outcomes: How do you know if your approach is working? What do
you feel were the results of this approach? What did inquiry offer?
What is easy about inquiry science, what is difficult, what challenges
you in implementing an inquiry science program?
Cues:
When did you first hear about teaching science through inquiry?
What does it mean to teach science through inquiry?
Can you think of a time when you thought differently about what it
means to teaching science through inquiry?
Regarding inquiry learning: What is inquiry learning?
Complete this sentence “Inquiry learning is…”
Before we conclude, is there anything else you’d like to add?
177
Appendix C: Comparison of categories
Student Centred Experiences
Teacher Generated Problems
Student Generated Questions
Illustrative quote
T19 “…they’re finding things out for themselves and it’s more meaningful to them, I think. Like if we try and tell them something they may not remember it. But if they have done it themselves that learning is more valuable.” (Italics added).
T17: … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this problem. … “Well what are you going to do about it?”
T18 I mean to me inquiry learning is giving children the opportunities to find out new things, and to ask the right questions to learn about new things in a collaborative way, … where the children find out what it is that they want to know, and we give them the tools to be able to do that.
The how and what
How Provide experiences Provide Problems Provide guidance What – Direct object
Concepts, attitudes (skills)
Attitudes, Skills (concepts)
Skills (attitudes, concepts)
What – Indirect object
To engage students To encourage students
To empower students
Structure of awareness
Referential aspect (meaning)
Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students
Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems for students
Meaning 3: Inquiry teaching is experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions
Internal horizon (Theme and thematic field)
Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field-Student generated questions
Theme -Teacher generated problems Thematic field -Student Centred Experiences -Student generated questions
Theme -Student generated questions Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Teacher generated problems
External horizon (context or margin)
“Chalk and Talk”
Inquiry must move beyond simply experiencing content outcomes. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context a teachers provide a challenging problem.
Most inclusive definition. Also, students must be asking the questions to be answered, though teachers may direct them.
178
Experience centred category
Problem centred category
Question centred category
Dimensions of variation
Role of the teacher
Knower, but not teller Feigning ignorance Not knowing, willing to learn
Role of the student
Lowest – students did not choose content or activities, but were still very active participants.
Higher – students could now propose some content by suggesting solutions. Considered engaged participants.
Highest – students had a large say in content through selection of questions to be answers, and may have helped choose topic. Considered guided inquirers
Purpose of student experiences
Focal - directed learning and teaching experience
Supportive - one way teachers used to help students solve problems
Supportive - one way teachers used to help answer student questions
Purpose of Teacher generated problems
Supportive - were one way teachers may have used to help students experience content
Focal - Teacher Generated Problems used to structure teaching
Supportive - were one way teachers may have used to answer student questions
Role of Student generated questions
Supportive - helped students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Supportive - help students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding
Focal - directed learning and teaching experience for students and teachers
Epistemological belief - Source of Knowledge
The teacher (via student experiences)
The teacher (via student experiences)
An expert (usually teacher, but not always. Correctly performed experiments would yield expected results.)
179
Appendix D: Sample personal profile
Personal profile – Lux bubbles, bad apples, peas, mysterious
insects, smarties, snakes, garden worms, volanco’s and sunflowers.
Experienced teachers of preparatory year.
Highlights (quotes are representative of general themes carried on throughout the interview. Interviewer thoughts are included in parenthesis. This is not the official analysis, but more of a ‘personal profile’.) Inquiry is Engaging (fun) “If you can’t engage a child and make something fun and interesting, I don’t feel like I’m doing my job. So every activity, whatever we do, it has to be engaging. And I suppose that’s the main word – you’ve got to be able to engage this age group.” Hands on “And it’s exciting, just to see the children engage in those sorts of things, because it is hands on. In prep, how we look at inquiry based science teaching is hands on, and that’s what we do with them. (time mark11:59)” Student selection of topic (somewhat) – but note it was frequently employed! “So you’ve got all these things, and when you’ve got a class of 28 children which I have this year, all wanting to do something different, you are taking all those things/ they are all on individual pathways, they’re all doing something different. But also you’ve got to bring them back into “ok, we all as a group want to learn about something”. So we put all those sort of ideas up on the board and then we go through it with them, saying “ok, well, which would be the best area for us to learn as a whole class?” “ Science ‘doesn’t always work’ (tried to make craft materials out of apples but instead of dry and wrinkly, they ended up wet, swollen, and very very smelly. Used it to teach the children that ‘things don’t always work out’) “It’s either going to work or its not. And they’re going to learn through life not everything happens the way you might predict it might happen. And that’s, I think, where science sort of fits in, because, yeah, there might be lots of activities that when you do this, and you do this [thumps table] and you add this chemical and that chemical and you get the perfect result, but I think you don’t always get a perfect result in life anyway. So if they might add too much water or too much lux flakes or whatever they’re not going to get that result, so then they have to go back and work out ‘ok, why didn’t it work, what can we do?” and those children, even though they’re prep children can see that. They can / they don’t just walk away from it. If they find it interesting enough they will go “ohhh.” And not everything works and that’s how I teach them, because I lot of things that I’ve done don’t.”
