FTP

Using a Guided Inquiry and Modeling Instructional Framework (EIMA) to Support Preservice K-8 Science Teaching
CHRISTINA V. SCHWARZ, YOVITA N. GWEKWERERE Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 332 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Received 11 January 2006; revised 15 June 2006; accepted 13 July 2006 DOI 10.1002/sce.20177 Published online 17 August 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT: This paper presents results from a study aimed at helping preservice elementary and middle school teachers incorporate model-centered scientic inquiry into their science teaching practices. Specically, the authors studied the effect of using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) and accompanying science methods instruction on preservice elementary teachers science lesson design skills, scientic model use, and teaching orientations. Analysis of preservice teachers pre posttests, classroom artifacts, peer interviews, and lesson plans throughout the semester indicates that the framework successfully built on preservice teachers prior instructional ideas, and that the majority of preservice teachers learned and used the framework in their lesson plans and teaching. Additionally, analysis of pre posttest differences indicates an increase in posttest lesson plans that focused on engaging students in scientic inquiry using several kinds of models. Most importantly, the framework and accompanying instruction enabled two thirds of the class to move their teaching orientations away from discovery or didactic approaches toward reform-based approaches such as conceptual change, inquiry, and guided inquiry. Results from this study show that using instructional frameworks such as EIMA can enable preservice teachers to socially construct, synthesize, and apply their knowledge for enacting reform-oriented science teaching approaches such as model-centered scientic inquiry.
C
2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 91:158 186, 2007
INTRODUCTION Inquiry and modeling are fundamental aspects of science (Lehrer, Schauble, Strom, & Pligge, 2001; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Inquiry practices play a central role in generating scientic knowledge, and models are essential tools for productive scientic reasoning in children and adults. Furthermore, science instruction focused around scientic
Correspondence to: Christina V. Schwarz; e-mail: cschwarz@msu.edu
C
2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK
159
inquiry and modeling can help learners develop deep understanding of subject matter, powerful scientic skills, and a strong understanding of the nature of science (Carey & Smith, 1993; Feurzeig & Roberts, 1999; Lehrer & Schauble, 2000; NRC, 2000; Schwarz & White, 2005). Scientists and science educators agree that such skills and understanding are essential for all citizens. Because of the signicance of model-centered scientic inquiry (or inquiry whose focus is on the creation, testing, and revision of scientic models and explanations) to the creation of new knowledge and to scientic reasoning, one might expect that it would be emphasized from the earliest years of instruction and developed over time, not postponed until high school or beyond. Yet, while inquiry has again become an important focus in the science classroom (NRC, 2000), modeling is not routinely practiced in schools at all. Perhaps, this is due to the persistence of theories of education that focus on simple, component skills for young children and a graduation to complex forms of reasoning only for older and more capable students (Bruer, 1993; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Schauble, Glaser, Duschl, Schulze, & John, 1995). Or, perhaps this absence of modeling is due to a lack of existing information, frameworks, and structures for guiding teachers in engaging children in model-based inquiry practices. Teachers who engage their students in scientic inquiry and modeling often struggle with their teaching (Hayes, 2002), and experience multiple barriers and challenges in using inquiry-based approaches (Anderson, 2002). For example, most teachers have never learned science through inquiry and do not understand the complexities and epistemological subtleties that are involved unless they have previously engaged in scientic research (Crawford, 1999; Windschitl, 2004). Similarly, neither teachers nor their students understand models and the process of modeling (Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith, 1991; Van Driel & Verloop, 1999), and few science teachers know how to effectively engage their students in scientic modeling (Justi & Gilbert, 2002). Notwithstanding, beginning teachers and their students should have access to scientic inquiry and modeling tools and practices. Furthermore, teachers need to appropriate modelcentered inquiry knowledge and approaches into their science-teaching repertoire, and we would argue that this should begin at the elementary level. The question then becomes, can prospective elementary and middle school teachers begin to learn about inquiry-based, reform-oriented approaches such as model-centered inquiry and develop foundational skills in reform approaches within a one-semester science methods course? If so, what does it take to help such teachers appropriate model-centered scientic inquiry into their scientic teaching practices and develop an underlying orientation that is commensurate with such practice? The authors of this paper hypothesized that helping preservice teachers learn about and use an instructional framework focused on model-centered scientic inquiry along with helping them develop reform-based pedagogical content knowledge and skills would provide a strong foundation for learning how to teach model-centered scientic inquiry. In this case, we dene an instructional framework as a simplied representation of the process one might engage in and the content one might address while teaching science. Our instructional framework is similar to what others have called the Learning Cycle Approach (Abraham, 1998). Examples of such approaches include the learning phases (Atkin & Kaplus, 1962), conceptual change (Driver, 1989), 5Es (Bybee, 1997), learningfor-use (Edelson, 2001), and the teaching cycle (Lederman, Lederman, & Bell, 2004). Such frameworks can serve as cognitive tools that enable preservice teachers to synthesize ideas for how to teach science, guide their own skills in teaching science, and apply core principles of reform-based science teaching. Instructional frameworks or models can also support coherent learning experiences that can help students build new understandings
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
160
SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE
over time and improve teachers use of inquiry (Abraham, 1998; NRC, 2000). While such frameworks have been used and rened for decades, few have incorporated the most recent recommendations about scientic inquiry practices (NRC, 2000) or focused on scientic modeling. It was the aim of this study to develop, use, and research the impact of an instructional framework that, along with relevant instruction, could help preservice teachers experience, learn about, and teach model-centered scientic inquiry and other closely related reformbased science teaching approaches including conceptual change and guided inquiry. As a result, we designed a guided inquiry and modeling framework, EIMA, which stands for Engage-Investigate-Model-Apply. This framework was based on the BSCS 5Es inquiry model (Bybee, 1997) and incorporates inquiry and modeling components to further emphasize, clarify, and incorporate the scientic practices of inquiry and modeling. The framework encourages teachers to engage students in guided scientic inquiry with a focus on creating, using, and revising scientic models. We envisioned EIMA as a cognitive tool designed to help preservice teachers understand, remember, and address important components of reform-oriented science while planning and conducting their science lessons. The tool was meant to be exible and adaptable enough for application to multiple teaching contexts. This paper reports on the results from our semester-long study with preservice teachers in an elementary science methods class. We investigated how experiencing, learning about, and using the EIMA guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework impacted preservice teachers pedagogical lesson-planning skills, use of models, and their orientations toward science teaching. The EIMA Instructional Framework EIMA stands for (1) engaging students in the topic and eliciting their prior ideas, (2) helping students investigate the topic, phenomena, or ideas, with high priority for data collection and analysis of those data into patterns, (3) helping students create models (that account for causal aspects of the phenomena or represent patterns in the phenomena) or explanations (that include a particular claim and reason for the phenomena), and comparing and reconciling those models and explanations with the scientic ones, and (4) asking students to apply those models or explanations to novel situations. Use of the EIMA framework also emphasizes creating a community of learners and using the tools of science through technology. At this point, it is important to share our denitions of scientic models and explanations. We dene a scientic model as a representation that embodies portions of a scientic theory. It includes any set of rules, representations, or reasoning structures that allows someone to generate predictions and explanations. For the purposes of this research, we have dened models broadly enough to include representations of patterns and principles, particularly if those representations include explanatory components such as verbal explanations. In contrast, a scientic explanation is the application of a model that provides causes for particular phenomena or effects (NRC, 2000). To reiterate, EIMA is different from other learning and teaching cycles (Bybee, 1997; Magnusson, Palincsar, Cutter, & Vincent, 2002) because of its explicit focus on creating, revising, and applying models as the focus of inquiry. As such, EIMA sets the stage for technology use such as computer models and simulations that are central in modern science and engineering. In addition, EIMA uses the term investigate rather than the 5E term explore to connote an inquiry-specic (rather than discovery) science teaching approach. Lastly, EIMA incorporates an emphasis on communities of
161
learners by stressing the importance of scientic discourse and practices using the tools of science. It was the aim of our research project to answer the following questions related to use of the EIMA framework and instruction: Did preservice teachers use EIMA? Did preservice teachers learn how to plan model-centered guided-inquiry lessons based on EIMA and supporting methods instruction? How did preservice teachers incorporate models into their lesson plans, and what ideas did they have about models? Finally, did preservice teachers change their orientations about science teaching? After describing our theoretical framework and methods for this study, we will turn toward answering these questions. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This research is grounded in the cognitive teacher education research that views teacher knowledge as encompassing pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). We use the term science teaching orientations to include the set of teacher beliefs and knowledge that guides teachers goals and methods for teaching science (Grossman, 1991). We base our work on the prior work of Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) in dening and delineating different kinds of science teaching orientations. As such, we used and elaborated their framework in our analyses. This framework is further explained in the methods section. It has been widely shown that teachers hold strong orientations and beliefs about teaching before they enter the classroom. In order to enable preservice teachers to begin teaching model-centered scientic inquiry as opposed to using primarily didactic or activitydriven approaches, and in order to help them develop their skills and practice in this approach, these prior teaching orientations need to be addressed, reected on, and challenged (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2003; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Hayes, 2002). Furthermore, preservice teachers need several aspects of pedagogical content knowledge and skills for enacting reform-based science teaching approaches such as model-centered inquiry. They need to understand scientic knowledge and practices including understanding the nature and purpose of inquiry and modeling (Schwarz, Meyer, & Sharma, in press) which is important for understanding the nature and purpose of reform-oriented pedagogy. Preservice teachers must also have skills for enacting reform-based approaches in their science teaching. In this study, we worked toward helping preservice teachers develop and rene their pedagogical content knowledge and teaching orientations through use of the EIMA framework and related instruction. Such instruction included reading and discussing aspects of the nature of science, the science education standards, and how students learn. These ideas were used both as the foundation for pedagogical knowledge and for revisiting existing teaching orientations. The EIMA framework served as a way to both help remind preservice teachers of what they needed to include as they planned their lessons and to scaffold beginning skills for inquiry-based science teaching. Others have similarly studied preservice and beginning teachers approaches and skills in addressing reform-based science teaching practices through analysis of lesson plans (Bright & Yore, 2002; Lynch, 1997). Instructional frameworks are useful both to teachers and students of science. Prior research (Abraham, 1998; Bybee, 1997; Edelson, 2001; Lawson, 1995; Lederman et al., 2004) indicates that teaching and learning frameworks and cycles can be highly benecial for helping teachers attend to the important components of inquiry such as patterns in data, explanations, and applications. Furthermore, creating, using, and revising instructional
162
frameworks may help preservice teachers to more readily see and understand pedagogical patterns than with discussion alone. Instructional frameworks can play an important role in social learning within a community, helping to provide a concrete representation and direction for teaching that can be reected on, argued against, and applied in specic teaching situations. Such social construction of knowledge around a framework and application toward teaching may be one of the most useful and productive functions of teaching and learning frameworks. METHOD In order to determine how the EIMA instructional framework and accompanying science instruction methods affected preservice teachers lesson-planning skills, model use, and science teaching orientations, we conducted this study in a one-semester preservice elementary science methods class at a large midwestern university. This methods course is taken by senior-level college students and represents the only science methods course that preservice teachers take before a fth year internship in which they work with a collaborating teacher teaching in K-8 classrooms to become certied teachers. The rst author was the instructor for the class, and the second author was an observer. Twenty-four seniors (21 females and 3 males) participated in this study during the Spring 2004 semester. Participants in the course had previously taken mathematics and language arts methods courses, and science content courses required by the university. In addition, roughly half of the preservice teachers came to this science methods class having taken a science course offered by the natural sciences department designed for preservice elementary teachers. This science course for elementary preservice teachers emphasized big ideas and application of those ideas within astronomy, chemistry, geology, and biology through hands-on activities and demonstrations. Implementation of EIMA in the Methods Course The science methods courses consisted primarily of three different types of endeavors: (1) reading, reecting on, and discussing ideas about science, learning, and teaching within small and large class discussion, (2) science inquiry activities within the topics of light/shadows and electricity, and (3) group work on lesson plans and preparation for teaching three lessons in preservice teachers elementary classroom eld placement sites. For example, in the rst quarter of the elementary science methods course, preservice teachers read about, reected on, and discussed foundational ideas within topics such as the nature of science and why we should teach it, how students learn science, what students should learn as recommended by the state and national science education standards, and understanding and evaluating instructional approaches including didactic, discovery, conceptual change, guided inquiry, and communities of learners (NRC, 1996; Reddy, Jacobs, McCrohon, & Herrenkohl, 1998; Roth, 1991).1 Our analysis and discussion of instructional approaches served as the culmination of the theoretical portion of the class and framed the work conducted in the remainder of the methods class. Subsequently, preservice teachers created their own version of a teaching framework derived from some of these foundational ideas (see results section for examples of these frameworks). Preservice teachers were then introduced to EIMA as an elaborated and robust
