Mediators of a Preservice Teacher’s Use of the Inquiry-Application Instructional Model

Mediators of a Preservice Teacher’s Useof the Inquiry-Application Instructional Model

Kristin L. Gunckel

Published online: 23 December 2010

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2010

Abstract This paper reports on one preservice teacher’s use of the Inquiry-

Application Instructional Model (I-AIM) to plan and teach an instructional sequence

on photosynthesis to 5th-grade students. Analysis of the preservice teacher’s

planned and enacted instructional sequences and interviews shows that the preser-

vice teacher was successful in leveraging the conceptual change but not the inquiry

aspects of the I-AIM. The mediators of this preservice teacher’s use of the I-AIM

included her approach to teaching science, the curriculum materials she had

available, and the meanings she made of the underlying frameworks. Understanding

the mediators of preservice teachers’ uses of instructional models can inform tea-

cher educators’ approaches to supporting preservice teachers in using instructional

models for organizing science instructional sequences.

Keywords Instructional models � Elementary preservice teachers �Science methods course

Introduction

A problem of practice of elementary science teaching is organizing instructional

activities in ways that support students in engaging in inquiry practices and building

conceptual understanding (Davis and Smithey 2009; Mikeska et al. 2009; Schwarz

2009; Windschitl 2009). Science teacher educators face many challenges in

preparing their elementary preservice teachers to organize and teach inquiry-based

instructional sequences. Teacher educators must help elementary preservice

teachers, who often have limited experiences with the content and practices of

K. L. Gunckel (&)

Department of Teaching, Learning, and Sociocultural Studies, University of Arizona,

P.O. Box 210069, 1430 E. 2nd St, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2011) 22:79–100

DOI 10.1007/s10972-010-9223-y

science (Crawford 2007; Davis et al. 2006; Windschitl 2003), develop new visions

for teaching science (Abell et al. 1998; Bryan and Abell 1999; Davis et al. 2006).

Teacher educators must also support preservice teachers in learning to use science

curriculum materials, which are often of poor quality (Kesidou and Roseman 2002),

to plan and teach science instructional sequences that match new, inquiry-based

visions of teaching. Preservice teachers are often reluctant to make changes in the

instructional sequences offered in the curriculum materials, believing that they do

not have the authority or the knowledge to make modifications (Bullough 1992;

Schwarz et al. 2008). When preservice teachers do make changes to curriculum

materials, however, it is often on the basis of criteria related to classroom or

materials management concerns rather than issues related to student learning or

inquiry practices (Beyer and Davis 2009; Davis 2006; Davis and Smithey 2009;

Schwarz et al. 2008). Often, these modifications are unproductive and may

undermine any potential effectiveness of the curriculum materials (Ball and Feiman-

Nemser 1988; Brown and Campione 1996; Collopy 2003; Schneider et al. 2005).

By the end of their science methods courses, preservice teachers often make

progress towards developing visions and practices for science teaching that include

inquiry and student-focused approaches to teaching. However, when these

preservice teachers become beginning teachers, they revert back to traditional,

didactic approaches to teaching science in response to classroom management

issues, testing and accountability practices, and the culture of schools (Bryan and

Abell 1999; Davis et al. 2006; Mikeska et al. 2009; Simmons et al. 1999). Davis

(2006) suggested that preservice teachers need long-term scaffolds to help them

plan and teach inquiry-oriented lessons in their own classrooms.

One approach to scaffold elementary preservice teachers’ sequencing of science

activities has been to offer instructional models as tools for planning (Schwarz

2009; Schwarz and Gwekwerere 2007). Most instructional models are based on the

learning cycle (Atkin and Karplus 1962; Karplus and Their 1967) that was

developed in the 1960s (Abraham 1998; Bybee et al. 2006). Many science teacher

educators use the 5E model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Evaluate, Elaborate; Bybee

1997; Bybee et al. 2006) to support preservice teachers in selecting and sequencing

learning experiences that engage students in inquiry-oriented learning. The EIMA

model (Engage, Investigate, Model, Apply) was specifically designed to support

preservice teachers in incorporating modeling practices into scientific inquiry

(Schwarz 2009; Schwarz and Gwekwerere 2007). Similarly, the conceptual change

instructional model was designed to support preservice teachers in planning

instructional sequences that address the requirements for conceptual change (Smith

1990). The research in this paper uses the Inquiry-Application Instructional Model

(I-AIM) to support preservice teachers in planning and enacting instructional

sequences that emphasize pattern-finding during inquiry, conceptual change, and

cognitive apprenticeship (Gunckel et al. 2007; Gunckel 2008).

Preservice teachers’ uses of instructional models are mediated by the social,

cultural, and historical contexts in which preservice teachers make sense of and use

the instructional models (Brown 2009; Remillard 2005; Wertsch 1991). As a result,

the instructional sequences of two preservice teachers using the same model may be

quite different. Although instructional models hold promise for supporting

80 K. L. Gunckel

123

preservice teachers in using curriculum materials to plan instructional sequences

(Schwarz 2009; Schwarz et al. 2008; Schwarz and Gwekwerere 2007) little research

has been conducted to identify the mediators of preservice teachers’ uses of these

tools. Mediators are the factors that shape how a preservice teacher uses the tools,

including the preservice teachers’ beliefs, perspectives, knowledges, abilities, and

experiences, as well as the sociohistorical meanings and perspectives carried by

curriculum materials and other tools (Remillard 2005). To best support preservice

teachers in using instructional models, we need to know more about the mediators

that influence preservice teachers’ uses of these tools.

This paper examines one preservice teacher’s use of the I-AIM to plan and enact

an instructional sequence about photosynthesis. The research questions were

1. In what ways did the preservice teacher’s sequences of planned and enacted

instructional activities match or not match the I-AIM?

2. What were some of the mediators that shaped the preservice teacher’s use of the

I-AIM for planning and teaching?

Frameworks

Preservice Teachers’ Use of Planning Tools

This work is grounded in the perspective that teachers participate with curriculum

materials in the design of the planned and enacted curriculum (Remillard 2005).