180
Which also indicates that science is perceived as a set of activities, not as ideas to be tested and explored, or as a ‘way of knowing’. J Can you give me an example of when you’ve explored a students interest… T3 Example of that and this is, hmm, it’s probably not science based J That’s ok T3 Yeah, but I’ll just show you. For example, these were some of our children, um, this amazing insect flew onto our building one day. Now I have never seen it before, I don’t even know what it is. (They went on to explore it, take pictures, ask experts, and even check on the internet. The bug was not identified, but it is even more fascinating that the whole event was not perceived as ‘science’ – though I suspect she would have noticed if I’d mentioned it to her.) Teaching tactic – uses music “And then with all those songs you then bring in all those songs ‘feather, fur and fins’ and you jump off into another tangent.” Students are at different levels “So they don’t all move together. “ One goal of inquiry is to teach them to organise equipment, and to be able to set up some self directed activities independently. “We tried to get the preschool children last year by the end of the year, we had a whole heap of this sort of stuff “we want to do the pea activity.” So we’d have all these things ready for them, and then they’d come over and say “We’ll we want to do this activity or we want to do a different one” (Isn’t that interesting! I’ve never had a teacher mention this as a goal. She allowed students to return to the experiment to re-experience it at any time) Solving problems (answering questions) is inquiry based learning “So those sorts of things to me are inquiry based learning. Because they had to learn “OK, who is going to get the weeds out of the garden, who is going to look after it, who is going to water it?” This year, and even last year, “OK, we’re going into a drought. We can’t just go and get the hose, so we need to bucket it down there. We need to only use so much a day. And do we need to water everyday.” So all those sorts of questions the children then have to work out what they’re gonna do” (sounds more like solving problems, which is only a part of inquiry learning to me.) It’s all inquiry “So, um, on that topic, can you think of a time when you thought differently about what it means to teach science through inquiry? As in, has your opinion changed? T3 No, I don’t think it has. Whether I knew what it was called before, to what I’m doing, to me, especially in early childhood what we’re teaching is inquiry based because the children are engaging either through their own ideas, or through what we think might fit in to their unit of learning.”
181
What isn’t inquiry? J So what’s not inquiry? T3 That’s a really good one! When they sit there and they don’t want to engage?! [laughter] When I don’t want to do a science lesson! [laughs] “Mothering” the children (uses the terms ‘my kids’) “Because I’m like mother hen to everyone of them. I’m actually, y’know, they come in and call me mum [laughter].“ (representative of a high level of personal attachment to the students?) In summary Teacher has a very high emphasis on student selection of topic. However, there is much more direction in terms of content and outcomes expected. Perhaps the content was adaptable to any topic? For example; use of materials, safety (not explicitly), science ‘not everything works’, difference between (shapes, textures, kinds of animals), learning to set up an experiment independently. These ‘content’ areas are general enough for most any topic. “J So just to finish off, what do you like about inquiry based learning in science? T3 I think it just makes the children more responsible, it gives them a direction of their own learning, so they might decide what they’re going to do. It gives them direction, makes them a little bit more responsible. And then how they tackle it, and what they understand, and what they learn out of it. It could be fantastic or it couldn’t be.”
182
183
References
AAAS. (2009). Science, a process approach (Publication. Retrieved 5th
March 2010: http://archives.aaas.org/about/index.php?c_id=5)
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive
training on preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of
science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-
2184.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Baujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-
Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004).
Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science
Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers'
conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
Abruscato, J. (2001). Teaching children science: A discovery approach. (5th
ed.). USA: Allan and Bacon.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour (2nd ed.). Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Åkerlind, G. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching.
Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363-375.
Åkerlind, G. (2005a). Academic growth and development – how do university
academics experience it? Higher Education, 50, 1-32.
184
Åkerlind, G. (2005b). Phenomenographic methods: A case illustration. In J.
A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental
phenomenography (pp. 103-127). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Åkerlind, G. (2005c). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic
research methods. Higher Education Research and Development,
24(4), 321-334.
Åkerlind, G., Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do
Phenomenography: A reflective discussion. In J. A. Bowden & P.
Green (Eds.), Doing developmental Phenomenography (pp. 74-100).
Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science through
inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680.
American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological
principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. (Publication.
Retrieved 11th of October, 2010:
http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing
professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arthur, H. L. (1964). The process approach of the AAAS commission on
science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(4),
271-282.
185
Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found
in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.
Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A
practical approach to the design, conduct and reporting of
phenomenographic research. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-
308.
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science
Teacher, 29(September), 45-51.
Australian Bureau of statistics. (2003). Media release 4102.0 - Australian
Social Trends, 2003. Retrieved 21 June, 2010, from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca2570
61001cc588/459c3882fad473a2ca2570eb0083be84!OpenDocument
Australian Government. (1999). A national statement on ethical conduct in
researching involving humans. Retrieved 20th Feb, 2005, from
http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students
"Ideas-about-science": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science
Education, 88(5), 655-682.
186
Beck, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers'
beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their
classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and
acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow up
study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 536-581.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction.
The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching
of chemistry: What are they and what are their effects? In J. K. Gilbert
(Ed.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165-
184). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through
inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, learning and teaching. Higher
Education Research and Development, 16(2), 135-158.
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C., &
Campbell, K. J. (2001). Secondary teachers' conceptions of teaching
and learning. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 35-51.
187
Bowden, J. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1-18). Melbourne:
RMIT University Press.
Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research
process. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental
phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
Bowden, J. A., Dall'Alba, G., Laurillard, D., Marton, P., Masters, G.,
Ramsden, P., Stephanou, A., & Walsh, E. (1992). Displacement,
velocity and frames of reference: Phenomenographic studies of
students' understanding and some implications for teaching. American
Journal of Physics, 60, 262-269.
Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2000). Doing developmental phenomenography.
Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Brown, F. (2000). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science
course on preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 1-6.
Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science
teachers' views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90(5), 784-
802.
Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science
teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based
experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938-
950.
188
Brownlee, J. (2001). Epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education
students. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(3), 281-
291.
Brownlee, J. (2004). An investigation of teacher education students’
epistemological beliefs:Developing a relational model of teaching.
Research in Education, 72, 1-18.
Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1995). Towards university lecturers' conceptions of
student learning. Higher Education, 29(4), 443-458.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Buelens, H., Clement, M., & Clarebout, G. (2002). University assistants'
conceptions of knowledge, learning and instruction. Research in
Education 67, 44-59.
Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee, H
(Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry: Learning and teaching in science. (pp. 20-
46). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Bybee, R. (2001). Constructivism and the 5 E's (Publication. Retrieved 2nd of
March, 2010: http://www.miamisci.org/ph/lpintro5e.html)
Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N., & Chapman, H. (2010). Development of
instruments to assess teacher and student perceptions of inquiry
189
experiences in science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 21(1), 13-30.
Campbell, T., & Bohn, C. (2008). Science laboratory experiences of high
school students across one state in the US: Descriptive research from
the classroom. Science Educator, 17(1), 36-48.
Candy, P. (1989). Alternative paradigms in educational research. Australian
Educational Researcher, 16(3), 1-11.
Carnes, G. N. (1997). Teacher conceptions of inquiry and related teaching
practices. Paper presented at the the annual conference of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Oak Brook,
IL.
Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students' science perceptions
and enrolment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029-1062.
Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A
consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in
biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics,
7(241-247).
Chinn, C. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to
the special section. Science Education, 86(2), 171-174.
190
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in
schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science
Education, 86(2), 175-218.
Colburn, A. (1997). How to make lab activities more open ended. California
Science Teachers Association Journal, fall, 4-6.
Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science educator's "grand unifying
theory." Clearinghouse, 74(1), 9-12.
Cope, C. (2004). Ensuring validity and reliability in phenomenographic
research using the analytical framework of a structure of awareness.
Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 5-18.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for
science teachers. Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and
tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4),
613-642.
Cushman, P. (2007). The male teacher shortage: A synthesis of research
and worldwide strategies for addressing the shortage. KEDI Journal of
Educational Policy, 4(1), 79-98.
Dall’Alba, G. (2000). Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J.
A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 83-101).
Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
191
Dean, G. (1994). A phenomenographic investigation of policing by consent.
In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice Conference (pp. 111-
127). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
DeBoer, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools.
In L. B. Flick & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of
science (pp. 17-35). Netherlands: Kluwer academic publishers.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
DEST. (2002). Supporting science teachers: The Commonwealth's
commitment to improving science education in Australian schools.
Retrieved 21 June, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/schools/publications/2002/scienceteac
hers/Science2002.pdf
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994).
Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational
Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Duffy, G. (1992). Let's free teachers to be inspired. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(6),
442-448.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
192
Eastwell, P. H. (2007). Readers forum: More on inquiry. Science Education
Review, 6(4), 139.
Eastwell, P. H. (2008). Inquiry (continued) [Readers' Forum]. The Science
Education Review, 7, 30-36.
Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2001). An invasion in the classroom: Influence of
an ill-structured innovation on instructional and epistemological beliefs.
Learning Environments Research, 4, 87-105.
Eley, M. G. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and the making of
specific decisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51, 191-214.
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and
beliefs about “good teaching”: An integration of contrasting research
areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5-26.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological
Review, 87, 215-251.
Ernest, P. (1999). Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics:
Radical Constructivism.
Fazio, X. E. (2005). Exploring teachers' beliefs and knowledge about
scientific inquiry and the nature of science: A collaborative action
research project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Toronto, Canada.
193
Fensham, P. J., & Harlen, W. (1999). School science and public
understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education,
21(7), 755 - 763.
Fleer, M., & Hardy, T. (2001). Science for children: Developing a personal
approach to teaching (2nd ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Introduction. In L. B. Flick & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix-xviii).
London: Kluwer.
Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education,
8(2), 151-163.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided
scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based
science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science.
Science Education, 86(5), 693-705.
Gilbert, A. (2009). Utilizing science philosophy statements to facilitate K-3
teacher candidates’ development of inquiry-based science practice.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 431-438.
Giorgi, A. (1988). Validity and reliability from a phenomenological
perspective. In W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. V. Rappard & H. J. Stam
(Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 167-176). New
York: Springer Verlag.
194
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of
teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra:
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship
to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-
33.
Hackling, M. (2005). Working Scientifically: Implementing and assessing
open investigation work in science. Retrieved 20th of November,
2010, from
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/science/teach/workingscientificall
yrevised.pdf.
Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: Reforming
science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science,
53(3), 12-16.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology
class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072-1088.
Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs
about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative
instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-
79.
Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography - a "good-for-
nothing-brother" of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher
Education Research and Development, 16(2), 191-202.
195
Hill, L., Stremmel, A., & Fu, V. (2005). Teaching as inquiry: Rethinking
curriculum in early childhood education. Boston, MA: Pearson
education.
Ho, A. S. P. (2001). A conceptual change approach to university staff
development. In D. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the
Chinese Learner: Psychological and Instructional Perspectives (pp.
237-252). Melbourne: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social
constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning
science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students' knowledge about the
nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.
Ireland, J. (2008). ‘Inquiry learning is… difficult to define!’: Primary school
teachers’ conceptions of teaching science through inquiry learning.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science
Education Research Association (ASERA). 2-5 July, Brisbane:
Queensland.
Ireland, J. (2010). Teachers' conceptions of how to engage students thought
inquiry leaning: Foundations for STEM. Paper presented at the
Science Engineering Mathematics in Education (STEM). 26-27
November, Brisbane: Queensland.
Ireland, J., Tambyah, M., Neofa, Z., & Harding, T. (2008). The tale of four
researchers: Trials and triumphs from the phenomenographic
196
research specialization. Paper presented at the Australian Association
for Research in Education International Education Research
Conference (AARE). Brisbane
Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to
Settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 19, 11-13.
Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-
based learning in higher education: Administrators’ perspectives on
integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education,
58(6), 841-855.
Kadriye, E., & Wolff-Michael, R. (2006). What good is polarizing research Into
qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.
Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of
laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and
practices. Science Education, 89, 140-165.
Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing
project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science
Education, 94(3), 525-551.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university
academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3),
255-275.
197
Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students' approach
to learning. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and
learning in higher education (pp. 1-25). Melbourne: Acer Press.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-Constructing inquiry based science
with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
Keys, P. (2005). Teacher knowledge and organisational change.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 1st of
April, 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
King, D. (2009). Context-based chemistry: Creating opportunities for fluid
transitions between concepts and context. Teaching Science, 13-19.
Koballa, T., Glynn, S., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. (2005). Conceptions of
teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification
program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 287-305.
Kowalczyk, D. L. (2003). An analysis of K-5 teachers' beliefs regarding the
uses of direct instruction, the discovery method, and the inquiry
method in elementary science education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University Pennsylvania.
198
Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational
Research Review, 4(1), 1-6.
Kuzel, A., & Engel, J. (2001). Some pragmatic thought on evaluating
qualitative health research. In J. Morse, J. Swanson & A. Kuzel (Eds.),
The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 114-138). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research
interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of
formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-
24.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). The learning cycle. In R. G. Fuller (Ed.), A love of
discovery: Science education - the second career of Robert Karplus.
New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of
science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and
science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific
inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301-317). Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
199
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002).
Views of the nature of science questionnaire: Towards a valid and
meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of the nature of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 509.
Lederman, N. G., & Neiss, M. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally?
School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.
Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional
development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of
diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(10), 1021-1043.
Leveson, L. (2004). Encouraging better learning through better teaching: a
study of approaches to teaching in accounting. Accounting Education,
13(4), 529-548.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1991). Naturalistic inquiry. CA: Sage.
Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. E. (2005). Learning the learning cycle: The
differential effect on elementary preservice teachers. School Science
and Mathematics, 105(2), 61-72.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core
teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318-1347.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in
the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and
200
practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on
science education (pp. pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lupton, M. (2008). Information literacy and learning. Unpublished Doctorate,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Mahoney, M. J. (1996). Connected knowing in constructivist psychotherapy.
In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy & M. Belenky (Eds.),
Knowledge, difference, and power. Essays inspired by women's ways
of knowing (pp. 126-147). New York: Basic books.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of
inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1991). Conceptions of teaching and implications for
learning. In B. Wright (Ed.), Research and development in higher
education (pp. 298-304). Campbelltown, NSW: Higher education
Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).
Marton, F. (1975). On non-verbatim learning: Level of processing and level of
outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 16, 273-
279.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating
different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-43.
201
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp.
4424). London: Pergamon.
Marton, F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh
(Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 102-116). Melbourne: RMIT University
Press.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in
phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development,
24(4), 335-348.
McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K-12 education in
the context of current educational reform. Theory Into Practice, 42(2),
93-101.
McDonald, S., & Songer, N. B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry:
Theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Science
Education, 92, 973-993.
McKenzie, J. (2003). Variation and change in university teachers' ways of
experiencing teaching. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University
of Technology, Sydney.
202
McMahon, M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A
Paradigm for Learning. . Paper presented at the Paper presented at
the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.
Miles, S. J. (1999). Postgraduate nursing students: Conceptions of clinical
experience in acute paediatric health care settings. Unpublished
masters thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science
instruction - what is it and does it matter? Results from a research
synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification
strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.
Murray, K., & MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers'
conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher
Education, 33(3), 331-349.
National Curriculum Board. (2009). Shape of the Australian curriculum:
Science (Publication. Retrieved 8th of January, 2010, from Australian
curriculum, assessment and reporting association:
http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_-
_Science.pdf
203
National Research Council of America. (1996). National science education
standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council of America. (2000). Inquiry and the national
science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Research Council of America. (2005). America’s lab report:
Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for assessing the critical
needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics
education system. Published online at
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf: National
science foundation.
National Science Teachers Association. (2007). NSTA position statement.
The integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx.
Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J.
(2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher
education. Higher Education, 50, 537-571.
O'Niell, K., & Pollman, J. L. (2004). Why educate "little scientists?" Examining
the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234-266.
204
Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry
discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.
Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2003). What "Ideas-about-Science" should be
taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and education research: Cleaning up
a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pang, M. F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the
phenomenographic movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 47(2), 145-156.
Perla, R., & Carifio, J. (2008). Can our conception of the nature of science be
tentative without qualification? The Journal of Educational Thought,
42(2), 127-150.