1 There is currently no text that describes model-centered inquiry. As such, preservice teachers learned about model-centered inquiry by combing ideas from these readings and others specic to the EIMA model.
163
teaching framework that they could use as a tool for planning and teaching science lessons. They were also given an extensive six-page description of EIMA as a reference, which included teacher and student activities within each framework dimension. We noted that while the modeling component of EIMA was described in detail within this document, the instructor never explicitly taught preservice teachers about the nature and role of models. The class subsequently engaged in discussion about the benets and drawbacks to using the various frameworks. As the semester continued, preservice teachers learned about specic techniques and methods of teaching that supported a guided inquiry and conceptual change framework such as science talks (Gallas, 1995) or using authentic assessments to support inquiry. In addition, preservice teachers experienced EIMA as a framework for two sets of science investigations in the class within the topics of light and shadows and electricity. These scientic investigations played a signicant role within the methods class as the preservice teachers engaged in model-centered guided-inquiry investigations for a signicant period of time (46 class periods for each topic). For example, in the light and shadows investigations (the driving question was: What makes a shadow?), preservice teachers engaged in a shadow hunt (engage), investigated and conducted studies about properties of light and shadows (investigate), explored computer simulations of laser-light (investigate), created models of light and shadows (model), and applied those models to remaining questions they had about light and shadows (apply). Within electricity (the driving question was: How can I build a working circuit, and why does it work?), preservice teachers tried to light a bulb with one wire and battery (engage), investigated patterns of circuits and setups of working circuits (investigate), used a computer simulation to further investigate circuits and circuit parts (investigate), created a physical model of electron motion within a circuit (model), compared it to a scientic model (model), and applied their knowledge to wiring a model house (apply). Preservice teachers also used EIMA within two sets of lesson plans they created toward the end of the semester. Those two sets of lesson plans included (1) a mini-unit plan composed of three lessons and taught in their eld placements roughly a month before the end of the course, and (2) constructing and reecting benchmark and technology (CRBT) lesson plans composed of three lessons addressing several Michigan constructing and reecting knowledge benchmarks and incorporating educational software. The CRBT lesson plans were due the nal day of class. Preservice teachers worked in groups of four to create and teach their mini-unit plan. They were scaffolded and coached by the instructor to engage in guided inquiry and modeling. Preservice teachers worked individually or in pairs on their CRBT lesson plans and were encouraged to address several core elements of the EIMA framework within these lesson plans. Finally, the instructor engaged preservice in reecting about the purpose of the class and about their own learning throughout the course within classroom dialog and reective journals.
Data Sources We used several data sources to address our research questions including a written pre posttest, classroom artifacts, transcripts of peer interviews (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2003), reective journals, and preservice teachers nal lesson plans. As the nal lesson plans were briey described in the prior section, we describe the content of the preposttests as well as the nature of the peer interviews.
164
The written preposttest included questions that ranged from asking preservice teachers to design a lesson, to questions about their teaching orientations, to questions about models and modeling. For example, the rst item of the preposttest asked the preservice teachers to design a lesson plan by answering the following questions:
Imagine that the local elementary school is interested in hiring you, but they want to see you teach a science lesson tomorrow. You need to write out a brief lesson plan to help you gure out what you will teach and how youre going to teach it. What will this lesson look like? First, state your objective for what you want students to learn, experience, know how to do, etc. . . . [Next,] What is the lesson or activity going to be like? Describe this in as much detail as possible. What will you have students do? What will you say or do? [Finally] What do you want students to learn or experience from this lesson? How will you be able to tell whether they have done this?
The posttest also asked preservice teachers to identify their orientation toward science teaching according to the Magnusson et al.s (1999) framework, to describe whether that orientation had changed during the semester, and if so, why that change might have occurred. Finally, the preposttests asked preservice teachers to answer questions about the nature and use of models. These questions asked about the best denition of a model from the point of view of building a scientic theory, how computer models and scientic models can be useful, and the parts of an atom a scientist would include in a model of the atom if the purpose of the model was to predict how that atom might interact with other atoms. Peer interviews were conducted using the elementary-level card-sorting activity adopted from Friedrichsen and Dana (2003). In those peer interviews, we presented preservice teachers with a set of 18 cards describing different teaching scenarios. Working in pairs, preservice teachers took turns sorting the cards out into piles, one with cards that represented how they would teach and the other one with cards that did not represent how they would teach. The preservice teacher who sorted out the cards was then asked to explain why she selected certain cards and why she sorted them in a particular order. The roles were then reversed. These interviews were audio-recorded. Data Analysis To answer our rst research question about whether preservice teachers used EIMA, we analyzed lesson plans within the preposttest, lesson plan drafts within classroom artifacts, and end of the semester lesson plans. Specically, we looked at the content and structure of the lesson plans and compared them with EIMA components. We also focused on preservice teachers incorporation and use of scientic models within those lesson plans. To answer our second research question and determine preservice teachers skills in designing model-centered guided-inquiry lesson plans, we again analyzed data from the lesson plans within the preposttest, lesson plan drafts within classroom artifacts, and end of the semester lesson plans. Preservice teachers lesson plans were analyzed according to the components of the lesson (e.g., teacher demonstration, student observation, student investigation, etc.), the sequence of the lesson components, and their apparent functions. We then generated and used a rubric based on Magnusson et al.s (1999) teaching orientations that encompasses overall lesson approaches. Such approaches included didactic, activitydriven, academic rigor, project-based, conceptual change, inquiry, and guided inquiry. We
165
added a subcode for the model-centered guided inquiry under guided-inquiry. For example, if the lesson(s) engaged students in investigating a question, collecting information or data, and analyzing those data to come up with some sort of explanation or model with guidance from the teacher, then it was coded as guided inquiry. See Appendix A for our coding rubric and examples of lesson plan outlines that met those codes. Both authors independently cross-scored all data and negotiated all nonidentical codes in order to come to nal conclusions. While some lessons indicated elements of more than one approach, we chose the approach that best t the overall lesson, and kept note of other afliated approaches in our data table. For example, while some activity-driven lesson plans had didactic elements in them and others had some inquiry elements, we weighed how much of these elements were present and classied the lessons as activity-driven if other elements were not emphasized. To address our third research questions about preservice teachers use and ideas about models, we analyzed the nature and purpose of the scientic models the preservice teachers incorporated into the lesson plans as well as responses to modeling questions on the pre posttest, and comments in preservice teachers reective journals throughout the course. To analyze the purpose of the models within the preservice teacher lesson plans, we devised a rubric that embodied three categories of models: (1) causal or explanatory models (such as diagrams or physical models of molecular motion in different phases of matter; physical models of the earth, moon, sun system that explain moon phases or seasons), (2) models that embody patterns in data (such as diagrams that indicate directions of electrical current ow in circuits; diagrams that show patterns of feeding relationships between animals in food chains), and (3) models that embody typical examples of objects or phenomena (such as a simple machine that incorporates particular components; a drawing of a common type of cloud). We coded all lesson plans for the presence or absence of a model, and the purpose of that model within the science lesson. All lesson plans were cross-coded by both authors. To address our fourth research question about whether preservice teachers orientations toward science teaching changed, we analyzed self-reported posttests responses and peer interviews. In particular, we looked for evidence of what preservice teachers thought was important to teach and how, and coded preservice teacher responses with the same coding rubric we used for analyzing lesson plan approaches. For example, in analyzing the teaching scenarios that they chose, were preservice teachers mainly concerned about engaging students in hands-on activities without a clear purpose (an activity-based approach) or on presenting factually correct information (didactic approach)? Alternatively, did they focus on engaging students in a scientic question while guiding students within their investigations and explanations (a guided-inquiry approach)?
RESULTS Preservice Teachers Used and Adapted EIMA as an Instructional Framework Analysis of classroom artifacts during the semester indicates that the use of EIMA effectively built on preservice teachers prior ideas of science teaching and that it challenged or expanded some of those prior notions of science teaching. Most preservice teachers used and adapted the EIMA framework in designing their science lessons toward the end of the semester. For example, before being introduced to EIMA, preservice teachers created their own frameworks in the course that included aspects such as: eliciting students prior ideas, engaging students in hands-on/minds-on activities, and engaging students in exploring and
166
reecting on their ideas. While the ideas for these initial frameworks were built on a prior foundation of knowledge explored and discussed earlier in the course and perhaps in earlier mathematics and language arts methods courses, this foundation supported understanding and adoption of EIMA. Nonetheless, it took time for preservice teachers to understand some aspects of EIMA as it challenged or expanded their notions of science teaching. Specically, the preservice teachers had difculty understanding that EIMA was designed to apply to a sequence of lessons rather than to a single lesson, and they had difculty understanding the nature and purpose of models and modeling within the EIMA framework. Analysis of mid-semester outlines of lesson plans indicates that ve of six classroom groups struggled in addressing the model section of EIMA. The responses to the model section of the framework ranged from leaving the section blank, to writing activity directions, to writing hands-on battery and bulbs, drawing examples (?) [sic], talking/discussions, or food web game multiple times. Nonetheless, evidence from the end of the semester lesson plans indicates that the majority of preservice teachers used and adapted EIMA for envisioning their science teaching. While nearly all preservice teachers specically followed EIMA in a mini-unit lesson plans for the course 3 weeks before the end of the semester (in which they were asked to address the various components of the framework and were scaffolded by the instructor in its application), the majority of preservice teachers adapted EIMA within the nal, more open-ended CRBT lesson plans in which they were asked to choose and address several dimensions of the framework. Analysis of preservice teachers CRBT lesson plans indicates that 4 of the 24 preservice teachers specically used EIMA as the framework for their lessons. Thirteen preservice teachers adapted EIMA to other guided-inquiry frameworks such as engage, investigate, and discuss explanations, which is an explanation centered rather than model-centered version of EIMA and a productive inquiry framework for addressing reform-oriented science teaching. Finally, seven preservice teachers did not incorporate core aspects of EIMA and instead, designed lesson plans involving, for example, demonstrating a concept with a model, using activities without a clear purpose, or problem-solving. Preservice Teachers Learned How to Plan Inquiry-Based Lessons Analysis of lesson plans within the pre and posttests as well as their nal CRBT lesson plans in the course indicates that preservice teachers learned to design lessons around scientic inquiry incorporating some aspects of investigations with data and observations, analysis of data, and creation or use of explanations or models.2
Pre/Posttest Lesson Plans. From the pretest analysis, we found that the majority of
preservice teachers (76%) began the semester by designing lessons that were primarily activity-driven (10/24 preservice teachers) or didactic in nature (9/24 preservice teachers) and two designed lessons that included inquiry or partial inquiry (lessons that included investigations or experimentation). Activity-driven lesson descriptions normally involved students participating in hands-on activities used for verication or discovery of concepts. Didactic lessons involved the teacher presenting information, generally through lecture or discussion and asking questions. In general, we found a pattern of lesson designs involving a teacher demonstration and student observation of the phenomenon or a model for illustration
We acknowledge that this denition of inquiry is slightly different from the one provided in the National Science Education Standards Inquiry book (NRC, 2000), which denes the ve elements of inquiry as including questions, evidence, explanations, evaluation, and communication.
2
GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK TABLE 1 Preservice Teachers Instructional Approaches as Determined Through Their Lesson Plans in the Pretests and Posttests
Instructional Approach Didactic Activity-driven Academic rigor Project-based Conceptual change Inquiry Guided inquiry Unclear Total Pretest Lesson Plans 9 10 1 1 0 2 0 1 24
167
Posttest Lesson Plans 6 4 0 1 1 1 11 0 24
and verication of the concept. At the end of the semester, half of the lessons (12/24) were coded as guided inquiry or inquiry-based. Six lessons were coded as didactic in nature and only four were activity driven (see Table 1 and Figure 1). In order to better exemplify this shift toward inquiry-based lessons, we present a vignette of a preservice teachers pre and posttest lesson plans that illustrates her shift over the semester from an activity-driven lesson toward a guided-inquiry lesson. We also present our coding and the rationale behind our coding for these lessons. We include other illustrative examples of lesson plans shifts and coding on our website (http://www.msu.edu/cschwarz/). In the pretest, the preservice teacher included the following for her lesson plan:
First I would ask the students [if they] know what a solid is then ask what a liquid is. Then we would make a list on the board under these two titles (solids, liquids). I would then have an example of a solid and a liquid and have the students determined what each was.
Figure 1. Preservice teachers instructional approaches as determined through their lesson plans in the pretest and posttest.
168