Brown (2009) describes teaching as a process of design, where teachers use tools to

create planned instructional sequences and then enact the sequences in the

classroom. The activity of planning and enacting instructional sequences is

mediated by what both the curriculum materials and the teacher bring to the design

process. This concept of mediated action (Vygotsky 1978; Wertsch 1991)

emphasizes the ways that tools both enable and constrain activity (Brown 2009).

Curriculum materials are the product of social activity and therefore carry cultural,

historical, and institutional meanings (Brown 2009; Remillard 2005; Wertsch 1991).

These meanings mediate a teacher’s uses of the curriculum materials in planning

and teaching, by enabling certain potential interpretations of the curriculum

materials and constraining others. At the same time, the sociocultural resources that

the teacher brings to using curriculum materials, including her perspectives,

knowledges, and beliefs, also mediate her uses of the materials (Remillard 2005).

There are a variety of mediators of preservice teachers’ use of curriculum materials.

Preservice teachers’ content knowledge and self-efficacy both enable and constrain

their uses of curriculum materials. Preservice teachers who feel more confident in their

understanding of the subject matter are more likely to make adaptations (both effective

and ineffective) to the curriculum materials, while preservice teachers who know less

or feel less-confident in their subject matter knowledge follow the materials more

closely (Behm and Lloyd 2009; Davis et al. 2006; Forbes and Davis 2008b; Nicol and

Crespo 2006). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about and orientations towards the purpose

of teaching science and the nature of student learning also mediate their uses of

Mediators of a Preservice Teacher’s Use of I-Aim 81

123

curriculum materials (Forbes and Davis 2008b; Remillard and Bryans 2004; Schwarz

et al. 2008). Forbes and Davis (2008b) found that preservice teachers’ value-neutral

approach to teaching science constrained the ways that they used curriculum materials

designed to engage students in socio-scientific issues. In addition, preservice teachers’

beliefs about how curriculum materials should be used also play a role in preservice

teachers’ uses of curriculum materials (Beyer and Davis 2009; Forbes and Davis

2008a; Schwarz et al. 2008). Preservice teachers use many criteria to evaluate lesson

and activity plans, although these criteria often focus on practical features of teaching

as opposed to principles of student learning (Beyer and Davis 2009; Davis 2006;

Schwarz et al. 2008). Additionally, the curriculum materials themselves are also

mediators of preservice teachers’ planning and teaching. The format, including the

layout, structures, and voice of the materials mediate preservice teachers’ uses of

the materials (Behm and Lloyd 2009; Brown 2009; Remillard 2005). Furthermore, the

approach of the curriculum materials (e.g., inquiry-oriented) and the presence or

absence of instructional features (e.g., anchoring questions) or educative features (e.g.,

features to scaffold preservice teacher consideration of principles of student learning)

can play a role in how preservice teachers use the materials (Behm and Lloyd 2009;

Beyer and Davis 2009; Forbes and Davis 2010). Other mediators include preservice

teachers’ previous course work, their relationship with their mentor teachers, and the

contexts in which they teach (Behm and Lloyd 2009; Nicol and Crespo 2006).

Like curriculum materials, instructional models are also socially constructed

tools. Therefore, like their uses of curriculum materials, preservice teachers’ uses of

instructional models are also mediated by both the sociohistorical meanings carried

by the models and the sociocultural resources that the preservice teachers bring to

using the models. Although instructional models have the potential to support

preservice teachers in engaging in the important teaching practices of using

curriculum materials to select and sequence activities into effective instructional

sequences (Schwarz 2009; Schwarz and Gwekwerere 2007), the mediated nature of

preservice teachers’ use of tools such as instructional models means that each

preservice teachers’ use of the model will be different. The purpose of this research

is to identify some of the mediators that shaped one preservice teacher’s use of an

instructional model as a tool for planning and enacting instructional sequences.

Inquiry-Application Instructional Model (I-AIM)

The I-AIM was designed to support preservice teachers in synthesizing and using

several learning frameworks, focusing primarily on scientific inquiry, but also

including aspects of conceptual change and cognitive apprenticeship, when planning

and teaching science (Gunckel 2008). Anderson (Anderson 2003; Sharma and

Anderson 2009) defines inquiry as ‘‘constructing explanations from patterns in

experiences’’ with phenomena, and application as ‘‘using scientific patterns and

theories to describe, explain, predict and design’’ in new situations (Anderson 2003,

p. 14). This definition captures the essence of inquiry and is not intended to represent

the full complement of practices associated with inquiry. Scientists engage in inquiry

by looking for patterns in experiences with phenomena (data) and developing

explanations (models and theories) for those patterns. Scientists then apply these

82 K. L. Gunckel

123

models and theories to explain other patterns in experiences with phenomena. The

implications of this framework for inquiry science teaching is that instruction should

follow several inquiry principles, including that experiences with phenomena should

come before explanations, instruction should support students in finding patterns in

experiences, and instruction should offer students opportunities to practice applying

knowledge learned to new situations (Anderson 2003; Sharma and Anderson 2009).

Key ideas from conceptual change theory included in the I-AIM are that instruction

should elicit student ideas, provide opportunities for students to share and revise their

ideas, and provide opportunities to compare their explanations for patterns in

experiences with scientific ideas introduced during instruction (Posner et al. 1982;

Smith 1990, 2001). Finally, the I-AIM incorporates aspects of cognitive appren-

ticeship (Brown et al. 1989) by modeling for students the application of scientific

explanations in familiar contexts and then coaching and fading support as students

practice using ideas in more distant contexts (Smith 1990).

The I-AIM was designed as an educative tool to promote the development of

preservice teachers’ pedagogical design capacity (Brown 2009; Davis and Krajcik

2004) by highlighting the usefulness and importance of considering activity function

in analyzing and designing instructional sequences for preservice teachers. The

I-AIM was founded on the premise that every activity in a lesson sequence should

function in a specific manner in order to move students towards achieving a specified

learning goal (Smith 2001). In this paper, activities in an instructional sequence are

identified as small-scale events defined by a single instructional strategy (Smith

2001). For example, a whole class discussion is identified as a separate activity from

a hands-on exploration, which in turn is identified as a separate activity from a small

group of students sharing ideas, even though all of these activities may belong to the

same overall lesson and address the same learning goals. Activity function is defined

as the strategic purpose that an activity serves in a sequence. For example, some

activities function to establish a question, while other activities serve to engage

students in finding patterns, or to introduce scientific ideas. The position of an

activity in a sequence is important because the function of an activity in a particular

position may either support or undermine the pedagogical goals of that sequence. For

example, an instructional sequence that places activities that function to introduce

scientific explanations before activities designed to engage students with phenomena

would undermine the experiences-before-explanations principle of inquiry.