Pierce, W. (2001). Inquiry made easy. Science and Children, 38(8), 39-41.
Porlán, R., & Pozo, R. M. d. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and
prospective primary school teachers about the teaching and learning
of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 39-62.
Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers'
descriptions of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in
higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18, 109-120.
205
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly,
42(4), 203-220.
Pratt, D. D., Arseneau, R., & Collins, J. B. (2001). Reconsidering “good
teaching” across the continuum of medical education. The Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 21, 70-81.
Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Lueckenhausen, G.
(2005). Academics’ experiences of understanding of their subject
matter and the relationship of this to their experiences of teaching and
learning. Instructional Science, 33, 137-157.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The
experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of
academics, conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning
and Instruction, 4, 217-231.
Queensland University of Technology. (n.d.). An introduction to research
ethics at QUT. Retrieved Feb 20th, 2006, from
http://www.research.qut.edu.au/oresearch/ethics/humanmanual.jsp
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of
phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1),
53-82.
206
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' approaches to learning and teachers'
approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology,
25(6), 673-680.
Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: the Cold war
reconstruction of American science. New York: Palgrave.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S.-P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one
premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining
students' scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583-608.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by
academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93-111.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about
teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-395.
Sandburg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher
Education Research and Development, 16(2), 203-220.
Sandoval, A. W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies
and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89,
634-656.
Sanger, M. J. (2007, Feburary). Is inquiry-based instruction good for
elementary teaching majors? The effects on chemistry content
knowledge and views about teaching and learning science. Paper
207
presented at the American Insitiute of Physics Conference
Proceedings, New York, USA.
Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as
context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 331-355). London:
Kluwer.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Seroussi, M. J. (2005). Science teachers' perceptions and implementation of
classroom inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Connecticut, Connecticut.
Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering
the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
18(4), 461-467.
Skamp, K. (2004). Teaching primary science constructively (2nd ed.).
Melbourne: Thomson.
Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about
effective primary science teaching: A longitudinal study. International
Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 331- 351.
Spencer, H. (1864). Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical. New York:
Appleton.
Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher
Education Research and Development, 16(2), 159-172.
208
Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In
J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 43-57).
Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and
strategy in university science teachers' approaches to teaching.
Higher Education, 32(1), 77-87.
Tsai, C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers' beliefs of teaching,
learning and science. International Journal of Science Education,
24(8), 771-783.
Van Gigch, J. P. (2002). Comparing the epistemologies of scientific
disciplines in two distinct domains: Modern physics versus social
sciences. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(3), 199-209.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and
learning. (Vol. 6). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary
science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing
belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.
Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 13-23).
Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the
nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers' beliefs
209
about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of
Science Education, 28(8), 919-944.
Watkins, D., Dahlin, B., & Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of the backwash
effect of assessment: A phenomenographic study of the views of Hong
Kong and Swedish lecturers. Instructional Science, 33, 283-309.
Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2004). Reforming education: The pursuit
of learning through authentic inquiry in mathematics, science and
technology. Paper presented at the epiSTEME 1, International centre,
Dona Paula, Goa.
Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of
inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science
Education, 65(1), 33-50.
Wilson, A. L. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. In S. Merriam (Ed.),
An update on adult learning theory. New directions for adult and
continuing education (Vol. 1993, pp. 71-79). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Wilson, J., & Wing Jan, L. (2003). Focus on inquiry: A practical approach to
integrated curriculum planning. Carlton, South Victoria: Curriculum
Corporation.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What
can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and
eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
210
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry": How preservice teachers
reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific
method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
Withee, T., & Lindell, R. (2006). Different views on inquiry: A survey of
science and mathematics methods instructors. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 818(1), 125-128.
Wynne, H., Macro, C., Reed, K., & Schilling, M. (2003). Making progress in
primary science: A handbook for professional development and
preservice course leaders. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Yager, R. (2007). The centrality of inquiry to reforms in science education.
The Science Education Review, 6(3), 104-113.
Yang, F., Chang, C., & Hsu, Y. (2008). Teacher views about constructivist
instruction and personal epistemology: A national study in Taiwan.
Educational Studies, 34(5), 527-542.
Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social
constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,
373-388.
"Of only one thing am I convinced: I have never seen anybody improve in the
art and techniques of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry.”
(Bruner, 1962, p. 94).