I would then have stations set up where they could touch the solids and liquids and there would be a list in which they would determine what on the list was either a solid or liquid (This would be in combination with the stations.) [What do you want students to learn or experience from this lesson? How will you be able to tell whether they have done this?] I would want them to understand the characteristics of solids and liquids. I would be able to tell if they learned this based on the answers to the worksheet.
The authors coded this lesson as primarily an activity-driven lesson with some didactic elements. The preservice teacher begins by using the Socratic method (a didactic method of eliciting student ideas), then provides concrete examples for students to verify this information. This is followed with activities and a worksheet for helping students apply those ideas to other objects. Students are not given the opportunity to investigate the properties of solids and liquids on their own, nor are they thinking about the reasons why different objects have different shapes. The teacher plans to use a worksheet to see whether students will be able to tell her what they learned, but this worksheet is not aimed at assessing students explanations or evaluations. Overall, it appears that the purpose of this lesson is to practice ideas for verication and application. In the posttest, the same preservice teacher wrote the following for her lesson plan:
The students will be given a battery, a light bulb and wires (more than two), and asked to gure a way to make the light bulb light (how do we light the bulb?). Then, students will take notes as they try different methods. When everyone has made the light bulb light, we will discuss as a whole the different ways they tried to light the bulb. Where the wires were connected, where the wires were touching, the light bulb and battery, how many wires were used, etc. Then we will talk about how energy ows, and if they think there are ways to make the light bulb be brighter. The students will be given a worksheet at the end with different models with a light bulb and battery and have to decide if it will light. [What do you want students to learn or experience from this lesson? How will you be able to tell whether they have done this?] I will want students to be introduced to electricity and ow of energy in order to build into other lessons. I will want students to understand how the energy from the battery travels to light the bulb. I will be able to tell if they understand by observing, through discussion, and the nal worksheet.
The authors coded this lesson as primarily a guided-inquiry lesson. The lesson plan includes a question, an investigation, a discussion about energy ow (i.e., current), and an application of student knowledge about electrical circuits to new situations using different models, making this lesson plan inquiry. In addition, the teacher dened the problem for the students and also engages students in a discussion of their investigations and ideas about energy ow making the lesson plan guided inquiry. While the content explanation in this lesson is weak, there is some discussion about how energy (or rather current) ows. Furthermore, the preservice teacher plans to assess students performances, their reasoning, as well as the correctness of their answers. Finally, her use of the term model is somewhat ambiguous but may have stood for representations of typical circuit diagrams (not our intended denition of a scientic model) or possibly diagrams that show different explanations for currentsomething that we used in our own methods class. We note that as such, the lesson does not embody a modelcentered guided-inquiry approach. Here, the models are used as a medium for application rather than as a product created to describe or explain current ow after having analyzed patterns in the data. (See discussion in the subsequent section about alternative uses of models in lesson plans.) Nonetheless, the posttest lesson represents a large shift away from a didactic approach toward a guided-inquiry approach for this preservice teacher.
169
These data as well as others from lesson plans indicate that a signicant number of preservice teachers shifted the way they thought about teaching from activity or didactic approaches to approaches that engaged students in some kind of inquiry and guided inquiry. Overall, we see evidence that the focus of teachers objectives shifted from providing concrete examples and models to verify facts to posing a problem for students to investigate. Whereas the pretest shows the teachers concerns for ensuring that students learn what they are told, the posttest shows the teachers in the role of inquirer, asking students to nd different ways to answer the questions and engaging students in a discussion of their ndings. We acknowledge that certainly not all preservice teachers made this shift. As the data in Table 1 indicate, 10 preservice teachers nal lesson plans (42%) were either didactic (6) or activity-driven (4) in nature. Several vignettes of preservice teachers who did and did not change orientations as determined through this pre/post item are presented on our website (http://www.msu.edu/cschwarz/).
End of the Semester Constructing and Revising Benchmark and Technology Lesson Plans. The preservice teachers nal, more open-ended CRBT lesson plans for the class
also show a signicant number of lessons that embody guided inquiry. The majority of preservice teachers lesson plans (15 of 24) exhibited a guided-inquiry approach. Eight exhibited activity-driven lessons, and one exhibited conceptual change. Perhaps the fact that so many preservice teachers created guided-inquiry lessons is not surprising, given that the instructor of the course supported the preservice teachers throughout this process. Nonetheless, these lesson plans incorporated investigation and explanation of ndings as well as some model creation. The general tone of these lessons is thinking of oneself as a teacher who facilitates learning rather than teacher as transmitter of knowledge. The nal lesson plans also show a general trend in emphasis toward community of learners where knowledge is constructed through class discussions facilitated by science talks (Gallas, 1995), group investigations, and groups sharing ideas. Preservice Teachers Use of Models in Their Lesson Plans and Their Ideas About Models Analysis of pre/posttests, preservice teachers lesson plans and reective journals indicates that preservice teachers further incorporated models within their lesson plans at the end of the semester, though not always in a manner consistent with the EIMA framework. Preservice teachers also ended the course with a range of ideas about models. In particular, we found that preservice teachers use of models within their lesson plans changed from the beginning to end of the semester. In the pretest, 11 of 24 preservice teachers incorporated models into their lesson plans9 of 24 preservice teachers used causal or explanatory models in their lesson plans and two used models to represent typical examples of objects or phenomena. In the posttest, the majority of preservice teachers incorporated models into their lesson plans (16/24), and the majority of these models either represented causal or explanatory components (6/16) or patterns in data (6/16). See Table 2 for a summary of these data, and see the method section for examples of models. Analysis of the nal CRBT lesson plans indicates that 14 of 24 preservice teachers incorporated models into their lesson plans, 8 used models that embodied both patterns in data and causal/explanatory components, and 5 incorporated models as typical examples of objects or phenomena (see Appendix B for a sample CRBT lesson summary that included such a model).
170
TABLE 2 Number of Preservice Teachers Using Different Types of Models Within Their Lesson Plans (N = 24)
Pretest Lesson Plans Posttest Lesson Plans 6 6 0 CRBT Lesson Plans 0 1 8
Causal/explanatory models Models representing patterns in data Models that represent both causal/explanatory models and patterns in data Models representing a typical example Models as modeling instruction No models
9 0 0
2 0 13
3 1 8
5 0 10
Overall, we see a pattern in which preservice teachers further incorporated models within their lessons plans at the end of the semester to address several different functions (patterns in data, causal explanations, typical examples). We hypothesize that the larger number of models that embody patterns in data in the posttest compared to the pretest may illustrate preservice teachers efforts to incorporate models into inquiry-centered lessons focused on data collection and analysis. Perhaps, incorporating models as typical examples of objects or phenomena as seen in the posttest and the CRBT lesson plans indicates preservice teachers efforts to incorporate models without a strong understanding for the nature of models. One nal note about the use of models within the lesson plansonly 3 of 24 preservice teachers in the CRBT lesson plans used models in a manner consistent with model-centered guided inquiry in which students construct or use models that embody aspects of patterns in data and causal/explanatory components after having conducted investigations. All three of these lesson plans coded as model-centered guided inquiry addressed the topic of moon phases at the upper elementary or middle school level. Perhaps, we would not expect to see a majority of model-centered guided-inquiry lesson plans given that it is not always appropriate for elementary children to create or use causal/explanatory models after empirical investigations in different subject areas. How did preservice teachers ideas about the nature of models change throughout the semester? Preservice teachers were asked to answer several questions on the preposttest related to the nature of models, the evaluation of models, and their utility. The large majority of preservice teachers began and ended with a strong understanding of the nature of scientic models (as a set of rules for predicting and explaining), of the evaluation of models (that some are better than others depending on various qualities), and the utility of models (that computer and scientic models can be useful for scientists, teachers, and learners in several ways). At the end of the course, we found an increase in the number of preservice teachers who understood that if a scientist wanted to create a scientic model of an atom to predict how that atom will interact with other atoms, that scientist would include only some parts of the atom (12/15 or 80% in the posttest compared to 7/15 or 47% in the pretest) rather than every single part of the atom (2/15 or 13% in the posttest compared to 7/15 or 47% in the pretest). Perhaps, this change represented an increased understanding of the modeling practice in which they had engaged several times throughout the methods course.
171
Occasionally, preservice teachers wrote about their struggles with understanding scientic models within the content investigations in the course and lesson-planning work. For example, one preservice teacher wrote the following text in her reective journal a third of the way through the semester after a methods class activity in which the rst author had asked preservice teachers to construct scientic models of light and shadows:
Some [pre-service teachers] . . . made models to explain how shadows occur and how they . . . look in different circumstances. I have to say I was most impressed by the two groups models last week particularly because when presented with the task of making a model two weeks before, my group and I were at a complete loss to make a model. Speaking for myself, I had no idea how to make a model or even what to make a model of dealing with shadows. When presented with the other groups models last week, I came to understand what the model-making was about and how they represented, through yarn and masking tape, the light rays and shadows. These models provided quality representations of light and shadows, but more signicantly, for me they showed how working together in science and working towards a collaborative community can be truly benecial. Two groups had ideas and made models that my group, at least, had not at all thought about. . . . By everyone working together to build an understanding, I think that our class was able to learn a lot about light and shadowsI know I did. Additionally, I think that through our studies of light and shadows that we were engaged in Scientic Inquiry.