The I-AIM includes four stages. Each stage identifies two or three functions for

activities that corresponds to the underlying inquiry, conceptual change, and

cognitive apprenticeship frameworks. The stages and functions of the I-AIM are

shown in Fig. 1. Activity functions that support inquiry are the functions of

establish a question (Question stage), explore phenomena for patterns, explore

student ideas about patterns (Explore and Investigate stage), and develop student

explanations (Explain stage). The conceptual change activity functions are establish

a question and elicit student ideas (Question stage), introduce scientific ideas, and

compare to and revise student ideas (Explain stage). The activity functions of

practice with support and practice with fading support (Apply stage) integrate

cognitive apprenticeship and application into the instructional model. By identifying

activity functions, the I-AIM makes explicit to preservice teachers how activities


123

can be sequenced in ways that engage students in inquiry, support development of

students’ conceptual understanding, and provide students with opportunities to

practice using new ideas in new situations. While the I-AIM has many similarities to

other inquiry-based instructional models such as the 5E model, the I-AIM makes

explicit the purpose of many inquiry features such as providing experiences with

phenomena before explanations or finding patterns in experiences, and it makes

explicit aspects of conceptual change and cognitive apprenticeship to support the

development of student conceptual understanding.

Methods

Context

This research is situated in the context of an elementary science methods course. This

course was the second science methods course required in a 5-year elementary

preparation program at a large, Midwestern university. The course professor provided

instruction and support for using the I-AIM to plan and teach science, including

engaging the preservice teachers in an example instructional sequence about

electricity that fit the I-AIM. The preservice teachers were required to plan a 3- to

4-week instructional sequence using the I-AIM and enact the instructional sequence

in their field placement classroom. The professor provided individual coaching on

developing instructional sequences for all of the preservice teachers in the course.

The preservice teacher in the case presented here, Leslie, was one of three

preservice teachers who volunteered to participate in this study. Leslie’s case was

chosen for this paper because the mediators identified in Leslie’s use of the I-AIM

are mediators that could also shape how preservice teachers might use similar

instructional models. Also, these mediators are mediators that teacher educators

could consider and address during instruction. Leslie’s case serves as an instructive

case for teacher educators concerned with better supporting preservice teachers in

learning to use instructional models as planning and teaching tools.

Practice Model Stage Activity Strategic Function

Inquiry

Question Establish a question

Elicit student ideas about the question

Explore & Investigate

Explore phenomena & look for patterns

Explore student ideas about patterns

Application

Explain

Develop student explanations

Introduce scientific ideas

Compare to & revise student ideas

Apply Practice with support (model & coach)

Practice with fading support

Fig. 1 Inquiry-application instructional model (I-AIM)

84 K. L. Gunckel

123

Data and Analysis

Four types of data were collected and analyzed: Leslie’s planned instructional

sequence, videotaped observations of Leslie’s enacted instructional sequence,

Leslie’s written assignments for her science methods course, and semi-structured

interviews with Leslie and her mentor teacher.

Planned instructional sequence

Leslie outlined the sequence of activities for her planned instructional sequence

using a format required by the science methods professor. For each activity, Leslie

provided an activity label, gave a brief description of the activity, and identified the

I-AIM activity function (e.g., establish a question).

Video-Taped Observations

During field observation, the researcher video-taped Leslie’s enactments of her

instructional sequence. The researcher used the video-tapes and field notes to

outline the enacted instructional sequence, using the same format that Leslie used to

construct her planned instructional sequence. The researcher identified activities

based on shifts in instructional strategy, as described above. The researcher

provided a brief description of each observed activity and assigned an activity

function based on the observations.

Analysis of Leslie’s planned and enacted instructional sequences focused on the

order and sequence of the I-AIM stage and activity functions. The sequence of

activity functions in Leslie’s plans and enactments were identified and compared to

the sequence of activity functions in the I-AIM. For example, Leslie’s instructional

sequences were examined to see if she included activities to establish a question or

engage students in experiences with phenomena.

Semi-Structured Interviews and Written Assignments

Interviews with Leslie were conducted three times during the semester. All

interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded, and transcribed. The first inter-

view took place early in the semester to elicit Leslie’s previous experiences

planning and teaching science and her beliefs about science teaching and student

learning. The second and third interviews took place after Leslie enacted her plans

in her field placement classroom. These interviews probed Leslie’s thinking about

her plans and her enactments. Video recordings of Leslie teaching her lessons were

used during the second and third interviews to stimulate recall of the events in the

classroom and Leslie’s thinking about those events (Borko and Shavelson 1990).

Leslie’s mentor teacher was also interviewed to elicit her views of planning and

teaching science and her views of Leslie’s plans and enactments. Table 1 shows

example questions from these interviews.

As part of the science methods course, Leslie completed several written

assignments. These assignments included an analysis of the strengths and


123

weaknesses of the curriculum materials she used to help her plan her instructional

sequence, an elaboration of the learning goals for her science unit, an analysis of the

results of assessment tasks she used during her enactment, and a post-teaching

guided-reflection paper.

Codes were developed and used to analyze the interviews and written

assignments. These codes emerged from the themes in Leslie’s talk and writing

about her planning and teaching and fell into two general categories. One category

Table 1 Example interview questions

Interview Example actual questions Rationale

Leslie

Interview #1

What lesson did you teach last year in

your first science methods class?

Probed Leslie’s previous experiences and

thinking about planning and teaching

science.

How did it go?

What did you learn about planning and

teaching science from that experience?

Pretend you are a fifth grade teacher

assigned to teach a unit about sound.

How would you go about planning this

unit?

What would you do next?

Why would you do that?