In this example, we see that at least one preservice teacher was able to advance her understanding of the nature and purpose of modelseven though modeling was not a topic explicitly taught. On the other hand, others left the course without making as much progress in understanding the nature of scientic models or how to incorporate them into science teaching. For example, 5 of 24 preservice teachers referred to creating models within the nal CRBT lesson plans as the creation of typical examples of objects or phenomena. While this may be an instructional useful task, typical or representative examples of objects or phenomena do not necessarily embody aspects of scientic theory that lend themselves to prediction and explanation as we argue that a scientic model within model-centered guided inquiry should. Preservice Teachers Changed Their Science Teaching Orientations Analysis of posttest data and peer interviews at the end of the course indicates that preservice teachers moved away from didactic and discovery orientations and toward inquiry, guided inquiry, and conceptual change orientations of science teaching. This evidence suggests that the EIMA framework and the accompanying methods of instruction may have inuenced preservice teachers orientations about science teaching. Self-reported data from the posttest indicate that 15 preservice teachers started the course with either activity-driven, didactic or discovery approaches, two others with a conceptual change approach, two with project-based approach, two with an inquiry approach, one with a guided-inquiry approach, and one with process approach. In comparison, 14 of 24 preservice teachers categorized themselves as having nished the course with a guidedinquiry approach to science teaching, two as having an activity-driven and four as having a conceptual change approach (see Table 3 and Figure 2). One preservice teacher who reported that her teaching orientation had changed from didactic to guided inquiry, wrote the following to explain her change in orientation:
Coming into this class, I felt science was more of basic subject. You have your facts, you present them, understand them and that is it. Now, I can see how important it is to investigate the problems, I can see that providing explanations is necessary.
172
TABLE 3 Preservice Teachers Science Teaching Orientations at the Beginning and End of the Course as Self-Reported in the Post-Assessment
Orientation Didactic Activity-driven Discovery Process Academic rigor Project-based Conceptual change Inquiry Guided inquiry Total Beginning of Course 4 7 4 1 0 2 2 2 1 23 End of Course 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 14 24
Another preservice teacher who reported that her orientation had changed from activity driven to inquiry stated:
I used to put a huge focus on hands on as I enjoy doing this aspect of science. I now see there needs to be more than just activities, and inquiry includes investigating, drawing conclusions, and assessing the validityall important parts of science learning.
The preservice teachers statements to this part of the assessment provide clear evidence for how they believe their own thinking about science teaching and learning had changed from a didactic/activity-driven approach to inquiry/guided-inquiry approach. Analysis of tape-recorded peer interviews (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2003) toward the end of the course provides additional information and insight about preservice teachers science
Figure 2. Preservice teachers science teaching orientations at the beginning and end of the course as self-reported in the posttest.
173
teaching orientations. During these peer interviews, preservice teachers asked each other to classify specic teaching scenarios for how they would or would not teach science and why. Analysis of these data indicated that the scenarios selected by most preservice teachers to best represent how they would teach emphasized some aspect of inquiry-based/guidedinquiry teaching. For example, the following two scenarios were chosen by 18 preservice teachers as most representative of their teaching: In an electricity unit, you, as a teacher, give students batteries, bulbs, and wires. You encourage the students to nd all the possible ways to light the bulb. and You as the teacher have students observe earthworms and generate questions about earthworm behavior. Each group designs and carries out their own experiment to test a hypothesis related to the groups questions. One preservice teacher who chose the latter scenario said this when explaining why she chose the scenario:
I really like the way that its something that the teacher gets to do but there is freedom in that they get to ask their own questions and design their own experiments. It looks like they are taking charge of their own learning but its still a topic they have to do. I feel like thats kind of what science is.
The preservice teachers chose several scenarios they thought were not representative of how they might want to teachoften related to aspects of didactic instruction. In particular, the following scenario was one of three most frequently disliked by preservice teachers, You as the teacher are teaching a unit on space. Each day during the unit you read to the class from a chapter book about the solar system. After reading about a particular planet, you ask students to make a statement about the planet. You record these statements on the board for inclusion in a letter sent home to parents at the end of the day. One preservice teacher responded to this scenario in her interview by stating:
What the heck kind of science is that when you read a chapter and oh tell me something about this planet and you write a letter home? What did they learn? They regurgitated information (by the way I love that word) and then you send it home. What is that? Its not science in my thinking. They [are] not investigating anything. They are not guring [out] anything. They are not being encouraged to gure out anything. They are not being encouraged to think about what they know [or] anything like that. I just think thats ridiculous, silly.
The preservice teachers often reected on their ideas about teaching science at the end of the peer interviews. Many spontaneously reported about how their views of teaching had changed over time. One preservice teacher whose orientation changed from didactic to guided inquiry stated during a peer interview:
I think that one of the main things I gured out over time [in this course] is the fact that students need to be exploring but exploring in a guided way. . . . My goal for teaching science is to have my students become learners that question whats in front of them, that want to explore the world around them. They should be able to explore new things that they encounter. I want them to explore through my methods of teaching science, how to question and really try to do things on their own and really care about whats around them, gure out what happens and why it happens.
In-Depth Analysis of Two Preservice Teachers Finally, we present an in-depth account of two contrasting preservice teachers cases, in order to analyze how their science teaching orientations as well as their model use and ideas evolved throughout the semester. We also present these cases to determine possible
174
causal factors that may have contributed to aiding or inhibiting their change. In order to do so, we present information from Jim and Janets (pseudo-names) classroom interactions, pre/post assessments, course lesson plans, weekly journals, and peer interviews. Both Jim and Janet appeared to be average students as determined through class participation and journal reection responses. Jim almost never spoke in class in large group, though he contributed to small group conversation. His neutral facial expressions and journal comments indicated that he was perhaps neither resistant nor enthusiastic about the course. In contrast, Janet was quite vocal. In large class conversations at the beginning of the course, she spoke forcefully and somewhat negatively about theory-based ideas and activities. She wanted to hear the instructor give more practical ideas and methods that would be applicable for her future science teaching. In the posttest, Jim identied his science teaching orientation as having changed from discovery to guided inquiry. This self-report is close to our coding of his ideas about how he would teach a science lesson in the pre and posttests. We coded his pretest lesson plan as didactic and the posttest lesson plan as guided inquiry. As such, Jims case is representative of the majority of the preservice teachers in the class who moved toward a guided-inquiry orientation. In contrast, Janet refused to identify herself with any of the nine orientations used in this study, commenting that it was hard to choose any one of them. We coded her orientation as activity-driven with strong didactic components in almost all the tasks except for the nal CRBT lesson plan. This CRBT lesson plan exhibited a model-centered guidedinquiry approach and was the product of collaboration with another preservice teacher. In addition, both Jim and Janet struggled to understand and incorporate modeling into their lesson plans throughout the semester.
Jim. Jim was a special education major who came to the science methods class with basic ideas about the social nature of learning and the importance of acknowledging students ideas. He made a tremendous change in the way he thought about science and science learning as shown by his journal reections throughout the semester. Although Jim did not talk much during class or group activities, he clearly articulated his ideas in the weekly journal reections. Jim wrote extensively about what he was learning from the readings, the class and his eld placement, how these ideas related to what he already knew, and how he planned to use these ideas in his future teaching. From his rst reection journal, Jim showed that he was coming to this class with a passion and a willingness to learn. This was shown in his response to a question that asked how he planned to foster a positive attitude among his learners:
I do contain a strong thirst for an understanding about the world around me. By radiating my curiosity, I feel that my students will come to understand that I am learning right along with them. . . . The deepest learning occurs through the exploration of a concept or question in which you are truly invested.
Jims curiosity and open-mindedness for learning may partly explain why he was willing to learn about inquiry approaches and why his overall teaching orientation changed. We also attributed Jims orientation change to the way he engaged with and drew upon the class readings and class discussions about those readings. Throughout the semester, he expressed positive views in his journals about the ideas presented in the readings and showed evidence of integrating those ideas into his thinking. For example, at the beginning of the semester, he stated in the pretest that much of science is making an educated guess about what one thinks a specic outcome will be and testing the guess for accuracy.
175
Science involves learning, intuition, and thinking about learning experiences of the past. After reading about articles on the nature of science, Jim gained a deeper understanding of science, as shown below:
In my mind, I consider science to be the study of the world around us. It begins with a question or hypothesis about the way a certain process, idea, or object around us works; the experimenter then seeks to answer this question through the scientic process. . . . Science is open to exploration, interrogation, inquiry, and possibly most importantly, error.
We can see that in the initial denition of science, Jim seemed to focus on hypothesis and testing for accuracy and he seems to draw from his understanding of how students learn, and value for students ideas. After engaging with the readings, he has a much clearer understanding of the actual processes of doing science, which includes inquiry. Jims integration of information from the readings, including a better understanding of the processes of science, may have provided him with a background that helped him understand the validity and relevance of inquiry and EIMA in teaching science. This could also partly explain Jims orientation change. Throughout his journals, Jim discussed the importance of inquiry and understanding science deeply. In response to a question that asked what scientic inquiry is, Jim wrote, to me, scientic inquiry involves asking educated questions about the world around us. In another journal reection on communities of learners, he showed his concern about the importance of having students ask questions. Another way teachers foster communities of learners is by encouraging children to ask questions. Along with statements from prior reective journals, these excerpts provide some evidence that Jim understood the concept of scientic inquiry as asking questions and seeking responses through exploration, interrogation, and error. Jim also found inquiry to be a plausible way of teaching science in wanting children to ask (and presumably answer) their own questions. As such, his views seemed to coincide with those supported by the EIMA framework. Jim also expressed his desire to engage students in inquiry through the type of scenarios he selected during the card-sorting activity and peer interview at the end of the semester. Jim chose scenarios where the teacher picked a topic and the students asked their own questions and came up with their own investigations. He did not like scenarios that were didactic in nature, for example, when explaining one scenario he did not like he said, This is not exploring based. I think you need to combine exploring and the textbook. . . . This showed Jims commitment to inquiry and engaging students in science through exploration. Jim is one of the few preservice teachers who specically structured their nal lesson plans around EIMA. Within those lesson plans, Jim clearly showed how his lessons were going to engage students, help them investigate, model and explain their ndings and apply their ndings. For Jim, EIMA presented a useful framework for planning inquiry lessons. Nonetheless, Jim did not always use models in his lesson plans in the manner consistent with EIMAperhaps indicating that he struggled with how to incorporate models into science teaching. On the one hand, Jim understood important aspects of the nature of models (that scientic models can best be thought of as rules that can predict and explain), and that [Computer models and scientic models] can allow us to see things that we wouldnt ordinarily be able to see without the aid of a model. This helps us explain processes and how things work at a more accurate level. On the other hand, Jims incorporation of models within EIMA in two sets of lesson plans indicates that his modeling dimension entailed asking students to create typical examples of simple machines. For example, in one of the lessons-plan outlines, his lessonplan partner wrote the students built models of the wheel and axle using straws and paper