Leslie

Interview #2

How did the two plants, the one in the jar

and the one not in a jar, how did that

relate to what you were doing in the

unit?

Probed Leslie’s thinking and rationale for

the specific activities she selected and

the sequencing of the activities in her

planned instructional sequence.

So then you went to Food for Plants and

you used the seed and log activity. How

did you decide that was something out

of that material that you wanted to use?

Leslie

Interview #3

(Interviewer shows video clip) So here

you were talking about what is food, I

think. What was happening there?

Probed Leslie’s thinking about

interactions in the classroom during her

enactment and her rationale for the

activities that she enacted. These

questions were asked in relationship to

specific video clips from the teaching

enactment.

I saw you use this particular activity

several times during the unit. Why did

you use this activity?

So, what was the purpose of having them

[students] read from the notebooks?

Leslie’s Mentor

Teacher

(Rebecca)

Interview

Tell me how you go about planning a

science unit.

Probed mentor teacher’s views of

planning and teaching science and her

views of Leslie’s plans and enactments.

What were the strong points of Leslie’s

planned instructional sequence?

What struggles did she have from your

perspective?

86 K. L. Gunckel

123

of codes described what Leslie was attending to when planning her instructional

sequence and making teaching decisions during her enactments, such as student

conceptions, types of experiences, and scientific explanations. For example, when

talking about an activity in which she took students outside to look at a tree, Leslie

said, ‘‘The goals of that were first to get them outside because they were just crazy

and it was a really nice day and they really wanted to go outside’’ (Interview, 4/25/

2007). This statement showed that Leslie was considering classroom management

issues when making her instructional decisions. The second category of codes

identified and characterized Leslie’s underlying guiding perspectives for planning

and teaching science. For example, in an interview, Leslie explained, ‘‘When you

are planning a unit, you want to show students the correct understanding of

something they aren’t understanding’’ (Interview, 1/22/2007). This statement

provided clues to Leslie’s conception of and approach to science teaching that more

generally enabled or constrained her planning and teaching decisions. Using the

process of analytic induction (Erickson 1986, 1998), these codes were examined

for key linkages to support the identification of the mediators of Leslie’s use of the

I-AIM to plan and teach science.

Leslie’s Planned and Enacted Instructional Sequences

Leslie was placed in a fifth-grade classroom in a fifth through sixth grade middle

school. Leslie’s mentor teacher, Rebecca, assigned Leslie to teach the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle was not part of the school district fifth grade curriculum, but

Rebecca assigned it to Leslie because Rebecca thought that it would enrich the unit

on food webs that was included in the curriculum. Because the carbon cycle was not

part of the school district fifth grade curriculum, Leslie had no district curriculum

materials to use to plan her unit. Rebecca provided Leslie with a book titled

Dr. Art’s Guide to Planet Earth (Sussman 2000). Leslie also had Internet access to

Food for Plants1 (Roth 1997) which provided an activity sequence focused on

photosynthesis.

Although Leslie was assigned to teach about the carbon cycle, her planned

instructional sequence focused mostly on the process of photosynthesis. Leslie

identified her central question as ‘‘How does a seed grow into a tree?’’ This question

was also a central question in the Food for Plants curriculum materials. She included

one activity from Dr. Art’s Guide to Planet Earth to model carbon reservoirs and

another to discuss anthropogenic sources of carbon in the atmosphere. Table 2 shows

the activity labels and the I-AIM stage and activity functions for Leslie’s planned

instructional sequence, as identified by Leslie in her plans.

Leslie planned to begin her unit by setting up an experiment that would run

throughout the unit to compare the condition of two plants: one plant sealed in a jar

and another plant left open in the room (Activity 1). Leslie stated that she planned

this experiment because, ‘‘I wanted them [the students] to see that carbon is

something that a plant needs to grow’’ (Interview, 4/13/2007). Next, Leslie planned

1 No longer available on the Internet.


123

an activity from Food for Plants to investigate student ideas about where the mass

of the tree comes from by asking students to explain how a seed grows into a tree. In

describing her rationale for this activity, Leslie stated, ‘‘Students will begin to think

of various hypotheses and will process their prior knowledge to do this. This activity

will prepare students to think about this event and learn about it in upcoming

lessons’’ (Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007). Leslie intended for this

activity to both establish a question and elicit students’ initial ideas.

Next, to help students understand that plants make their food, Leslie planned to

have students brainstorm where plants get their food and then read selected text

from Food for Plants that would explain that plants make their own food using the

sun’s energy (Activity 3). ‘‘This activity will allow students to connect the prior

day’s experiment [Activity 2] and hypotheses to decide what food for a plant is’’

(Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007). Leslie hoped that the reading would

challenge students’ initial hypotheses about how plants get food.

Leslie planned to use another Food for Plants activity to model the process of

photosynthesis (Activity 4). She used this activity to explain how photosynthesis

works. In her plans, she stated, ‘‘Students will visibly see the basic concept of

photosynthesis’’ (Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007). In Activities 5 and 6,

Leslie planned to have students use what they had learned about photosynthesis to

generate their own explanations for how plants grow. She stated, ‘‘Students will

look for patterns in what they have learned so far. They will try to generate a theory

Table 2 Leslie’s planned instructional sequence

Activity

number

Activity label I-AIM stage Activity function

1 Plant 1 vs. plant 2 Explore & Investigate Explore phenomena

2 Seed & log problem Question Establish a question

Elicit student ideas

3 What is food for plants? Question Establish a question

Elicit student ideas

Explain Introduce scientific ideas

Compare to & revise student ideas

4 Photosynthesis Explain Introduce scientific ideas

5 Forming the rule Explain Develop student explanations

6 Explaining the rule Explain Compare to & revise student ideas

7 Carbon cycle Explain Introduce scientific ideas

8 United streaming video Explain Introduce scientific ideas

9 Cow activity Explain Introduce scientific ideas

10 Draw carbon cycle Explain Compare to & revise student ideas

11 Examine the plant

experiment

Apply Practice with support

12 How are humans affecting

the carbon cycle?


88 K. L. Gunckel

123

in which we can test and discuss’’ (Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007).

With these activities, Leslie intended for students to use the information she

presented to revise their initial ideas.

At this point, Leslie planned to introduce the idea of carbon cycling (Activity 7)

and follow the introduction with a video that would provide more ‘‘examples of how

and why carbon cycles’’ (Activity 8; Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007).

Leslie then planned to use an activity from Dr. Art’s Guide to Planet Earth that used

balloons to demonstrate the relative quantity of carbon in various carbon reservoirs

(Activity 9). She explained, ‘‘Activities that students can be involved in help them

to generate a better understanding of a concept. Since you can not actually see

carbon cycling in nature, this abstract concept can be shown through this [activity]’’

(Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007). In Activity 10, Leslie wanted students

to draw on their new knowledge of carbon reservoirs and their understanding of

where the mass of a tree comes from to illustrate the complete carbon cycle.

Toward the end of the planned instructional approach, Leslie wanted students

to revisit the plant experiment and explain why the plant in the jar was dying

(Activity 11). In her last activity, she planned to have students discuss how humans

affect the carbon cycle (Activity 12). She explained, ‘‘This [activity] will allow

students to further connect the information they have learned to themselves and

their actions in nature. They will learn how to be better citizens and how they can

help to protect the earth’’ (Planned Instructional Sequence, 2/10/2007).

Leslie’s enacted instructional sequence (see Table 3) was considerably longer

than her planned instructional sequence. Leslie originally planned 12 activities to be

enacted over the course of 6 days. During instruction, Leslie added activities in

response to challenges she and her students encountered during instruction. For

example, in her planned instructional sequence, Leslie intended to introduce the

central question and then provide explanations for the process of photosynthesis.

However, she realized during her enactment that her students thought that water

could be food, so she added another sequence of activities to address the question of

what is food (Table 3, Activities 4–13). She explained:

They were talking to each other about what food was. And [Allison] thought

that water was food. And I think her definition of food was something that we

need everyday… So that was a challenge I knew I had to come back to’’

(Interview, 4/25/2007).

Leslie’s enacted instructional sequence included 27 activities that were enacted over

10 days.

In both the planned and enacted sequences, Leslie used a sequence of four I-AIM

activity functions repeatedly: (a) establish a question, (b) elicit student ideas about

the question, (c) introduce scientific ideas, and (d) compare scientific ideas to

student ideas in order to help students revise their ideas (see Table 4). These activity

functions matched the conceptual change aspects of the I-AIM. In her planned

instructional sequence, Leslie established the question about where the mass of a

tree comes from, elicited student ideas, provided scientific information about

photosynthesis, and had students compare their original ideas to the scientific ideas.

During the enactment, Leslie’s two additional groups of activities also used this


123

Table 3 Leslie’s enacted instructional sequence

Activity group Activity

number

Activity label I-AIM stage Activity function

Plant experiment 1 Plant experiment Explore &

investigate

Explore phenomena

Seed & log 2 Seed & log intro Question Establish a question

3 Seed & log discussions Question Elicit student ideas

What is food? 4 What is food?—

Popcorn reading

Question Establish a question

5 Writing Question Elicit student ideas

6 Whole class sharing Question Elicit student ideas

7 Popcorn reading Explain Introduce scientific ideas

8 Whole class sharing Explain Compare to & revise

student ideas

9 Role play Explain Compare to & revise

student ideas

10 Group discussion Explain Compare to/revise student

ideas

Food stations 11 Intro to food stations Question Establish a question

12 Food stations Question Elicit student ideas

13 Evidence Tally Question Elicit student ideas

Plant experiment

continued

14 Observations Explore &

Investigate

Explore phenomena

15 Discussion Explore &

Investigate

Explore student ideas

about patterns

Food stations

continued

16 Definition of food Explain Introduce scientific ideas

17 Revisit food list Explain Compare to & revise

student ideas

Seed & log

continued

18 T-Chart Explain Introduce scientific ideas

19 Revisit hypotheses Explain Compare to & revise

student ideas

Photo-synthesis 20 Role play Explain Introduce scientific ideas

21 Function of substances Explain Introduce scientific ideas

22 Drawing

photosynthesis


23 Photosynthesis posters Explain Compare to & revise

student ideas

24 Poster presentations Explain Compare to &revise

student ideas

25 Tree visit Apply Practice with support

Carbon cycle 26 Carbon cycle balloon

activity


Plant experiment

concluded

27 Examine the plant

experiment


90 K. L. Gunckel

123

same sequence of I-AIM activity functions. For example, in the ‘‘What is Food’’

activity group she introduced the question, ‘‘What is food?’’ (Activity 4), elicited

student ideas about the question (Activities 5 and 6), introduced scientific

explanations about what food is (Activity 7), and had students revise their initial

ideas (Activities 8–10). Leslie explained that in her teaching, her intention was to

elicit student ideas, which she called hypotheses, and then introduce scientific ideas

to help students disprove their original ideas:

I tried to help them use it [a list of student-generated hypotheses] to disprove

what they had thought - use all the activities they had done and lessons we had

done since the first day when we did all the hypotheses. And I tried to help

them go back and use their learning to disprove some of those (Interview,

4/25/2007).

Two important I-AIM functions were missing from Leslie’s instructional

sequences, both from the Explore and Investigate stage: Explore phenomena for

patterns and explore student ideas about patterns. In both her planned and enacted

instructional sequences, Leslie included activities that focused on the ‘‘plant

Table 4 Leslie’s sequence of activity functions across activity groups

Seed & log/photosynthesis

activity groups

What is food? activity group Food stations activity group

Activity

number

Stage Function Activity

number

Stage Function Activity

number

Stage Function

2 Question Establish

question


question


question

3 Question Elicit ideas 5 Question Elicit ideas 12 Question Elicit ideas

18 Explain Introduce

scientific

ideas

6 Question Elicit ideas 13 Question Elicit ideas

19 Explain Compare &

revise

7 Explain Introduce

scientific

ideas


scientific

ideas


scientific

ideas

8 Explain Compare &

revise


revise


scientific

ideas

9 Explain Compare &

revise


scientific

ideas


revise


revise


revise

25 Apply Practice


123

experiment’’ (see Table 2, Activities 1 and 11; Table 3, Activities 1, 14, 15, 27).