176
(a pinwheel). Students took notes of their model. The students shared with a friend the way a wheel and axle is constructed, along with how and why it works. While this task seems instructionally useful and potentially rich, a scientist would not call such an example a scientic model. This task focuses on the application of students understanding of types of simple machines in order to create a typical example rather than asking students to embody patterns of ndings with explanations for those ndings into a model. Finally, Jim wrote a strong nal CRBT lesson plan for kindergartners around sinking and oating objects that we coded as explanation-based guided inquiry in which he used no modelsan appropriate choice for this topic within this grade level. We hypothesize that Jims curiosity and open-mindedness contributed to his integration of ideas from the readings and discussions and contributed to a better understanding about the nature of science and learning. He also came to the class with some prior knowledge of students and a value for student ideas. Both of these aspects may have contributed to his understanding of the importance of inquiry. Furthermore, his background knowledge and learning throughout the semester were compatible with an inquiry framework. EIMA provided a structure that allowed him to engage students ideas or hypotheses and have them explore and investigate those ideasand he appropriately used EIMA in his nal CRBT lesson plans to create an explanation-based guided-inquiry approach.
Janet. Janet came to this class with a strong activity-driven orientation to teaching science as well as a sense that science teaching must be fun and hands-on. She maintained this orientation throughout the semester. Before taking this class, Janet took a natural science course designed for elementary preservice teachers that equips teachers with background content knowledge supported by hands-on activities used to clarify and verify scientic information. Janet found this science course to be valuable and referred to it throughout her reective journal. Janet also came to the methods course with a fairly negative attitude about the class. For example, she commented in her journal that she disliked the students who were not in her previous methods cohort and that she preferred the structure of her previous math and literacy methods classes. She was skeptical about how the professor was going to match up to her expectations. However, over time, she grew to like the class realizing that the instructor met her expectations, as reected in one of her journals:
I have really grown to like our science [methods] class. I enjoy working with hands on materials. I also think it is nice that you allow us to discuss our ideas with others and work in groups. I know lecturing is important, but I think the idea of allowing us to work with materials and experiment with our ideas is just as important.
It was clear to us that Janet came to this class expecting to learn more activities to add to what she knew. Evidence for this claim can be seen in the positive attitude she showed when the instructor engaged the class in new activities that she had not encountered before, In class on the 25th we started electricity. For me, this is a very good topic to move on to because I do not know much about circuits and electricity and it was not covered in [our prior science class]. Janets expectations for new science teaching techniques and skeptical attitude about the class inuenced the way she engaged with the class readings and her interactions in class discussions. Throughout her journal reections, she emphasized hands-on learning and making science fun. New ideas were tucked into these. For example, her denition of how science is described did not change much between the pretest and journal reections. In the
177
pretest, she wrote, Science is the study of everything. Right vs. wrong. Discovering new cures and the causes of sickness. Then in response to readings on the nature of science, she wrote, Science is the study of the world around us, but it is also the process and the set of ideas behind the studies that go on . . . the order of the experiment or study matters. While it is somewhat difcult to tell whether or not Janet understood the denition of what is science from the reading, she seems to be restating the content of the reading. Her posttest denition shows an improvement in understanding science as a process, but she seems to hold on to the idea of experimentation order, implying a noninquiry, scientic method approach. Janet expressed the importance of the ideas presented in the readings, and that she would use them in her teaching, though there seemed to be a contradiction between the ideas and how she planned to implement them. We could see such contradiction in her journal reections when responding to a question that asked how she would teach science based on her understanding of what science is, she wrote:
I plan to make science fun in my future classroom . . . it is important to get students interested and intrigued with the ideas of science. Students do not like to be at their desks all day. Doing many hands-on experiments and activities is a great example of how I can get my students out of their seats, testing their own ideas, and making their own discoveries.
Here, Janet does not take into account the denition of science that she had just given in the prior response within her journal. She does not talk about the process of doing science, but she emphasizes that she plans to make science fun and hands-on and wants students making their own discoveries. Throughout her journals, we saw that Janets positive response to the journal questions did not result in changing the way she thought about teaching and learning, which is consistent with what literature says about preservice teachers beliefs about teaching (Hayes, 2002). Another illustration of the discrepancy between Janets engagement with ideas in the readings and how she thought about teaching science can be seen in her denition of inquiry and how she planned to engage students in inquiry:
My idea of what science inquiry is, is seeking an answer to something you wonder about. To me science inquiry is the wonderment of an idea and the exploration of that idea to get an answer to a question. Students are naturally curious about things, so involving them in discovery is not hard.
While the rst part of her denition sounds promising, the last part indicates that she is either confusing inquiry with discovery or she is trying to incorporate inquiry into activitybased teaching. Again, Janets description of how she plans to engage students in inquiry contradicts her denition as she wrote in one of her journals, To encourage the wonderment of my students I would do experiments and hands-on activities after the discussion of their ideas. This would clear up any misconceptions. . . . Doing experiments also encourages the students to wonder about things. Here, Janet focuses on doing experiments and hands-on activities, but she does not talk about asking questions and exploration, which is what she mentioned in her prior denition. Janets journal reections indicated that she liked all the ideas that were presented and that she would use all of them. However, her expression of how she would use the ideas indicates her intention of folding them into her activity-driven orientation. Does this show lack of understanding, resistance to learning, resistance to incorporating inquiry, or was Janet exhibiting fear of losing her own knowledge and vision of science teaching? Again,
178
Janets beliefs about science teaching are strongly held and they act as lters for the new learning and teaching approaches (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2003; Hayes, 2002). On the other hand, it is also possible that Janet was making progress in learning how to teach and that she needed more opportunities to participate in a community engaged in building and enacting guided-inquiry science instruction so that her ideas and skills could continue to develop. Interestingly, toward the end of semester, Janet refused to identify herself with any one of the nine orientations used in the data analysis. This could justify why she would not indicate how her teaching orientation changed over the semester. In response to the question about how her teaching orientation changed, she stated:
I really dont see the purpose of only circling one. Before and after this class, I still believe that a combination of all of the orientations is best. There are certain times when different approaches are necessary but I have never thought I was in favor of one more than the other.
While one could validly argue that any one approach is inappropriate for all science teaching, Janets response may also indicate a resistance to change in her teaching orientation or a lack of understanding or value in understanding the distinctions among the orientations. In the peer interviews, she showed her commitment to activity-driven lessons. Janet chose scenarios that included hands-on activities as representing how she would teach. She disliked scenarios where students were investigating different things, and in response to one scenario she said, this defeats the purpose of what you are teaching. However, there was not much discussion about why she chose the scenarios that showed how she would teach. Janet was consistent in choosing activity-driven scenarios. A lot of them have hands-on, hands-on minds-on. Its not just sitting at the desk and doing. From class observations, we realized that Janet found it hard to buy into the ideas of other group members who wanted to engage students in inquiry activities. She was focused on the structure of doing activities and making sure that students got the facts and that she cleared any misconceptions they had. For example, when her group was working on ecosystem lesson plans for their placement, Janet insisted that they teach students the vocabulary rst because thats what the cooperating teacher wanted them to do. But other group members wanted to introduce the vocabulary where appropriate during the activity. Additionally, Janet did not like other group members ideas about each preservice teacher working with a different set of elementary students, which seemed chaotic to her. At that point, the group almost reached a stalemate, but after some negotiations, they managed to accommodate the concerns of all participants when the larger group convinced Janet that they did not have to follow all the cooperating teachers directions. They also convinced Janet that even if students in the class were working on different tasks in the small groups, they could bring students together at the end of class. How did Janet understand and use models throughout the semester? Janet also struggled with understanding the modeling component of EIMA and how to incorporate models into her lesson plans. Like Jim, her pre- and posttests indicate she had a fairly strong understanding of the nature of modelsand had a slightly stronger understanding of the utility of models at the end of the course stating, [Computer models and scientic models] create a hands-on, minds-on tool for students. Instead of seeing a book drawing, the model is touchable, and 3D. Computers can also create 3D models that can be just as or more effective. While this denition does not emphasize the predictive, explanatory aspect of models, she does emphasize the general notion of a model as a physical and mental tool. Nonetheless, Janet struggled in incorporating models into her lesson plans. In her draft
179