Leslie had the students observe a plant sealed in a jar and compare it to a plant that

was not sealed in a jar. In her enactment, Leslie did not explain the purpose of the

experiment or what she wanted the students to observe about the plants. Several

days later, she had students record their observations of the two plants (see Table 3,

Activities 14 and 15). However, these observations were not integrated with the

other activities that Leslie enacted that day. After the students had recorded their

observations, Leslie returned to having students read the labels on various grocery

items to decide if the grocery items were food. The plant experiment was left

unexamined until the last day when the students looked one more time at the plants

(Activity 27) and decided that the plant in the jar was unhealthy looking. Leslie

explained that the plant in the jar had no available carbon dioxide. She tried to help

her students apply what they had learned about photosynthesis to make the

connection between the lack of carbon dioxide in the jar and the apparent condition

of the plant in the jar as compared to the plant that was not in the jar. The intent of

the I-AIM is to provide students with multiple experiences with phenomena in order

to see a pattern. Leslie’s use of the plant experiment did not provide her students

with an opportunity to see patterns across experiences with phenomena or to

connect the experience with the plants to the explanations about food that they were

learning in the other activities. By not including experiences with phenomena that

allowed her students to see patterns in experiences, Leslie’s enacted instructional

sequence included a lethal mutation (Brown and Campione 1996) to the I-AIM that

undermined the inquiry potential of the entire instructional sequence.

Mediators of Leslie’s Use of the I-AIM

Leslie’s use of the I-AIM leveraged the activity functions that matched the

conceptual change aspects of the I-AIM but missed most of the activity functions

that correspond to the inquiry aspects of the I-AIM. This result can be explained by

examining some of the mediators that shaped Leslie’s use of the I-AIM to plan and

teach her instructional sequences. Three mediators emerged as important: (a)

Leslie’s perspective on planning and teaching, (b) the curriculum materials that she

had available, and (c) her interpretation of the frameworks underlying the I-AIM.

Leslie’s Perspectives on Planning and Teaching

One reason Leslie consistently leveraged the conceptual change activity functions of

the I-AIM may have been that she approached teaching science with a vision that

focused on changing students’ misconceptions. In an interview conducted before

she had been introduced to the I-AIM, Leslie brought up the importance of paying

attention to students’ misconceptions when planning and teaching science:

You can prove how a misconception is actually wrong and while you are

proving that you can help the kids see the actual big idea, or I don’t know, the

92 K. L. Gunckel

123

conception that you are trying to get them to see. They [misconceptions] can

help you plan your units (Interview, 1/22/2007).

When asked how she would do this, she said she would:

…design experiments that show and model the actual way that the Earth works

and not the way that they [the students] think it works. And also prove to them that

their misconception is wrong. (Interview, 1/22/2007)

Leslie’s approach to teaching science was to challenge students’ ideas, provide

students with new scientific ideas, and help students revise their ideas to be more

scientific.

Moore and George (2007) noticed that preservice teachers often learn and use

pieces of theory to inform their instruction. According to Moore and George (2007),

pieces of theory are not fragmented ideas, but rather coherent perspectives that

preservice teachers learn and use to construct their science teaching practices. The

way that Leslie talked about the importance of building instruction around students’

misconceptions and challenging student ideas, as well as her explanation for her

instructional sequences as providing students opportunities to ‘‘disprove what they

had thought’’ (Interview, 4/25/2007) suggest that Leslie brought pieces of a

conceptual change approach to planning and teaching her science unit that may have

mediated her use of the conceptual change activity functions of the I-AIM.

Curriculum Materials

The curriculum materials that Leslie used to plan her lessons also mediated her use

of the I-AIM. Leslie realized early in her planning that the curriculum materials she

had available had both strengths and weaknesses in terms of supporting her in

planning and teaching about the carbon cycle. Leslie realized that Dr. Art’s Guide toPlanet Earth provided her with good background information, but few activities to

use to teach about the carbon cycle. She thought the lack of activities in the book

meant that the material would not support her students in learning about the carbon

cycle:

There would be no activities at the beginning of the unit to help support

students in generating ideas about growth and carbon. Instead, they would be

pushed into learning about carbon but would not have had to question and use

their prior knowledge to build on (Curriculum Analysis, 2/10/2007).

She also recognized that Food for Plants would only help her teach the process

of photosynthesis:

The focus of the website is food for plants. Although this is the focus, it does

not mention the carbon cycle in any of the lessons. The students would not be

introduced to this cycle, but would only know one aspect of the carbon cycle,

that plants take carbon dioxide in and use it as food (Curriculum Analysis,

2/10/2007).

Leslie’s statement that plants use carbon dioxide (and not glucose) for food suggests

that her own understanding of photosynthesis was weak. Nevertheless, Leslie noted


123

that neither curriculum material provided the concrete representations and

experiences that she thought would help her students understand carbon cycling:

I am not sure if the students will be able to understand the concept [carbon

cycling] because it is rather abstract. I am going to try to incorporate a movie,

activities, charts, pictures, etc. that will help the students be able to ‘‘see’’ the

cycle without actually seeing it (Curriculum Analysis, 2/10/2007).

Leslie’s assessment that neither resource provided effective representations of the

carbon cycle may have influenced her decisions to add activities into her planned

and enacted instructional sequences, such as skits and videos, to help her students

make sense of the carbon cycle and photosynthesis in particular. In addition, the

activities in Food for Plants that Leslie thought could be useful likely played a role

in shaping the focus of Leslie’s planned instructional sequence on the process of

photosynthesis rather than the whole carbon cycle. Finally, Food for Plants used an

explicit conceptual change approach to sequencing activities. The conceptual

change sequencing of the activities in Food for Plants may have also mediated her

use of the conceptual change activity functions and not the inquiry activity functions

in the I-AIM.

Leslie’s Meanings for Experiences

Although analysis of Leslie’s planned and enacted instructional sequences shows

that she was able to leverage some aspects of the I-AIM but missed the inquiry

aspects, Leslie’s own analysis of her planning and teaching was that her

instructional sequences did fit the I-AIM:

I used the [I-AIM] model to develop and plan the unit. I tried to make sure that

each aspect of that model was accounted for in my unit plan. I focused on

assisting kids to think of prior knowledge they have that relates to the carbon

cycle and I allowed the students to have more experiences to add. The students

then focused on the experiences they had to develop patterns (Leslie Post-

Teaching Reflection Paper, 4/24/2007).

Here, Leslie claimed that she provided experiences and that the students used these

experiences to develop patterns. One reason why Leslie may have thought she

provided experiences before explanations may be that Leslie had a different

understanding for the meaning of the word ‘‘experience’’ from the meaning used in

the I-AIM.

In the I-AIM, providing experiences means providing experiences with

phenomena. To Leslie, however, providing experiences meant providing a variety

of activity types to accommodate a variety of student learning styles. She

purposefully included many different types of activities in her sequence: writing and

performing skits, completing complex group tasks, talking with partners, drawing

representations, composing and singing songs, and writing in science notebooks. In

an interview, Leslie explained the importance of providing many types of activities

in order to accommodate different learning styles:

94 K. L. Gunckel

123

They [students] also needed different activities that got them out of their seats

because they just couldn’t sit in their seats and learn for a while. … So they

need different ways to learn (Interview, 4/13/2007).

Leslie’s mentor teacher, Rebecca, also modeled using a variety of types of

activities in her own science instruction. For example, in a lesson Rebecca taught,

Rebecca had the students labeling plant diagrams, playing a science game, and

performing rap songs. Leslie looked to Rebecca for guidance while planning and

teaching her science unit. Rebecca explained:

She’s [Leslie] always asked a ton of questions, watched how I set things up,

watched how I planned units. When she planned her unit she was just with me

all the time. Like, ‘‘What do you think about this?’’ We talked about every

[lesson] she taught (Rebecca Interview, 4/13/2007).

Leslie made sense of the idea of providing students with many experiences in

order to see patterns as meaning that she should provide students with many

different types of learning experiences. She did not include in her meaning of

experiences the idea that science instruction should involve providing students with

many different experiences with phenomena in order to begin to see patterns in

experiences that can be accounted for in scientific explanations. Lemke (1990)

explained that words are given meaning by their relationships to other words and

contexts. Standardized relationships become thematic patterns. Often, the thematic

pattern of word relationships that one person uses to interpret the meaning of a word

is different from the thematic pattern that the speaker uses to make meaning of the

word. Thus, two people can use the same words and come to different meanings.

Leslie thought that she was providing experiences in her teaching because the

thematic pattern of word relationships that she used to make sense of the word

‘‘experience’’ was the thematic pattern of providing a variety of types of activities to

accommodate many student learning styles. As a result, Leslie believed that she was

using the I-AIM as it was intended to be used, even though she did not provide

many experiences with phenomena in her planned or enacted instructional

sequence. Leslie’s interpretation of experiences as different types of activities

rather than experiences with phenomena meant that Leslie thought that she was

engaging students in inquiry, even though she did not engage them with experiences

with phenomena. As a result, neither Leslie’s planned nor enacted instructional

sequence leveraged the inquiry activity functions of the I-AIM.

Discussion and Implications

Just as preservice teachers’ uses of curriculum materials are mediated, so is their use

of the tools such as instructional models. The I-AIM was designed as a long-term

scaffold to support teachers in sequencing activities in their planned and enacted

instructional sequences. It was intended to help preservice teachers synthesize

several theoretical constructs and use them in ways that support students in engaging

in inquiry and developing conceptual understanding. However, as Leslie’s case

shows, preservice teachers’ uses of these tools is also mediated, resulting in planned


123

and enacted instructional sequence, which may or may not match the features of

instructional sequences that the instructional model was intended to support.

Recognizing that preservice teachers’ uses of instructional models such as the

I-AIM are mediated opens new spaces for thinking about how to support preservice

teachers in using these tools. Often, if preservice teachers’ planned and enacted

instructional sequences do not include features that the instructional model was

intended to scaffold, teacher educators assume that either the tool was inadequate or

the preservice teachers did not understand the tool or both. Recognizing mediators

of preservice teachers’ actions can help teacher educators anticipate some of the

ways that preservice teachers might make sense of and use an instructional model in

planning and teaching. Teacher educators can then be aware of and anticipate

common potential mediators that influence preservice teachers’ uses of instructional

models as tools.

Windschitl and Thompson (2006) showed that preservice teachers often bring

naı̈ve ideas about scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching to planning and teaching

science lessons. From Leslie we learn that preservice teachers may make different

sense of what it means to provide experiences in an instructional sequence, focusing

on meeting students’ learning styles rather than providing experiences with

phenomena. Addressing perceived differences in student learning styles is a

common focus for preservice teachers (Schwarz et al. 2008; Southerland and Gess-

Newsome 1999), and thus Leslie’s interpretation of providing experiences may not

be unusual. Therefore, teacher educators using instructional models that emphasize

providing experiences with phenomena (including the I-AIM, 5E, and EIMA) may

need to make more explicit what constitutes an experience with phenomena and

how it differs from providing a variety of types of learning activities for students.

Similarly, teacher educators should be aware of the approaches to science

teaching that preservice teachers bring to teaching, and as a result, to using

instructional models (Remillard and Bryans 2004; Schwarz 2009; Schwarz and

Gwekwerere 2007). Leslie’s case shows that sometimes those approaches can be

productive in helping preservice teachers leverage aspects of the instructional

models that fit with their ideas about planning and teaching. In other cases, there

may not be a similar alignment in the preservice teacher’s thinking and the

instructional model. In those cases, knowing what approaches preservice teachers

are using may help teacher educators at least understand why preservice teachers do

not leverage important aspects of instructional models and could possibly help

teacher educators take a different approach in supporting preservice teachers in

using instructional models in their planning and teaching.

Additionally, Leslie’s case illustrates that other tools, such as curriculum

materials, may be mediators of preservice teachers’ use of instructional models.