outline of her lesson plan on ecosystems toward the end of the semester, she stated that she would model, explain, and share my information. . . . I will also help the students who are having trouble learning by sharing my thoughts, modeling my thinking, and asking them good questions . . . In this sense, she interprets the model dimension of EIMA as a way for the instructor to model science problem-solving approaches and habits of mind rather than as an opportunity for students to create models of food chains and webs. Janets efforts in designing the unit were primarily focused on dening terms, asking students to sort animal types, and clarify feeding relationships. Although Janets orientation to science teaching remained unchanged at the end of the semester, her nal constructing and revision benchmark and technology lesson plans did use a model-centered guided-inquiry approach. In the CRBT lesson plans, she worked with another preservice teacher whose orientation changed from activity-driven to guided inquiry during the semester. In those lessons on moon phases, Janet and partner asked students to observe and record patterns in the moon phases. Then, they introduced and asked students to enact a moon phase model using Styrofoam balls and a lamp. That moon phase model shows students both the patterns in moon phases and the causal explanation for those moon phases (the spatial relationship between the Earth, Moon, and Sun). Although Janets nal lesson plans were model-centered guided inquiry in nature, there was a great deal of emphasis on teacher questions and directions. So what do these two preservice teacher cases tell us about how useful the EIMA framework was to preservice teachers like Jim and Janet and how they used such a framework to work toward better incorporating guided inquiry and modeling into their teaching repertoire? It looks as if the EIMA framework provided a framework for both Jim and Janet to plan inquiry lessons regardless of their science teaching orientations. In particular, the EIMA framework provided a common tool to apply in lesson-planning. We suspect that EIMA may have been particularly effective in moving Janets lesson plans toward a guidedinquiry framework during her lesson-plan negotiations with her peers. It is possible that Janet would not have adopted the EIMA framework if she was working on her own, given the way she dened inquiry and responded to inquiry lessons in earlier instances. Overall analysis of data from the two preservice teachers suggests that several factors may have inuenced what and how the preservice teachers learned from this class (with a focus around EIMA), whether or not they improved their skills in designing inquiry-based lessons, used scientic models, and changed their science teaching orientations. Analysis of these data indicates that preservice teachers background knowledge, their open-mindedness or resistance to new ideas, their skills in knowing how to integrate ideas, their attitude and expectations toward the methods class, working in a community, and the presence of an instructional framework such as EIMA likely inuenced the preservice teachers learning, thinking about, and engagement in science teaching.
DISCUSSION AND EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Summary and Discussion To summarize these results, our data indicate that preservice teachers came to the class with vague notions of teaching science as activity-driven or didactic. Many of the lessons we coded in the pretest indicated that the preservice teachers envisioned science teaching as involving hands-on activities, or involving didactic demonstrations with verifying observations and activities that would lead students to learn about a particular scientic concept. In the latter case, preservice teachers believed that teaching in this manner would clear up possible misconceptions. After the science methods course, preservice teachers
180
learned about, modied, and used the EIMA instructional framework; they learned how to design inquiry-based science lessons in which they engaged their students with a question, had them participate in some kind of investigation, involved students in discussions of explanations derived in part from those investigations, and asked them to apply those ideas; they further incorporated models within those lessons though sometimes in a manner inconsistent with model-centered inquiry; and many of them changed their science teaching orientations, moving away from activity-driven and didactic orientations toward guided-inquiry. Why and how did these changes occur? The in-depth analysis of the two preservice teachers cases gives some indications. In particular, new ideas from the readings about the nature of science, how children learn, how inquiry is conducted, and models of teaching seemed to have an impact on preservice teachers ideas. Readings on creating communities of learners and on socially constructed knowledge also had an impact on preservice teachers learning. In addition, we suspect other critical factors hinted at by data from the rst authors reections and the second authors observations may have played an important role. The individual and collaborative reections about the ideas from these readings seemed to have impacted preservice teachers orientations and skills, and this socially constructed understanding was undoubtedly a critical piece of their knowledge and skill generation. Participation in the methods course science investigations that exhibited model-based guided inquiry and collaborative work planning and teaching various lessons that addressed model-based inquiry with the support of the instructional framework (EIMA) and the instructor helped to move preservice teachers toward a guided-inquiry teaching orientation and to develop skills in teaching guided inquiry. Experience thinking about how to teach particular science subject matter, situating lesson design within particular topics, and then teaching those lessons were also important aspects of helping preservice teachers develop their orientations3 and skills. Furthermore, several preservice teachers in the course who were willing to think about new reform-based approaches and to work hard trying to implement such an approach may have provided some leadership within the course. This leadership may have helped other preservice teachers consider the utility of such approaches. We did nd some instances in which the course and instruction was less successful at enabling some preservice teachers to develop skills and obtain more fruitful and robust orientations. For preservice teachers like Janet, resistance toward letting go of her prior ideas or lack of understanding the new ideas may have distracted or delayed her from fully understanding and developing skills in reform-based science teaching. Furthermore, preservice teachers still struggled in incorporating models into their lessons. This difculty is not surprising given that the term model is often used in multiple different contexts. Even within our own methods course, we used the terms model and modeling to stand for modeling instruction, instructional models, physical models, representations that account for patterns, and abstract representations that account for causal or explanatory mechanisms. We also note that it is not always appropriate to incorporate scientic models within certain topic areas and age groups. Rather, it is important for beginning teachers to learn how incorporate scientic models and modeling effectively in appropriate contexts.
We note that 20 of the 24 posttest lesson plans were based either on our science investigations in class (light and shadows or electricity), on their mini-unit lesson plans, or on their nal constructing and reecting benchmarks and technology lesson plans.
GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK Signicance of Results
181
What is signicant about these results? Considerable changes in preservice teachers pedagogical skills and orientations are often extremely difcult to foster, and success in these areas is critical for reform-oriented science teaching. Tools and methods that encourage such change deserve our attention. The changes in our study represent a relatively high level of adoption compared to results analyzed from a subsequent study involving the rst author in which she de-emphasized the use of this instructional framework and added curriculum evaluation criteria. Additionally, we suspect that these transformations, while substantial within this methods course, would undoubtedly change over time with the constraints and realities of schools (Bright & Yore, 2002). Nonetheless, we believe that the success of our methods offer some intriguing and possibly fruitful use of such tools for other science methods courses. It is also important to note that the preservice teachers who experienced this intervention reviewed the course very positively and felt that the course had met their needs for learning how to teach science.
Future Directions Future work and analysis of the EIMA instructional framework is warranted. For example, more information is needed to determine how such change occurred and whether these results are reproducible. Additional detail needs to be obtained about how and why such an approach is helpful to both educators and preservice teachers and to determine what this approach allows participants to understand or be able to do that is not present in other approaches. Furthermore, the methods of instruction need renement as preservice teachers require a stronger understanding of the nature and purpose of models with perhaps stronger prominence and focus on modeling in the course and additional practice evaluating their lesson plans (and teaching) with respect to the EIMA instructional framework. For example, new teachers need practice critiquing teaching and lesson plans to decide what is and is not model-based scientic inquiry. They also need practice in evaluating curriculum materials and modifying them to address these components, and they need to engage in discussions about when one might you want to deviate from such an approach. In our future work, we hope to study preservice teachers similar to this cohort throughout the beginning few years of their teaching in order to determine how using such tools and frameworks may address core elements of reform-based science teaching within methods classes and within the constraints and realities of the classroom. Such efforts may help us to continue to be thoughtful and systematic in helping beginning teachers develop the skills and knowledge base for reform-based science teaching and specically model-centered scientic inquiry.
APPENDIX A Orientations or Approaches to Teaching Science Based on Magnusson et al. (1999, p. 101). Note: Phrases in italics include elaborations of the orientation descriptions and were used for coding instructional approaches within lesson plans. We also included examples of lesson plan outlines that met the codes.Finally, we removed the process and discovery orientations from the original Magnusson et al. (1999) paper as we found no examples of lesson plan outlines that met these descriptions.
182
Orientation or Approach Didactic
Characteristics of Instruction The teacher presents information, generally through lecture or discussion, and questions directed to students are to hold them accountable for knowing the facts produced by science. Involves teacher lectures and teacher use of demonstrations to illustrate or emphasize the content s/he is teaching. Scientic models may be used for demonstration, illustration, or verication. Ex: I am going to use students as molecules to show the different states. First I will explain each property and give an example they can relate to (e.g., solid desk). Then I will explain that atoms move differently in different states based on heat. For a solid I will have students stand next to each other tightly, moving only a little, for a liquid I will have them spread out and move slowly around, for a gas I will have them spread out more and faster. Students participate in hands on activities used for verication or discovery. The chosen activities may not be conceptually coherent if teachers do not understand the purpose of particular activities and as a consequence omit or inappropriately modify critical aspects of them. Teacher gives equipment and directions for activity. Students follow directions to complete activity. Teacher tells students what they are supposed to see or learn. Scientic models may be created or used for deriving or illustrating patterns in phenomena, to demonstrate or illustrate causal/explanatory mechanisms, or to embody a typical example of the object or phenomenon. Ex: I would provide the students with a roll of masking tape and marbles. The marbles would represent the molecules while the tape roll represents the container. By lling the tape roll with marbles the molecules cannot move around much, modeling a solid. Removing a few marbles allows some movement showing a liquid and by removing several more rapid movement can occur, similar to the movement of gas molecules. I would then ask the students to serve as the molecules and model these phases. Students are challenged with difcult problems and activities. Laboratory work and demonstrations are used to verify science concepts by demonstrating the relationship between particular concepts and phenomena. The activity often poses a challenge to students. Students may try to solve the problem(s) using example given by teacher or using knowledge from what they already learned. Ex: The lesson will be very basic. First I will go over the scientic properties of mass acceleration (SF Si ). I would want them to see that force will increase as mass and acceleration and ask them to predict comparative forces when mass and acceleration are given. I would give my students (middle school) two out of the components and have them gure out the third. They would already have to understand basic algebra. I would also use real objects. Project-centered. Teacher and student activity centers around a driving question that organizes concepts and principles and drives activities within a topic of study. Through investigation, students develop a series of artifacts (products) that reect their emerging understandings.
Activity-Driven
Academic Rigor
Project-Based
Continued Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK Continued