This finding aligns with other research that curriculum materials mediate preservice

teachers’ planning and teaching (e.g., Behm and Lloyd 2009; Beyer and Davis

2009; Forbes and Davis 2010; Nicol and Crespo 2006), and thus it follows that

curriculum materials mediate preservice teachers’ uses of instructional models. In

Leslie’s case, one of the curriculum materials she used aligned with aspects of the

instructional model and thus facilitated her use of the conceptual change aspects of

the I-AIM. In other cases, such alignment may not be present. The implication is

96 K. L. Gunckel

123

that helping preservice teachers become aware of the differences between the

instructional model and the curriculum materials they are using may be an important

aspect of helping preservice teachers develop a richer understanding of the purpose

and intent of both the curriculum materials and the instructional model and use both

tools effectively together.

Finally, Leslie’s case illustrates that paying close attention to the sequence of

activity functions in preservice teacher’s planned and enacted instructional

sequences can help uncover potential mediators of preservice teachers’ uses of

instructional models. Identifying which activity functions Leslie used and which

ones she left out provided an avenue to understand how Leslie made sense of the

I-AIM. Teacher educators may learn about how their preservice teachers are making

sense of instructional models by paying close attention to the sequence of activity

functions in planned and enacted instructional sequences.

Leslie’s case is a single case and there are likely many other mediators of

preservice teachers’ uses of instructional models such as the I-AIM. Close

examination of additional cases of preservice teachers using instructional models

may illuminate additional mediators. Examination of beginning teachers and

experienced teachers’ uses of these tools is also warranted. Likely, beginning

teachers’ uses of instructional models would be similar to preservice teacher’s uses

of instructional models because they face many of the same, if not more, challenges

than preservice teachers face (Davis 2006). We know little about inservice teacher’s

uses of instructional models. Any single teacher’s use of instructional models is

situated in her particular sociocultural context, and thus the mediators of her actions

will be somewhat unique to her situation. However, teacher educators aware of

these mediators may better support preservice teachers (and potentially beginning

and experienced teachers) in learning to use these tools more effectively.

Conclusion

Instructional models hold potential as long-term scaffolds for supporting preservice

and beginning teachers in developing sophisticated planning and teaching practices.

However, their promise as scaffolds is limited if we do not take into account the

mediators of preservice teachers use of instructional models. Leslie’s case illustrates

some of the mediators that may shape preservice teachers’ uses of an instructional

model, including their approach to teaching science, the curriculum materials they

have available, and the meanings they make of the key constructs underlying the

model. Leslie’s case also shows how mediators can both enable and constrain

preservice teachers’ uses of the instructional model. Some of the mediators of

Leslie’s use of the I-AIM helped her leverage aspects of the instructional model in

successful ways. At the same time, some of the meanings she made of key

constructs limited how well she was able to use inquiry aspects of the model.

Finally, Leslie’s case reminds us that preservice teacher’s first attempts at using an

instructional model will show areas of success and areas to work on at the same

time. We must support preservice teachers in their continued learning to use

instructional models to plan and teach science.


123

References

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher

reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher

preparation. Science Education, 82, 491–509.

Abraham, M. R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In

B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 513–524).

Boston: Kluwer.

Anderson, C. W. (2003). Teaching science for motivation and understanding. East Lansing, MI: Michigan

State University.

Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery of invention? The Science Teacher, 29, 45–51.

Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning

teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 401–423.

Behm, S. L., & Lloyd, G. M. (2009). Factors influencing student teachers’ use of mathematics curriculum

materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbal-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachersat work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 223–244). New York:

Routledge.

Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of

science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education,20, 517–536.

Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),

Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 331–346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum

materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbal-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachersat work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York:

Routledge.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning

environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.),

Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18, 32–42.

Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach

elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors,

and teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 239–252.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). TheBSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics

textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 287–311.

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

Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science.

Science Education, 90, 348–375.

Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Designing educative curriculum materials to support teacher learning.

Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review ofEducational Research, 76(4), 607–651.

Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science

teaching. Science Education, 93, 745–770.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research inteaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillian.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin

(Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 115–1173). Great Britain: Kluwer.

Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008a). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ curricular role

identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92, 909–940.

98 K. L. Gunckel

123

Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008b). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation

of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 17(8–9),

89–854.

Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Beginning elementary teachers’ beliefs about the use of anchoring

questions in science: A longitudinal study. Science Education, 94, 365–387.

Gunckel, K. L. (2008). Preservice elementary teachers learning to use curriculum tools to plan and teachscience lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Gunckel, K. L., Bae, M., & Smith, E. L. (2007). Using instructional models to promote effective use ofcurriculum materials among preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Karplus, R., & Their, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up?

Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39,

522–549.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mikeska, J. N., Anderson, C. W., & Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Principled reasoning about problems of

practice. Science Education, 93, 678–686.

Moore, F., & George, M. (2007). Science teacher education about diversity: Using multiple theoreticalperspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice

teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 331–355.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific

conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula.

Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.

Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum

materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35,

352–388.

Roth, K. J. (1997). Food for plants: Student text and teacher’s guide. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University.

Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The

range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42,

283–312.

Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through

modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93, 720–744.

Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., et al. (2008). Helping

elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching.

Science Education, 92(2), 345–377.

Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional

framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91, 158–186.

Sharma, A., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Recontextualization of science from lab to school: Implications

for science literacy. Science & Education, 18, 1253–1275.

Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning

teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.

Smith, E. L. (1990). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, &

B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 43–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smith, E. L. (2001). Strategic approaches to achieving science learning goals. Paper presented at the

Conference on Improving Science Curriculum Materials Through Research-Based Evaluation,

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.

Southerland, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers’ views of inclusive science teaching as

shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge. Science Education, 83, 131–150.

Sussman, A. (2000). Dr. Art’s guide to planet Earth: For Earthlings ages 12 to 120. White River Jct., VT:

Chelsea Green Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. W. (1991). Voices in the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.


123

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences

reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.

Windschitl, M. (2009). Cultivating 21st century skills in science learners: How systems of teacherpreparation and professional development will have to evolve. Washington, DC: National

Academies of Science.

Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The

impact of preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 43, 783–835.

100 K. L. Gunckel

123

Documents

Mediators of a Preservice Teacher’s Use of the Inquiry-Application Instructional Model