Orientation or Approach Characteristics of Instruction
183
Conceptual change
Inquiry
Guided Inquiry and ModelCentered Guided Inquiry
Teacher poses a problem for students to work on collecting information and coming up with artifacts such as posters or iers. Students may be given a choice to work on different activities or on the same activity. Students may either present their product to the class or post on the walls. Students may or may not be asked to explain their product. Ex: Begin by talking about different ecosystems around the world. Concentrate on the one we live in (deciduous forest). Brainstorm on various plant life we see around us. Take a nature hike. Have students write down characteristics. Have students work in groups to prepare reference books on the environment we live in, the trees in it (including leaves, nuts, info, etc. Students are pressed for their views about the world and consider the adequacy of alternative explanations. The teacher facilitates discussion and debate necessary to establish valid knowledge claims. Teacher assesses students ideas before introducing a concept. A discrepant event (activity) is used to aid students in changing their na ve conceptions. Teacher compares students ideas before and after activity or lesson. Scientic models may be created or used for illustrating patterns in phenomena or causal and explanatory mechanisms. Ex: First I would introduce the topic and ask for previous knowledge and wonderings about the topic. Then I would use a text to nd out informationproving and disproving prior knowledge. For an activity I will have students work in pairs to model their own orbit using balls, their bodies (I being the sun, I being the earth), or something else. To wrap up, I would have volunteers explain their models to the class and review learned information. Investigation-centered. The teacher supports students in dening and investigating problems, drawing conclusions, and assessing the validity of knowledge from their conclusions. Questions or problem to be investigated come either from the teacher or students. Students do most of the thinking and guring out how to investigate the problem with the teachers support. Students are encouraged to explore and explain their ndings. Teacher helps with correct explanations and applications. Scientic models may be created or used for deriving or illustrating patterns in phenomena, to demonstrate or illustrate causal/explanatory mechanisms, or to embody a typical example of the object or phenomenon. Ex: I will have students experiment with mixing various liquids such as water and oil. They will have to manipulate the liquid by pouring, mixing, and shaking. I will ask them to make predictions and hypothesize. Next, I will ask them why the events took place and if they had any reasons or solutions. Learning community-centered. The teacher and students participate in dening and investigating problems, determining patterns, investing and testing explanations, and evaluating the utility and validity of their data and the adequacy of their conclusions. The teacher scaffolds students efforts to use the material and intellectual tools of science, toward their independent use of them Continued
184
Continued
Orientation or Approach Characteristics of Instruction
A problem of some sort should be involved; this can either be a question raised by the teacher or students. Students should gure out or investigate problem together with teacher. More guidance and time devoted to talking about ndings in terms of determining patterns and explanations; comparing results to hypothesis etc. Scientic models may be created or used for deriving or illustrating patterns in phenomena, to demonstrate or illustrate causal/explanatory mechanisms, or to embody a typical example of the object or phenomenon. Ex: Students will observe a worm farm (worm habitat). Students will consider what is included in this habitat for the worm to survive. Is the soil dry or moist? Is it in a hot sunny place or dark and cool? Is it covered up or is air circulating? Students will discuss in groups what a worms purpose could be. Ask students to consider what the worm does for the soil, what the worm eats. Why would it be helpful for the earth to eat what it does? Teacher will introduce the term decomposer and discuss this term in relation to worms and their purpose. Important points of this discussion should be that worms break down/decompose garbage/dead plants and animals and turn it into nutrients for the soil. Students will then do a journal write-up with this new information. Model-centered inquiry is guided inquiry focused around creating and using models to predict and explain phenomena and then comparing those models with those from canonical science. These scientic models frequently embody patterns in data and have an explanatory component. Ex: Get the students . . . thinking about why they see different shapes of the moon at different times in the sky. The students will start to check to see if their thoughts about the sky are accurate by using a software program [simulation software of the sky.] [Then,] students observe the moon over a thirty-day period of time. Have them learn to chart their observations in an organized fashion. The students will also learn to make comments and questions based on observations. [Students] . . . explore the different phrases of the moon we see from the earth, and . . . understand why the moon looks different during different times in the month [through making a model of the moon using a Styrofoam ball and modeling the phases of the moon using directions and questions from the teacher].The teacher then asks questions to direct class discussion in order to make connections with their moon observations.
APPENDIX B A Constructing and Reecting Benchmarks and Technology Lesson Plan Summary and Coding A pair of preservice teachers in the course wrote the following lesson-plan summary, which is a condensed version of their longer lesson plan:

Lesson one overview: This is an ongoing lesson that challenges students to observe the changing sky over a one-week period. Students use Cloud Finders (www.scholastic.com) and journals to sketch and record their observations of the sky. They will also record temperature and precipitation levels (www.weatherbug.com) in their journals. And this information will be transferred to a class chart in Microsoft Excel. Lesson two overview: The lesson will begin with a KWL chart on clouds based on students prior knowledge as well as their weeks observations. Students will then be placed in pairs and asked to review their journals and the class spreadsheet in order to identify relationships among temperature, precipitation, and the skys appearance. The students will discuss their ideas, and the class will create a hypothesis about the relationships existing among these factors. Lesson three overview: This lesson will bring together the students observations from lesson one and the relationships identied in lesson two. Students will be placed into six groups and asked to research an assigned cloud type (cumulus, stratus, cirrus, cumulonimbus, altocumulus, stratocumulus). As the students research, each group will be called up to observe an experiment done by the teacher that shows the students how and why clouds form (www.srh.noaa.gov/tulsa/weather kids.html). Students will then present their ndings and create a model of their cloud type to be hung in The Classroom Sky.
185
While the sequence is not an exact embodiment of EIMA, it remains fairly faithful to the underlying components although the creation of a typical example of a cloud (the model) would not be considered a scientic model within the model-centered guidedinquiry framework. For example, the lesson begins with an engagement and investigation activity by asking students to observe phenomena they encounter in their everyday lives and asking them to record data (Engage, Investigate), continues by eliciting students prior ideas and asking them to generate hypotheses for their data (Engage). Students then continue to analyze the patterns in their data in discussion (Investigate). In the nal lesson of this sequence, students research a certain kind of cloud type at the same time as seeing a teacher-led experiment that shows how and why clouds form (Explain). The culmination of the lesson set is creating a model and presenting ndings from their research (Apply).
REFERENCES
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. London: Kluwer. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), 269 282. Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45 51. Bright, P., & Yore, L. (2002, April). Preservice teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their inuence on classroom practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientic literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientic knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235 251. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453 494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175 194. Driver, R. (1989). Students conceptions and the learning of science: Introduction. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481 490. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355 385.
186
Feurzeig, W., & Roberts, N. (Eds.). (1999). Computer modeling and simulation in science education. New York: Springer-Verlag. Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science-teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 291 309. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science. New York: Teachers College Press. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 51 94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799 822. Grossman, P. L. (1991). What are we talking about anyway? Subject matter knowledge of secondary English teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 245 264). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers struggles to dene inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147 165. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273 1292. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Bell, R. (2004). Instructing science in elementary classrooms. Boston: Pearson. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Volume 5: Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101 159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: Modeling material kind. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-ve years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers encounter with national science education reforms: Entanglement of intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1) 3 17. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95 13). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Magnusson, S. J., Palinscar, A. S., Cutter, J., & Vincent, M. (2002). Supporting guided-inquiry instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 88 91. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reddy, M., Jacobs, P., McCrohon, C., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1998). Creating scientic communities in the elementary classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Roth, K. J. (1991). Learning to be comfortable in the neighborhood of science: An analysis of three approaches to elementary science teaching. In W. Saul & S. A. Jagusch (Eds.), Vital connections: Children, science, and books. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131 166. Schwarz, C., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (in press). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Developing students understanding of scientic modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165 205. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1 22. Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers knowledge of models and modeling in science. International Journal for Science Education, 21(11), 1141 1153. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of inquiry: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientic method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481 512.

FTP

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FTP

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Using a Guided Inquiry and Modeling Instructional Framework (EIMA) to Support Preservice K-8 Science Teaching

2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 91:158 186, 2007

2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

Posttest Lesson Plans 6 4 0 1 1 1 11 0 24

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK Signicance of Results

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

Orientation or Approach Didactic

Continued Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK Continued

Guided Inquiry and ModelCentered Guided Inquiry

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

GUIDED INQUIRY AND MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

SCHWARZ AND GWEKWERERE

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen