Inquiry-based instruction in science classrooms: Is it happening?

Capps, D.K. & Crawford, B.A. Cornell University

ABSTRACT
Anecdotal accounts from science educators suggest that few teachers are teaching science as
inquiry. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim. This study aims to
contribute to the documentation of the use of inquiry in classrooms. We examined the teaching
practice as well as views of inquiry and nature of science (NOS) of a group of well-qualified and
highly-motivated 5th-9th grade teachers prior to their participation and engagement in a National
Science Foundation funded inquiry-based professional development program. We used a range
of data sources, including program applications, classroom observations, videotape data, an
open-response views-survey, and semi-structured interviews to assess teaching practice and
views of inquiry and NOS. We also looked for relationships between teachers‟ views and their
teaching practice. Findings indicated that most teachers held fairly limited views of inquiry-
based instruction and NOS. In general, these views were reflected in their teaching practice. The
majority of these teachers used primarily teacher-centered instructional practices. Elements of
inquiry including abilities, understandings, and essential features were observed or described in
less than half of the classrooms. Most commonly, teachers focused on abilities to do inquiry
instead of the essential features of or important understandings about inquiry. This study
documents that even some of the better prepared teachers struggle to enact reformed-based
teaching and highlights the critical need for rigorous professional development to support
teachers in learning about inquiry and NOS and enacting reform-based instruction in their
classrooms.

A paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching

Annual Conference in Orlando, FL
April 3-6, 2011

For a PDF copy of the paper or for more information email:

First author <dkc39@cornell.edu> and second author: <bac45@cornell.edu>
or visit http://www.fossilfinders.org/about/published.php

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No.
733233. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The National Science Foundation.

1
 Introduction
Reform documents in science education advocate for teachers incorporating inquiry-
based instruction into their teaching practice and teaching about the nature of inquiry and nature
of science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993; National
Research Council [NRC], 1996; 2000; National Science Teachers‟ Association Position-
Statement, 1998). Inquiry-based instruction is an important science teaching strategy that
involves supporting students in investigating questions and using data as evidence to answer
these questions (e.g. Crawford, 2000). Teaching through inquiry is thought to promote scientific
literacy (Hodson, 1992) and has the potential to improve both student understanding of science
and engagement in science (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996). Moreover, inquiry-based
instruction provides a context to begin learning about the nature of inquiry and nature of
scientific knowledge (Schwartz, et al., 2004). Unfortunately, most teachers have, “limited
knowledge of, and experience with scientific inquiry, or the process by which scientific
knowledge is generated. This puts serious limitations on their ability to plan and implement
lessons that will help their students develop an image of science that goes beyond the familiar
„body of knowledge‟” (Gallagher, 1991, p. 132). In order for teachers to enact inquiry-based
instruction in their classrooms and begin teaching about nature of science (NOS) it seems
reasonable that they will need to develop their own abilities to do inquiry, understandings about
inquiry and NOS, and the pedagogical skills necessary to teach science as inquiry and about
NOS.

Over the past several decades, there have been a variety of efforts to support teachers in
enacting inquiry-based instruction, including curriculum interventions (e.g Blumenfeld et al.,
1991; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Ladewski, Krajcik, & Harvey, 1994) as
well as pre-service (e.g. Crawford, 2007) and in-service professional development (e.g.
Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman, 2005; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007; Luft, 2001). In
general, these initiatives have shown that although inquiry-based instruction may be difficult,
well designed programs can support teachers in learning about and using inquiry-based
instruction in their classrooms (Anderson, 2002). Although science educators anecdotally report
that teachers do not typically use inquiry-based approaches in their classrooms, in searching the
literature we have found few empirical reports supporting this statement. The few studies or
reports that document mainstream teaching practice related to inquiry include a series of case
studies connected with project synthesis (Stake & Easley, 1978), classroom observations of
science and mathematics teachers from the Inside the Classroom study (Weiss et al., 2003), and
the TIMSS video study of Eighth-Grade Science teaching (NCES, 2006). Inquiry-based
instruction was not the main focus of any of these studies. Outside of these, there is little
information beyond survey data (e.g. US Department of Education, 1999) reporting on classroom
practice related specifically to inquiry. Because of the lack of empirical evidence, many articles
either cite these non-inquiry specific reports, resort to using anecdotal accounts when

2
commenting on classroom teaching practice (e.g. Lord & Orkwiszewski, 2006; Radford, 1998;
Wells, 1995), or cite anecdotal accounts of others (e.g. Windschitl, 2002). The aim of the present
study is to investigate the practices and views related to inquiry and NOS of a group of highly-
motivated and well-qualified teachers prior to their involvement in an inquiry-based professional
development program. Specifically we asked:
1) What was the nature of teachers‟ instruction prior to participating in the program?
2) What were these teachers‟ views of inquiry and NOS?
3) What is the relationship between teachers‟ views of inquiry, NOS, and their teaching
practice?

Theoretical Framework
Teaching Science as Inquiry
Classroom inquiry as described in reform documents includes three different elements.
The first two are educational outcomes, and the third is a teaching strategy (NRC, 1996, 2000).
First, inquiry can be thought of as a content area of study. In this way, learners should come to
understand how scientists do their work. For example, students should understand that scientists
ask questions, perform different types of investigations, and produce explanations based on their
observations (NRC, 1996). Understandings about inquiry reflect the philosophical and socio-
historical natures of scientific inquiry and NOS and thus there is some overlap between
understandings about inquiry and NOS (see Table 4 for a list of the important understandings
about inquiry). A second element of classroom inquiry is a student‟s ability to do scientific
inquiry (NRC, 1996). This includes such aspects as asking and identifying questions, planning
and designing experiments, collecting data using data, and connecting it with explanations (see
Table 4 for a list of the abilities to do inquiry). Third, classroom inquiry can be viewed as a kind
of pedagogy, or one‟s ability to employ inquiry-based instruction in the classroom in order to
address key science principles and concepts (NRC, 2000). Inquiry as a science teaching strategy
includes the five essential features of inquiry and their variations (see Tables 4 & 5 for a list of
the essential features of inquiry and their variations). The variations on inquiry help to highlight
who is initiating a given aspect of inquiry, for example, inquiries initiated by a teacher tend to be
more structured, giving students less intellectual ownership, whereas inquires initiated by
students tend to be more open, giving students more intellectual ownership. Although inquiry-
based teaching is not the only way to teach science, it is important because inquiry instruction
exposes students to a type of learning that parallels the work of practicing scientists, helping
them develop deeper understandings of science and critical thinking skills. Moreover, inquiry-
based instruction provides a fruitful context to address understandings about inquiry and NOS
(Carey & Smith, 1993; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004).

The importance of NOS instruction is emphasized in reform-based documents (AAAS,

1989, 1993; NRC, 1996, 2000). NOS refers to an understanding of science as a way of knowing,
including the values and beliefs fundamental to the development of scientific knowledge
(Lederman, 1992). Although there is no agreed upon list including all aspects of NOS (Duschl,
1990) there is a general consensus in science education on aspects of NOS thought accessible in
K-12 classrooms (e.g. Lederman et al. 2002; McComas et al., 1998). Included in this consensus
are that students should understand science is: empirically based; tentative; a product of human
imagination, inference, and creativity; subjective; socially and culturally embedded; and they

3
should also understand the distinction between observations and inferences and the relationship
between scientific theories and laws. It has been suggested that implicit teaching of NOS is not
adequate and that these components should be explicitly taught in the classroom (Schwartz et al.,
2004). Past studies have shown that many teachers and preservice teachers do not hold adequate
views of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Ackerson & Donnelly, 2008; Carey &
Stauss, 1970; Lederman, 1992). It seems reasonable to assume that inadequate views of NOS
held by teachers may prevent them from teaching about NOS.

It is commonly believed that teacher knowledge affects classroom practice (Cochran-

Smith & Lytle, 1999). Thus, the interaction between teacher knowledge and classroom practice
related to inquiry and NOS is an important locus of study in science education. There are a
variety of ways to conceptualize teacher knowledge. Two primary forms of teacher knowledge
discussed in the literature are content knowledge and practical knowledge. Content knowledge,
includes: knowledge of specific science subject matter (i.e. geology and evolution), knowledge
about what scientific inquiry is (both as a process and what scientists do), knowledge about
classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000), and knowledge about NOS. Practical knowledge comes from
past experience and includes both knowledge and beliefs derived from one‟s teaching and
learning experiences (Fenstermacher, 1994; van Driel, 2001). In considering classroom teaching
practice related to inquiry, it is important to understand how both content knowledge and
practical knowledge influence teachers‟ practice. As we better understand the interaction
between these types of knowledge we will be better able to support teachers in learning about
and teaching science through inquiry.

Method and Data Sources

We used a mixed methods approach consisting of quantitative and qualitative data from
multiple sources (Creswell, 2009). Our study focused specifically on two groups of teachers
recruited for a professional development program, Pilot Groups 1 & 2 (P1 & P2). The data used
in this study were collected prior to teachers‟ engagement in a two-year, inquiry-rich
professional development experience. The aim of this research was to characterize or profile
participants‟ teaching practice related to inquiry and NOS, and determine their views of inquiry
and NOS prior to participating in the professional development experience. We then looked for
relationships between teachers‟ views and their teaching practice. Because a single lesson might
not be representative of a teacher‟s classroom practice we used a number of data sources to gain
a better understanding of the nature of these teachers‟ instruction. Data sources included
application materials, videotape data and observations of classroom instruction, and an open-
response survey of views on inquiry and NOS. Additionally we conducted interviews with a
subset of the participants. Table 2 displays research questions and the corresponding data sources
and analyses.

4
Table 2. Research questions with corresponding data sources and analyses
Question Data Sources Analyses
1) What was the nature of • program applications • a priori codes based on evidence
teachers‟ instruction prior • classroom of aspects of inquiry, NOS, and if
to participating in the observations/videotape data the lesson was teacher or student
program? • selected questions from initiated
semi-structured interviews
2) What were these • written survey (VNOS-C, • modified 4-point rubric using
teachers‟ views of inquiry VOSI, and additional items) coding criteria recommended by
and NOS? • selected questions from Lederman et al. (2002); developed
semi-structured interviews additional questions drawing on
elements of inquiry defined by
INSES (NRC, 2000)
3) What is the relationship • those listed above • those listed above
between teachers‟ views of
inquiry, NOS, and their
teaching practice?

Context of Study
This study took place during the initial stages of the National Science Foundation (NSF)
funded project, Fossil Finders: Using Fossils to Teach about Evolution, Inquiry, and Nature of
Science held in the northeastern part of the U.S. The primary goal of Fossil Finders was to
develop materials and support teachers and their students in learning about NOS and
evolutionary concepts through an authentic investigation aimed at understanding how sea life
responded to changes in the environment during the Devonian Period in central NY. More than
120, 5th-9th grade teachers applied to the Fossil Finders program over a period of two years. From
the applicant pool, a total of 30 teachers were selected to participate in the program. Ten New
York State teachers were selected for the first cohort (2008-2010) and 20 other teachers, from
across the country, were selected for the second cohort (2009-2011). Selection criteria included:
quantity of college science courses taken, presence or absence of science research experience,
teaching experience (years), quantity of science professional development, what they hoped to
gain, their willingness to participate in the project, and evidence of a supportive school
administration. These teachers were selected based on their outstanding credentials as well as
their declared desire to improve their science teaching. Selected teachers had an average of 11
years of teaching experience, took nearly 12 college-level science courses, and had over three PD
experiences in science. Moreover, most of the 7th-9th grade teachers were teaching classes in the
discipline in which they received their degree. We suggest these teachers are perhaps some of the
better prepared and motivated teachers from across the country (see Table 3 Appendix A for
teachers‟ backgrounds).

Data Collection & Analysis

Characterizing the nature of teachers’ instruction. We used information from
program applications, classroom observations and/or videotape data selected by the participants,
member-checking and semi-structured interviews to characterize teachers‟ practice. As part of
the application process, we asked each applicant to describe a successful lesson or unit they
5
taught in the last two years, in order to get an idea of what instruction might look like in their
classrooms. After applicants were selected, we personally conducted classroom observations
and/or requested video tape data of teachers‟ classroom instruction. We operated under the
assumption that these highly-motivated, conscientious teachers would describe and record some
of their better lessons, giving us a best case scenario of their classroom instruction. Complete
data sets, including program applications, descriptions of lessons, and observations of lessons,
were collected for 26 of the 30 participants. We analyzed these data sources looking for the
presence of inquiry and NOS and who initiated the inquiry. We used our analyses to characterize
the nature of each teacher‟s instruction. In analyzing the multiple data sources we used the
highest score related to inquiry-based teaching, NOS, and who initiated the inquiry derived from
any single data source for each of the 26 participants. For example, if a description of a lesson
yielded a higher score than a classroom observation we used the higher score. Because we had a
limited number of observations, we also conducted a semi-structured interview with a subset of
the 26 teachers to corroborate our interpretations and gain a greater understanding of the nature
of these teachers‟ instructional practices.

Presence of inquiry & NOS. In analyzing lessons and descriptions of lessons we used an
a priori coding scheme looking for evidence of inquiry defined by the National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 1996, 2000) and aspects of NOS reported to be accessible in K-12
classrooms (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). The codes were used to
develop a numerical score based on the presence (1) or absence (0) of individual aspects of
inquiry and NOS in teacher‟s lessons (see Table 4 for a complete list of codes). Because there is
some overlap between the eight abilities to do inquiry and the five essential features of inquiry,
that is, some of the abilities are incorporated into the features (e.g. the fourth ability (A4) has
learners develop explanations using evidence, this is the same as the third essential feature (EF3)
where learners use evidence to develop explanations); we merged the abilities and essential
features of inquiry into one category. In doing so, we ended up with a total of eight codes
representing the abilities to do and essential features of inquiry. As a result of this merger, a
teacher could receive a score from zero to eight for the presence or absence of abilities and
features of inquiry in a lesson. Scores for understandings about inquiry and aspects of NOS
could range from zero to seven since there were seven aspects of each. We also noted if
understandings about inquiry and NOS were addressed explicitly or implicitly by teachers in the
lessons. In situations where the presence or absence of aspects of inquiry or NOS was unclear,
we spoke with the teacher for clarification and the final decision was determined based on the
consensus of a group of science educators.

Who initiated the inquiry. To establish who initiated aspects of inquiry observed or
described in teachers‟ lessons, we combined and modified table 2-6 from INSES (NRC, 2000)
with the Inquiry Analysis Tool (Bell, 2002). In doing so, we created a matrix that could be used
to describe if aspects of inquiry were either student or teacher-initiated. We used a numerical
score between 1 and 4 to describe who initiated each of the abilities and features of inquiry
observed or described in a lesson; 1 being the most teacher-initiated, and 4 being the most
student-initiated (see Table 5). Thus, if a lesson included all eight abilities and features of
inquiry, and they were completely student-initiated, the lesson would score 32-points, whereas a
lesson with no aspects of inquiry would be scored as a zero. In situations that were unclear, the

6
final decision on who initiated the inquiry was determined based on the consensus of a group of
science educators.

Table 4. Elements of inquiry (NRC, 1996, 2000) and NOS (Lederman et al., 2002). These were
used as codes to determine the presence (1) or absence (0) of aspects of inquiry and NOS in
teachers‟ lessons
Important Abilities and Essential Important Understandings Nature of Science
Features of Inquiry U= Understanding NOS= Nature of Science
EF= Essential Feature A= Ability
EF1 (A1): Involved in sci-oriented U1:Different kinds of questions NOS1:Tentative or subject to
problem suggest different kinds of scientific change
investigations
A2: Design an conduct investigation U2:Current scientific knowledge and NOS2:Empirically based (based on
understanding guide scientific and/or derived from observations of
investigations the natural world)
E2: Priority to evidence in resp. to a U3:Mathematics is important in all NOS3:Subjective or theory-laden
problem: observe, describe, record, aspects of scientific inquiry (theoretical, disciplinary
graph commitments , training, and prior
knowledge affect the work of
scientists)
EF3 (A4): Uses evidence to develop U4:Technology used to gather data NOS4:Creative, the product of
an explanation (e.g. enhances accuracy and allows human imagination and inference
cause for effect, establish scientists to analyze and quantify
relationship based on evidence- use results of investigations
obs. evidence to exp phases of
moon)

EF4 (A5, A6): Connects explanation U5:Scientific explanations NOS5:Socially and culturally
to scientific knowledge: does emphasize evidence, have logically embedded
evidence support explanation? consistent arguments, and use
Evaluate explain in light of alt exp., scientific principles, models, and
account for anomalies theories
EF5 (A7): Communicates and U6:Science advances through NOS6:Observations and inference
justifies legitimate skepticism distinction
A3: Use of tools and techniques to U7:Scientific investigations NOS7:Scientific theory and
gather, analyze, and interpret data sometimes result in new ideas and scientific law distinction
phenomena for study, generate new
methods or procedures for an
investigation, or develop new
technologies to improve the
collection of data
A8: Use of mathematics in all
aspects of inquiry

Characterization of inquiry instruction. After establishing the presence of inquiry and

who initiated the inquiry for all 26 teachers‟ lessons, we plotted their scores on a modified
version of the inquiry continuum (Brown et al., 2006). Once plotted, we looked for groupings
that would allow us to characterize instructional practice related to inquiry. Teachers were
characterized as either having a robust ability to teach science as inquiry or not having a robust
ability to teach science as inquiry. We then selected eight teachers to interview from the group
who did not demonstrate a robust ability to teach science as inquiry. These teachers were

7
purposively selected spanning the range from those who had no inquiry in their lessons to those
who nearly demonstrated a robust ability to teach science as inquiry. We used a semi-structured
interview to corroborate our interpretations and gain a greater understanding of the nature of
these teachers‟ instructional practices (see Appendix B for semi-structured interview).

Table 5. Matrix used to determine who initiated abilities or features of inquiry observed or
described in teachers‟ lessons.
Ability or Feature 4pts 3pts 2pts 1pt
1. Involved in sci- Student poses a Student guided in Student selects Student engages in
oriented question question posing their own among questions, question provided
(EF1, A1) question poses new questions by teacher,
materials, or other
source
2. Design an Student designs and Student guided in Student selects from Student given an
conduct conducts designing and possible investigative plan to
investigation (A2) investigation conducting an investigative conduct
investigation designs
3. Priority to Student determines Student directed to Student given data Student given data
evidence in resp. to what constitutes collect certain data and asked to and told how to
a problem: observe, evidence and analyze analyze
describe, record, collects it
graph (EF2)
4. Uses evidence to Student formulates Student guided in Student given Student provided
develop an explanation after process of possible ways to use with evidence
explanation (EF3, summarizing formulating evidence to
A4) evidence explanations from formulate
evidence explanation
5. Connects Student determines Student guided in Student selects from Student told how
explanation to how evidence determining how possible evidence evidence supports
scientific supports evidence supports supporting explanation or told
knowledge: does explanation or explanation or explanation or about alternative
evidence support independently guided to other given resources or explanations
explanation? examines other resources or alt possible alt
Evaluate explain in resources or explanations explanations
light of alt exp., explanations
account for
anomalies
(EF4, A5, A6)
6. Communicates Student forms Student guided in Student selects from Student given steps
and justifies (EF5, reasonable and development of possible ways to for how to
A7) logical argument to communication communicate communicate
communicate explanation explanation
explanation
7. Use of tools and Student determines Student guided in Students select form Student given tools
techniques to tools and techniques determining the tools and techniques and techniques
gather, analyze, and needed to conduct tools and techniques needed needed
interpret data the investigation needed
(A3)
8. Use of Student uses math Student guided in Student given math Math was used
mathematics in all skills to answer a using math skills to problems related to
aspects of inquiry scientific question answer a scientific a scientific question
(A8) question

Who initiated aspects of inquiry?

Student 8 Teacher
Initiated Initiated
 Characterizing teachers’ views of inquiry & NOS. Teachers‟ views were assessed
using a validated, open-response, views of inquiry and NOS survey. We developed the survey
over a period of two years drawing on elements of inquiry defined in Inquiry and the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000) and aspects of NOS reported to be accessible in K-12
classrooms (Lederman et al., 2002). Because there were slight differences between the survey
given to P1 teachers and P2 teachers we used only those items that were identical on the two
survey (see Appendix C for survey). We developed our scoring scale based on that of Lederman
et al. (2002); however, we modified the original from a three-point scale to a four-point scale (0-
3, uninformed understanding-robust understanding). We did this because the four-point scale
was more fine grained and would more clearly highlight variance across our population of
teachers. Initially, each item was scored independently by two researchers using the four-point
scale. Throughout the process the coders consulted with one another to ensure agreement on
scores. Next, we analyzed each teacher‟s responses vertically, across all of the items to help
place difficult responses into context using their answers to other items. Finally, we conducted a
horizontal analysis, for each item across our participants, to ensure consistency and fine tune the
scoring rubric. Interrater agreement among the coders approached 95%. When there was a
disagreement on the final score of an item, we discussed it until we reached consensus.

Relation of Views to Classroom Practice. Once we characterized teachers‟ classroom

practice and their views of inquiry and NOS, we looked for relationships between their views
and practice. To describe the relationships, we first visually compared the views of inquiry and
NOS scores with scores for teaching practice to look for similarities and differences in the data.
Next, we correlated scores for the presence of inquiry with views of inquiry scores, views of
NOS scores, and combined views inquiry and NOS scores. Additionally, we used information
obtained from semi-structured interviews with eight teachers to better understand the relationship
between these teachers‟ views and their teaching practice.

Findings
Characterizing the Nature of Teachers’ Instruction
Presence of inquiry & NOS.
Presence of abilities and features. Analyses of multiple data sources revealed that there
was a great deal of variation in instructional practice related to inquiry-based teaching across the
participants. The variation was particularly evident in the presence or absence of abilities to do
inquiry and essential features of inquiry. Abilities and features were easily identified because
they related to what the learner was doing in the classroom. In some classrooms, all eight of
these aspects were observed or described where in other classrooms no abilities or features were
noted at all (see Figure 1).
The teaching of abilities and features of inquiry was widespread (i.e. over half of the
eight aspects were present) in only a handful of teachers‟ instruction. In these classrooms,
teachers engaged their students in investigations centered on scientifically-oriented questions and
had their students collect data. Four of these teachers provided opportunities for their students to
use the data they collected as evidence to answer scientifically-oriented questions and share their
data with others. An example of this occurred in a lesson described by Darlene.

9
 “I start the unit by having students learn how to observe, infer and measure. Then I have
them apply these skills to living things such as crickets, worms and snails. First they
observe, measure, and make inferences. Then they raise questions that might be
answered by doing an experiment. They design their experiment taking care to not harm
the animals. The students work in groups of three or four. After their experimental plan is
approved, they conduct their experiment, recording data, controlling variables, making
qualitative and quantitative observations and completing an adequate number of trials.
After completing the experiment, they graph their results and write a conclusion. They
share their results with the class. Through this experience, students gain an
understanding of the scientific process and practice these skills using their own
questions.”(Darlene-Application materials)

In this lesson Darlene described how she engaged her students in many of the abilities and
features of inquiry. Key aspects included students raising questions that could be answered
empirically, designing and conducting investigations, giving priority to evidence in responding
to a question through organizing the data they collected, using the data they collected to
formulate explanations, and sharing their work with their classmates. Additionally, Darlene‟s
students used tools and mathematics to answer scientifically-oriented questions. Similar
engagement into the data, including data interpretation and sharing data with others, occurred in
three other classrooms. For the remaining two teachers whose lessons exhibited multiple abilities
and features, the focal point of the lesson was on the data collection and not interpretation or the
sharing of data. In these two classrooms we observed only one instance of a teacher talking with
her students about data. In this classroom the following interaction occurred between Gabriella
and her students.

Gabriella: What would you say about breathing rate before and after? How would you
summarize this? Breathing before and breathing after?
S1: It got faster.
Gabriella: What about our hypothesis? Did we prove or disprove our hypothesis?
S2: Proved it.
T: Right, we proved it! Because after we ran the breathing rate got faster. But the big
question is why did we breathe faster after we exercised?
Gabriella: We’re tired.
T: Okay, we‟re tired, that‟s one thing. What do we need if we are more tired?
S3: We need more air.
T: What is in the air we breathe in?
S4: Oxygen.
Gabriella: Right. Oxygen gives us more energy.
Gabriella - ~30:00

This interaction took place at the very end of the class period and was cursory in nature.
Moreover, the questions Gabriella asked her students were mostly superficial; she did not appear
to push them to make interpretations, rather she made most of the interpretations for them. In an
interview conducted with Gabriella she explained that she felt her students were not prepared to
interpret the data on their own and needed support in doing this. She shared, “It‟s very sad. I get

10
IDK (I don‟t know). They‟ll only answer the most literal, lowest level questions…I finally have
to ask them leading questions” (Gabriella, interview, 8-6-09 lines 259-260).

In most cases, few aspects of inquiry were evident in teachers‟ lessons. Those aspects that
were common were the more basic abilities, such as using tools and mathematics in science
class. These abilities were often employed as isolated skills, not necessarily connected to a
scientific question or any of the other essential features of inquiry. For instance, one teacher
asked her students to observe an object under a microscope. Another teacher directed his
students to calculate the difference in time between P & S-waves in order to determine when a
locale would feel the effects of an earthquake. However, there was no evidence that these
teachers engaged their students in anything beyond these basic abilities that are similar to
process skills. There were also several classrooms where we found no evidence of abilities or
features of inquiry. It is likely that these teachers may engage their students in certain aspects of
inquiry from time to time, but we saw no evidence of this in the lessons they chose to highlight.

Figure 1. Shows a count of the amount of the essential features/abilities of inquiry,

understandings about inquiry, and NOS present in one lesson.

Presence of understandings. Unlike the abilities and features of inquiry which varied
greatly from one classroom to the next, an element of inquiry that was conspicuously absent
across all of the participants was instruction related to understandings about inquiry. Neither
explicit nor implicit instruction related to understandings about inquiry was observed or
described in any of the lessons (see Figure 1).

11
 Presence of NOS. There was limited evidence of NOS instruction (see Figure 1). We
observed NOS instruction in only four of the 26 teachers‟ classrooms. In each of these
classrooms, the teachers included implicit references to NOS, but did not explicitly discuss the
topic with their students. For example, Carl, a veteran teacher with 30 years of teaching
experience mentioned the tentative NOS when discussing how far geophysics has come since the
early days of seismographs. He did not, however, explicitly highlight the fact that scientific
knowledge, though reliable and durable, changes over time. Later, in the same lesson he spoke
with his students about the subjective NOS. He said,

“Is this a lab for true seismologists? Not really, these lines are too thick, the map is too
small, and these lines, you have to guess the time between them. Everything you will do
will add another piece of error to your answer. There is no wrong answer if you do this
correctly. There are some answers that might be a bit better than others…. Part of the
confusion is you want it to come out exactly right, but that’s not how things are in the
real world when you are looking at real stuff….” (Carl, pre-lesson, 5-20-08, ~23:00)

Here, Carl alluded to the subjective NOS, but did not explicitly help students make this
connection. It is very likely that other teachers in our sample also implicitly taught about NOS
though we did not see any evidence in the materials teachers submitted. There were several
instances where teachers missed out on opportunities to explicitly address aspects of NOS. For
example, one teacher was observed teaching a series of lessons on the solar system. Throughout
these lessons there were several opportunities to discuss the tentative and subjective NOS in
relation to Pluto‟s change from planet to planetoid. In fact, his students gave him the perfect
opening to do so on at least three occasions; however, he did not take the opportunity to do so.

Who initiated the inquiry. Numerical scores for who initiated the inquiry observed or
described in teachers lessons ranged from 0-25. The higher the number was, the more student-
initiated the inquiry (see Table 6). These scores were determined using Table 5. The eight
teachers‟ lessons that contained no aspects of inquiry were scored a zero, even if the lesson
appeared student-centered. Because there was no evidence of inquiry in these lessons, we will
not discuss them in this part of the study. Of the remaining teachers‟ lessons, most (14/18) scored
12 or below. These lessons were considered more teacher-initiated (see Table 5). Only four of
lessons were considered more student-initiated.

Table 6. Numerical scores for who initiated inquiry. The higher the score, the more student-
initiated the inquiry.
Teacher DB CT PH AB AA CJ PC GD DM BD OD WK RD CC TT DJ AL KN WA FD KH OK PM VM WP KT
Score 25 24 17 16 12 8 7 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The lessons characterized as more student-initiated were all investigations that provided
students with at least some autonomy or intellectual ownership over the inquiry. Albert and his
students were working with a local biologist to collect data for a national database used by
scientists. At the same time, he engaged his students in a classroom investigation looking into
explaining presence and absence data of a particular bird species at a local wetland. Along with
entering the data into the database, he had his students produce reports to explain patterns they

12
saw in the data. Each student chose the information they wanted to include in the report. Another
teacher, Paula, described a series of lessons where her students engaged in two teacher defined
questions (i.e. What is the most germy area of the school? and What is the best way to sanitize
your hands?). Using these questions, students designed experiments to test their hypotheses,
carried out the experiment, and later presented their findings to their classmates and to others.
Carl & Darlene both described lessons where their students engaged in full inquires where the
question was determined by the students. In both cases, the teacher acted as a guide, supporting
the students in their inquiries.

Teacher-initiated lessons included: lectures, hands-on or activity-based lessons (which

tended to be group or station work), and investigations. For the most part, these lessons were
teacher-driven and highly-structured. Common occurrences in these lessons were teachers
explaining concepts to their students or telling their students what they should do or see. Two
teachers sent in or described lessons that were lectures. Both used PowerPoint presentations to
relay information to their students. The majority of teacher-initiated lessons were hands-on or
activity-based exercises with few aspects of inquiry (i.e. abilities, features, or understandings).
In general, these lessons provided little opportunity for student autonomy. Common instructional
techniques included teacher demonstrations and group work. For example, Alice taught a lesson
where her students built a model of a lung. At the beginning of the class, she passed out the
materials her students would need and walked them through the entire process step-by-step from
the front of the room. Another teacher, Olive, taught a lesson on heat transfer. After setting
students up with the lab she walked from table to table giving advice and talking with students.
Several times she was overheard telling her students what they should be doing and seeing. An
example of this occurred when she said,

“If you can’t see the mass of food coloring moving around anymore, then you are done,
because that’s what you were supposed to see. So the next thing you need to do is draw it
and explain it” (Olive pre lesson, 5-10-08, ~35:00).

Three investigations were categorized as more teacher-initiated. In each of these lessons, the
teacher defined the question and led the students step-by-step through the investigation. Paula
had her students investigate the question, “What material (plastic or metal) helps heat travel
best?” She told her students how they would investigate the question, gave the students the
materials they would need, walked the class through collecting data, and helped them answer
questions on a worksheet connected to the investigation. Similarly, Gabriella had her students
investigate, “What will happen to our breathing after we exercise?” During this investigation
Gabriella led her students through a very teacher-directed inquiry. These investigations were
highly-structured by the teacher and there was little room for student autonomy.

Characterization of inquiry instruction. Figure 2 plots teachers‟ scores for the amount
of inquiry (abilities and features only) against who initiated the inquiry. Most of the teachers‟
lessons plot in the lower left quadrant of the Figure 2, while only a few teachers‟ lessons plot in
the upper right quadrant. The four teachers in the upper right quadrant demonstrated or described
an ability to utilize multiple aspects of inquiry in their teaching and engaged their students in less
teacher-directed inquiry activities. We thus, characterized these teachers as inquiry teachers

13
because they demonstrated an ability to teach science as inquiry. We did not find as much
evidence of inquiry-based instruction in the others‟ lessons. However, the lack of inquiry in
several lessons does not mean that these teachers did not teach science as inquiry. Because the
data we used to characterize classroom instruction were limited to application materials, and at
most four observations or classroom visits, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eight
of the teachers who plotted outside of the upper right quadrant (those who did not demonstrate a
high-level of inquiry teaching or student initiated-inquiry) to corroborate our placements and to
gain a better understanding of these teachers‟ instructional practice related to inquiry.

Figure 2. Amount of inquiry versus who initiated the inquiry

Teachers were asked a series of questions about inquiry-based instruction, as practiced in

their classrooms (see Appendix B, semi-structured interview questions 6 & 7). Of the eight
teachers interviewed, all professed to have used inquiry at least some of the time. However,
when asked to identify or describe examples of inquiry-based instruction, most of their examples
were not congruent with inquiry defined in reform-based documents. Six of eight teachers
identified or described lessons that showed very little evidence of inquiry. The lessons described
were normally hands-on, activity-based lessons focused on student discovery or exploration, but
incorporated few if any aspects of inquiry. For example, Ron described a chemistry lesson on
bonding where his students acted like atoms and bonded with one another. He believed it was
inquiry,

14
 “Cuz the kids are getting a chance to play with it and explore. I’m giving them something
that we have learned that we have explored through visuals through models through
everything else” (Ron, interview, 8-6-09, lines 101-102).

Based on observational data, all but two of these six teachers plotted in the lower left-hand
quadrant of Figure 2. Thus, for the most part, classroom observations and teacher interviews
corroborated one another suggesting that inquiry-based instruction was not very common. The
two teachers‟ descriptions that included several aspects of inquiry were an ecosystems unit and a
gardening unit. In the ecosystem unit, Brittany‟s students created a terrarium or aquarium, made
observations about the ecosystem, and drew conclusions based on their observations. In the
gardening unit, Caelyn‟s students designed experiments, collected data, and made decisions
based on the data they collected. Observation data showed that these two teachers did in fact use
some aspects of inquiry in their teaching. Thus, the two data sources appeared to confirm one
another.
To further understand teachers‟ instruction related to inquiry, we framed several
interview questions around aspects of the essential features of inquiry we thought might be
common in these teachers instruction (see Appendix B, semi-structured interview questions 10,
11, & 12). We analyzed these questions in order to see if teachers were using the features of
inquiry in their instruction, even though they might not have been able to articulate what they
were. The questions revealed that inquiry was not common in most of the teachers‟ instruction
and when it was, it was teacher-directed. For instance, when asked about questioning, only one
of the eight teachers was able to describe an instance where she helped her students develop
questions to investigate. In response to the question Caelyn shared,

“A lot of times we try to, as a class, based on our questions, we’ll group the questions
based on similarity and kind of have a consensus on what we would like to do to further
extend what we have already done. So we’ll design another investigation to, um… I’ll
give you an example. During our human body unit we asked questions when we are doing
the circulatory system and starting to understand the way in which the heart works,
they’ll do a number of cardio exercises and record data that way. Different exercises and
how it correlates to how many beats the heart makes per minute and they’ll take that data
and learn to understand resting heart rate and how calories are burned and that kind of
stuff.” –(Caelyn, interview, 8-6-09, lines 249-270)

Four of the remaining teachers shared that they did not have their students answer scientifically-
oriented questions (e.g. “No, I‟ve never done that.”- Gabriella). The other three teachers
described questions that were not conducive to classroom investigations. For example, one
teacher described having her students brainstorm questions they could ask their parents about
farming practices they used at home while another discussed having her students think about
questions like, “Is there life on other planets and how many stars are there?”

We found that having students work with data was much more common than questioning.
Six of the teachers described having their students collect data, graph the data they collected, and
explain what it means. These exercises were mostly teacher-directed. Confirming this, one
teacher shared,

15
 “I always make them collect data, though as I’ve found I have to lead them more and
more… they really have so little idea of how to organize data that I would just give them
a table and help fill them out create a graph from that, so a lot of it was very directed by
myself.” (Gabriella, interview, 8-6-09, lines 242-247)

The remaining two teachers, both elementary teachers, also had their students work with data.
One had her students work on observing and explaining, without much graphing. The other
teacher shared, “We have [worked with data] but I have limited it to… my first unit in the fall is
weather and the atmosphere, or climate and the atmosphere” (Flo, interview, 8-5-09, lines 160-
161). This suggests that working with data did occur in many of the teachers‟ classrooms.

Having students share and justify findings with others was not very common across the
group of teachers that were interviewed. One teacher cited an example of how her students
shared findings from a study on their school garden with the rest of the school. The students used
these findings to decide what they would do with their garden. Many of the other teachers
reported having their students share out with other groups. However, most of their descriptions
did not relate to sharing findings, but instead related to students sharing ideas they were
discussing in class. Similarly, Flo explained that she had her students share their findings with
parents at a science night. Students sung songs and made up raps about science. An example she
provided about a song was,

“They took that and talked about the history, and Goddard, the originator and the
science behind it, and the Chinese and their gun powder. They created a really cool rap
about the history of it and how far we had come, that was really creative.” (Flo,
interview, 8-5-09, lines 185-187)

This description implies they were not sharing and justifying findings, but were sharing
information they learned in science class. Two of the teachers reported not having students share
their findings in class, but volunteered that this was something they would like to do.

Based on interviews with eight teachers who did not demonstrate an ability to teach
science as inquiry, we found very little evidence of these teachers describing inquiry-based
activities or discussing instances where they used particular aspects of inquiry in their
classrooms. The most common aspect of inquiry described by teachers in interviews was having
their students collect or manipulate data, but few teachers appeared to have their students do
more than that. Overall, interview data corroborated observational data suggesting that these
teachers did not commonly use many aspects of inquiry in their teaching and when present it
tended to be more teacher-initiated. Revisiting Figure 2, we have evidence for two broad
categories of teachers, those in the upper-right quadrant who have demonstrated a robust ability
to teach science as inquiry and the others who have not. Clearly, there is a continuum of practice
between inquiry and non-inquiry teachers, but we do not have the evidence to further divide
these teachers.

16
 Summary. Classroom teaching practice related to inquiry and NOS varied across the 26
teachers. Particularly, there was a wide range of abilities to do and essential features of inquiry
observed. In a few of the classrooms, many of these aspects of inquiry were present, where in the
majority of the classrooms there was little or no evidence of abilities or features of inquiry. The
most common aspects of inquiry were the basic abilities, such as using tools and mathematics in
science class. Instruction related to understandings about inquiry were not observed or described
in any of these teachers‟ lessons. Moreover, we observed very little evidence of instruction
related to NOS across the 26 teachers. The amount of student initiation in aspects of inquiry
observed or described was fairly low suggesting that most inquiry was quite structured or
teacher-directed. Overall, the evidence we collected including descriptions of teachers‟ lessons
and classroom observations suggest that few of the 26 teachers demonstrated a robust ability to
teach science as inquiry. Interviews conducted with eight of the participants confirmed our
analysis of classroom observations and descriptions of teachers‟ lessons.

Characterizing Teachers’ Views of Inquiry & NOS

Views of inquiry. Teachers were scored as naïve, emerging, informed, or robust (0, 1, 2,
or 3) on items related to inquiry and NOS. Analysis of the pre-views instrument showed that
teachers held a range of views of inquiry and NOS from naïve to robust. In general, this group of
highly-motivated and well-qualified teachers demonstrated fairly limited understandings of
inquiry (Figure 3). The mean score on items related to inquiry was .87/3.0. Five of 26 teachers
held naïve views on all three items, while seven others held naïve views on two of the three
questions. Only two teachers scored informed or robust on each of the items related to inquiry.
When asked on item 6 to articulate what inquiry-based science teaching was, only five teachers
gave responses that were considered informed or robust, while the remaining 21 responses were
characterized as naïve or emerging. Most teachers (16) gave responses that were considered
naïve. This question had the lowest average score of any of the items on the instrument (.65/3.0).
A typical naïve response for this question conflated inquiry with hands-on learning. An example
of this can be seen in the following response,

“I think inquiry-based teaching involves students with a hands-on, related experience

that gets them wondering WHY something is the way it is. I think teachers need to have a
good sense of the types of questions that the experience will lead to and be there to guide
the students’ questions, thoughts, etc.” (Olga, views survey, 8-9-08, lines 87-89)

Two teachers‟ responses to this question were scored as robust. Their views of inquiry
conformed to those of inquiry espoused in the NSES. For example, in describing inquiry-based
teaching, one of these teachers said,

“There’s a lot of levels, but certainly the best thing is to let students come up with a
problem and have them look into that problem but in a way that has some control, the teacher
just can’t let them go berserk, they have to have some control. But it really should be a student
based problem or maybe a problem that a teacher comes up with, with the kids, that they have
interest in and they decide to solve a problem. And then the teacher helps them to come up with
the methodology to solve the problem on their own. That’s the best case for inquiry. Inquiry can
be at a lot of different levels too. Where it’s simple, the teacher can totally set it up and the kids

17
use the thinking through the problem… But certainly, you gather the data, then you manipulate
the data, look at the data and come up with some sort of loose hypothesis” (Carl, views survey,
8-9-08, lines 82-91).

In his response, TC demonstrated an understanding of both the balance between student and
teacher-directedness and the importance of using data as evidence in developing explanations.
These are both important components of inquiry as defined by the NSES.

Figure 3. Teachers‟ views of inquiry and NOS measured by the views survey.

Most of the teachers (21/26) held naïve or emerging views on item 7 related to the
scientific method. The average score on this question was 0.96/3.0, or slightly below emerging.
These teachers viewed the scientific method as a rigid set of steps that all scientists follow or as a
series of steps that scientists follow, but not always in the same order (i.e. the order of the steps
might change, but they will still be present). Only five of the participants believed the scientific
method varied depending on the question being asked or the goals of the project. Several of these
teachers mentioned that the scientific method we teach in school is a model or a simplification
for how some science is done.

Item 8 focused on the teachers‟ ability to do scientific inquiry. It asked them to describe
how they might investigate how organisms or climate changed throughout the geologic past. The
average score on this question was 1.0/3.0, or emerging. Eighteen of the teachers scored naïve or
emerging on this question. Many of the teachers in these two groups were able to talk about what
kinds of data might be collected, but they had trouble explaining what one would do with the
data once it was collected.
18
 Data from interview questions related to teachers‟ views of inquiry corroborated
teachers‟ written responses. Few of the teachers verbally articulated informed or robust views of
inquiry. Those teachers we interviewed who held more robust views on inquiry on the survey
were better able to verbalize their views than those who held more naïve conceptions of inquiry.
For example, even though Kendra struggled in describing what inquiry-based instruction was,
she did have more robust views on other aspects of inquiry. For example, in discussing the
scientific method she said,

“Sure, I mean, the pieces [of the scientific method] I think are absolutely valid, and I
think the skills, there are certain skills that go with those pieces that I think are critically
important to being a scientist, and thinking like a scientist, and acting like a scientist, and
exploring your world, that I think the step by step process that we made them follow um is
not very valid…it doesn’t seem to me that this is the way it goes” (Kendra, interview, 8-5-
09, lines 45-48).

Whereas teachers who held more naïve views of inquiry felt the scientific method was fairly
rigid. Amanda shared,

“We talk about how you use the scientific method everywhere even to cross the street. We
talk about what the scientific method is we kind of usually, just a review, because they
generally have had it. We talk about why it is important to have and something else that I
learned through them is that the scientific method is kind of written in different ways but
it really is essentially the same thing. Some people have 7 steps, and some have 5 and
were really just kind of helping the kids it’s just the idea that you want to get across”
(Amanda, interview, 8-6-09, lines 348-353).

Views of NOS. Views of NOS also varied across the sample; however, the overall score
on these items was higher than the average inquiry score (1.4/3 as opposed to 0.87/3). Although
no teacher scored naïve on each of the items related to NOS, four teachers scored either naïve or
emerging on all five items, whereas, four others scored informed or robust on the on all five
items. The lowest NOS scores came on items 1 and 3. The average score on item 1 was 0.92/3.0,
slightly under emerging. On this question, only two teachers recognized that the methods used in
science (e.g. observational, experimental, theoretical) depended on the question being asked by
the scientist. The remaining teachers either responded that there were a variety of ways to do
science, but did not elaborate on this, or articulated that all science was experimental. The
average score on item 3 was 1.1/3.0, slightly over emerging. Here, most teachers understood that
different people had different interpretations based on their backgrounds, but only four teachers
connected one‟s interpretations to both socio-cultural factors and creativity. Teachers had the
highest average score on item 5 (2.3/3.0) which dealt with differentiating between observations
and inferences. Most teachers (22/26) held informed or robust views. In general, these teachers
were able to describe the difference between the two and provide an appropriate example of
each. The few teachers whose views were less adequate had difficulties describing the difference
between the two concepts (e.g. “An observation is witnessed, cause and effect. An inference is
what a scientist cannot see, parts of an atom” Vanessa, views survey, 8-9-08, lines 97-98 ).

19
 Results from a simple linear regression model indicated there was a positive linear
relationship between teachers‟ views of inquiry and their views of NOS. This relationship was
statistically significant (p<0.0001). An additional unit increase of NOS score was associated with
a 1.0 unit increase (SE=0.2034) in inquiry score. Fifty percent of the variation in views of
inquiry score could be explained by the views NOS score.

Bivariate Fit of Views of Inquiry Score By Views of NOS Score

Parameter Estimates
Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|
Intercept 4.7076843 0.720231 6.54 <0.0001*
Views of NOS Score 1.0088266 0.2034 4.96 <0.0001*

Figure 4. Correlation between views of inquiry and NOS scores

Summary. Teachers views of inquiry and NOS varied from uniformed to robust on each
item. The average inquiry score was 0.87/3.0 suggesting teachers held fairly limited views of
inquiry. The lowest average score came on an item asking teachers to describe inquiry-based
instruction. For NOS, the average score was 1.4/3.0, slightly higher than the average inquiry
score. Still, teachers held fairly limited views of NOS. There was a positive linear relationship
between teachers‟ views of inquiry and NOS, suggesting an association between teachers‟ views
on inquiry and NOS.

Relation of Views to Classroom Practice

Analysis of the data indicates that teachers who employed multiple aspects of inquiry in
their instruction generally held more informed views of inquiry and NOS while teachers who
employed fewer aspects of inquiry held less informed views of inquiry and NOS. This pattern
can be observed in Figure 5. Teachers who plotted on the right side of the inquiry and NOS
classroom practice chart (e.g. CT, AB, DB, & PH) also tended to plot on the right side of the
summed views of inquiry and NOS chart. Whereas teachers in the middle or on the left side of
the inquiry and NOS classroom practice chart normally plotted in a similar place on the views of
inquiry and NOS chart. Although there appears to be a fairly good correspondence between a
20
teacher‟s views of inquiry and NOS and his or her teaching practice, there were some exceptions.
Two notable exceptions to this pattern were AA and MPD. AA held fairly limited views of
inquiry and NOS, but employed multiple aspects of inquiry in the lessons we observed, and
MPD held fairly robust views on inquiry and NOS but we found little evidence of inquiry in our
analysis of classroom video and descriptions of her lessons.

Figure 5. Displays a visual comparison between the presence of inquiry and NOS in teachers pre-
program instruction and their views on inquiry and NOS.

Results from simple linear regression models indicated there was a positive linear
relationship between teachers‟ inquiry teaching score and their views of inquiry (Figure 6). There
was also a positive linear relationship between teachers‟ inquiry teaching score and their views
of inquiry and views of NOS summed score (Figure 7). These relationships were statistically
significant (p<0.0138 and p<0.0226). An additional unit increase in views of inquiry score was
associated with a 0.82 unit increase (SE=0.0385) in inquiry teaching score, while a unit increase
in views of inquiry and NOS score was associated with a 0.34 unit increase (SE=0.1401) in
inquiry teaching score. About 20 percent of the variation in inquiry teaching score could be
explained by the views of inquiry and views of inquiry and views of NOS score. There was not a
linear relationship between teachers‟ inquiry teaching score and their views of NOS (Figure 8).
When the most anomalous scores were dropped from the sample (AA and PM), two teachers
21
who used more inquiry than their views scores would suggest, the relationships between views
and teaching practice become much stronger and all three relationships were significant.

Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 1 99.57828 99.5783 7.0642
Error 24 338.30633 14.0961 Prob > F
C. Total 25 437.88462 0.0138*

Figure 6. Simple linear regression comparing teachers‟ inquiry teaching score (abilities and
features of inquiry) with their views of inquiry score from the views survey.

Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 1 86.83934 86.8393 5.9370
Error 24 351.04528 14.6269 Prob > F
C. Total 25 437.88462 0.0226*

22
Figure 7. Simple linear regression comparing teachers‟ inquiry teaching score (abilities and
features of inquiry) with their combined views of inquiry and NOS score from the views survey.

Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 1 59.27906 59.2791 3.7577
Error 24 378.60555 15.7752 Prob > F
C. Total 25 437.88462 0.0644

Figure 8. Simple linear regression comparing teachers‟ inquiry teaching score (abilities and
features of inquiry) with their views of NOS score from the views survey.

Interestingly, when asked if the lessons they described and we observed represented
inquiry-based instruction, all of the eight teachers we interviewed identified at least one of the
lessons as „inquiry-based‟, even though our analysis of these lessons showed little evidence of
inquiry. In describing why the lessons were inquiry, common themes that emerged were: the role
of questioning, with no mention of a scientifically-oriented question (5 times); being student-
centered (5 times); and being hands-on (5 times). There was little mention of aspects of inquiry
as defined in reform-based documents. Only four teachers used words that may have indicated
inquiry. The following comments were each made by one teacher: students making observations
and drawing conclusions, students experimenting and classifying, students hypothesizing, and
students guessing based on their observations. Furthermore, five of the eight teachers verified
that the lessons we observed, that had little evidence of inquiry, were fairly representative of the
way they taught. Thus, many of these teachers believed they were frequently teaching science as
inquiry; when in reality, they were not.

Summary. There appeared to be an association between teachers‟ views of inquiry and

NOS and their teaching practice related to inquiry. Teachers with more robust views appeared
more likely to use inquiry-based instruction as a teaching strategy. There was a statistically
significant relationship between teachers‟ inquiry-based teaching practice and their views of
inquiry and their views of inquiry and NOS, but not between their teaching practice and their
views of NOS. Interview data suggested that many teachers who were not teaching science as

23
inquiry believed that they were since they involved their students in questioning, used student-
centered approaches, and used hands-on teaching practices.

Discussion
The motivation for this study was to describe and analyze the teaching practice and views
of a group of highly-motivated and well-qualified 5th-9th grade teachers. Specifically, our aim
was to provide empirical evidence for the presence or absence of inquiry and/or NOS instruction,
assess these teachers‟ views of inquiry and NOS, and look for relationships between their views
and practice. Inquiry-based instruction is a fundamental science teaching strategy. Throughout
the past, reform movements have emphasized the importance of inquiry in helping students learn
(e.g. Dewey, 1910; Schwab, 1966; AAAS, 1989; NRC, 1996). Moreover, inquiry-based
instruction provides a context for teaching understandings about inquiry and NOS (Carey et al.
1993; Schwartz et al., 2004), which are important components to scientific literacy (AAAS,
1989; Hodson, 1992; NRC 1996).

Nature of Teachers’ Instruction

Inquiry. In the introduction to this paper we pointed to the lack of recent empirical
studies describing teachers‟ instructional practice related to inquiry. In order to address this
issue, we analyzed the teaching practice of 26, 5th-9th grade teachers. Using classroom
observations and descriptions of lessons, we found that there was a wide range of instructional
practice related to the abilities to do and essential features of inquiry. This variation was not
surprising given the different backgrounds of the teachers involved in the program. Of the four
teachers who demonstrated an ability to teach science as inquiry, we found no single factor in
their background that could account for this (see Appendix A). For example, one might expect a
teacher who had science research experience to be able to teach science as inquiry, though one of
the four teachers who demonstrated an ability to teach in this way had no research experience.
Moreover, several teachers with research experience did not demonstrate an ability to teach
science as inquiry. What the four inquiry-based teachers did have in common was abundant
experience in teaching and learning science. Each of these teachers taught for a minimum of ten
years, took at least seven, if not many more university science courses, and either had multiple
science professional development and/or research experiences. Likely, what separated these
teachers from the others was their ability to draw on their rich experiences as science teachers
and learners to enact inquiry-based instruction in their classrooms. This underscores the
important influence of one‟s experience and practical knowledge on their teaching practice (van
Driel et al., 2001).

We were surprised by the lack of inquiry in the lessons of the remaining highly-
motivated, well-qualified teachers. In analyzing their lessons and interviews we found little
evidence of abilities and features of inquiry beyond the use of fairly simple process skills and at
times the collection of data. Inquiry is an important science teaching strategy that many teachers
strive to use. Given that the focus of the professional development program would be on inquiry,
and teachers had the freedom to select the lessons they described and we observed, we expected
these teachers would select some of their better lessons giving us a best case scenario of their
teaching practice. Consequently, we believe if anything, our analyses likely exaggerate the
amount of inquiry and student-initiated inquiry actually carried out in these teachers‟ classrooms.

24
Because the 26 participants were selected from an applicant pool of highly-motivated teachers
interested in improving their teaching on their own time; we can assume that inquiry-based
instruction is probably even less common in 5th-9th grade teachers‟ instruction as a whole. In
other words, things may be even more dismal than they appear in this study.

Instruction related to understandings about inquiry, either implicit or explicit, was not
observed or described in any classroom. This was troubling given that understandings about
inquiry are a major component of inquiry-based instruction (NRC, 2000). We argue that teaching
understandings about inquiry are similar to teaching about NOS in that they should be taught
explicitly (Lederman, 2004). Implicit instruction assumes that students will learn about inquiry in
the process of an investigation. This, however, may not always be true.

NOS. Generally speaking, the presence of instruction related to NOS was not common in
the lessons we analyzed. There were only a few instances of implicit instruction and no explicit
instruction. Implicit instruction is not enough to support learners in understanding NOS
(Lederman, 2004). The literature on NOS expresses the importance of explicit instruction to
support learners in developing conceptions of NOS consistent with those advocated by science
education reform documents (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). The paucity of instruction
related to NOS and the complete lack of evidence of explicit instruction about NOS is an
important finding. NOS is a well researched topic in science education. Multiple journal articles
are published each year, and entire strands are devoted to the topic at annual meetings; however,
the import placed on NOS by researchers does not appear to have reached even some of the best
teachers.

Views of Inquiry & NOS

Analysis of the views of inquiry and NOS survey revealed a range of understandings
across the 26 teachers. However, most of these teachers held fairly limited views and
misconceptions on inquiry and NOS. Interviews conducted with eight of the teachers confirmed
this. Teachers with inadequate views on inquiry and NOS will not likely be successful in
enacting inquiry-based instruction in their classrooms or in teaching about inquiry and NOS. The
apparent association between views of inquiry and views of NOS scores suggests that more
informed views of one may result in more informed views of the other. This highlights the
importance of supporting teachers in learning about inquiry and NOS so that their views align
with reform-based documents. Science education reform documents that define teaching
strategies like inquiry, and concepts like inquiry and NOS, are now ten to twenty years old or
older (e.g. AAAS, 1989; NRC, 1996). It is disconcerting to learn that teachers are still unfamiliar
or struggling with these ideas. The fact that many of these well-qualified teachers mistakenly
equated inquiry-based science teaching with other teaching methods, like hands-on instruction
and discovery learning, suggests that there is likely even more confusion in the population as a
whole.

Relation of Views to Classroom Practice

Analysis of data indicated an association between teachers‟ views and their classroom
practice. That is, teachers with more robust views were more likely to teach science as inquiry
where teachers who held more limited views were less likely to teach science in this way.

25
Significant relationships existed between teachers‟ views of inquiry and inquiry teaching practice
and teachers‟ views of inquiry and NOS and inquiry teaching practice. Given that teacher
knowledge affects classroom practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), and many teachers in this
study held limited views of inquiry, it is unlikely that many of these teachers taught science as
inquiry or taught about inquiry and NOS. Further evidence for the lack of inquiry-based
instruction and the relationship between teachers‟ views and their practice came from analysis of
interviews conducted with eight teachers selected from the group who showed little evidence of
teaching science as inquiry. All of the eight interviewed believed they were teaching science as
inquiry at least some of the time. When asked to describe features of inquiry in their instruction
their examples equated inquiry with questioning, student-centered teaching approaches, and
hands-on teaching. These ideas relate to many of the misconceptions and myths educators have
about inquiry (Haury, 1993; NRC, 2000).

Teaching science as inquiry and teaching explicitly about the NOS is not easy. Previous
research has identified a number of external and internal factors that may prevent teachers from
incorporating reform-based teaching strategies like inquiry and explicit teaching of NOS into
their teaching. Some of the factors external to the teacher include: lack of time (Abell &
McDonald, 2004; Newman et al., 2004), concerns over financial constraints (Abell & Roth,
1992; Finson et al., 1996; Ginn & Watters, 1999; Morey, 1990), lack of administrative or
community support (Lee & Houseal, 2003), and classroom management issues (Roehrig & Luft,
2004). Whereas common factors internal to the teacher include: a lack of content or pedagogical
knowledge (Carlsen, 1993; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Hashweh, 1987, Shulman, 1986) and beliefs
that are inconsistent with teaching in this way (Pajares, 1992; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). In
choosing a population of highly-motivated and well-qualified teachers, with administrative
support, we attempted to minimize many of the factors that commonly prevent teachers from
using reform-based teaching approaches, like inquiry. Thus, it is safe to assume that we would
see more evidence of inquiry-based instruction and instruction about NOS in these teachers‟
lessons than in the population at large. However, we found very little evidence of this type of
instruction suggesting that inquiry-based instruction and teaching about inquiry and NOS is
uncommon in most classrooms. The limited views of inquiry and NOS expressed by many of the
26 teachers involved in this study is a likely reason for why many of these teachers were not
using reform-based teaching approaches. Furthermore, the fact that most teachers interviewed
believed they taught science as inquiry, but were unable to describe an actual lesson they taught
that conformed to inquiry outlined in reform-based documents, implies a disconnect between
teachers‟ views on inquiry and their actual practice.

Conclusions and Implications

Although reform-documents highlight the importance of inquiry and NOS, this study
indicates that even some of the best teachers struggle to articulate what inquiry and NOS are and
in teaching science in accordance with these ideas. Furthermore, many of these well-qualified
teachers believed they were teaching science as inquiry when they actually were not. The
findings from this study point to the critical need for professional development to support
teachers in learning about what inquiry and NOS are, and in enacting reform-based instruction in
their classrooms. Teaching science as inquiry and about NOS are complex and sophisticated
instructional approaches that demand significant professional development (Crawford, 2000,

26
2007). We suggest that teacher educators work with preservice and inservice teachers in
articulating their views of inquiry and NOS and support them in comparing how their views
relate to conceptions of inquiry and NOS in reform documents. Moreover, teacher educators
should provide opportunities for preservice and inservice teachers to engage in their own
inquiries where they are assisted in explicitly learning about aspects of inquiry and NOS that
their students should know. Teacher educators should also provide their students with
opportunities to practice teaching science as inquiry and about inquiry and NOS. If we expect
teachers to use new instructional techniques, they will need to have opportunities to teach in this
way (Loucks-Horsley Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). Teachers should also be
supported in learning how to reflect on their own teaching practice so they can begin to see how
their instruction relates to reform-based teaching. Finally, the fact that many teachers believed
they were teaching science as inquiry, but in reality were not, suggests that teacher self-report
alone may not provide an accurate picture of what teachers are actually doing in their classrooms
related to inquiry. This highlights the importance of using alternative data sources like classroom
observation and interviews to characterize teachers‟ instruction related to inquiry and NOS
(Capps, Crawford, & Constas, in press).

27
 Appendix A
Table 3. Background information for Fossil Finders teachers; pilot group 1 teachers are in white
while pilot group 2 are shaded.
College Sci Research Sci. PD
Teacher Grade level Education Teaching Courses Exp Exp Gender
AW 5/6 BA-Psychology 11 4 No 1 F
Exp (yrs)
JD 5/6 BA-Int. Relations
MS-Education 4 2 No 2 M

MV 5/6 BA-Psychology
MS-Education 5 1 No 9 F

KW 5/6 BA-Elem Ed
MS-Education 4 1 No 3 F

MD 7/8 BS-Biology
MS-Education 9 16 Yes 1 F

DO 7/8 BS-Biology
MS-Education 4 23 No 3 F

LA 7/8 BS-Biology
MS-Education 5 13 Yes 3 F

TC 8/9 BS-Geology
MS-Education 30 31 Yes 14 M

TT 9 BS-Biology
MS-Education 13 26 No 3 F

PW 8/9 BS-Earth Sci

MS-Education 5 17 No 1 M
th
AA 5th-8 BA-Education
MS-Education 5 6 No 5 F
th
BA 5 BS-Electrical
MS-Education Eng. 14 15 Yes 2 M
th
DB 6 BA-Elementary Ed 4 3 No 0 F
th
CC 8 BA-Elementary Ed 9 10 Yes 1 M
th
JC 5 BS-Elementary Ed
MS-Curr & Instr 2 7 No 2 F
th
BD 7 BA-Fine Arts 10 7 Yes 4 F
th
DF 6 BS-Physical
MS-Science Therp
Ed 19 4 No 8 F
th
DG 8 BA-Anthropology
MS-Reading Ed 5 16 No 3 F
th th
CHP 6 -8 BS-Elementary Ed
Cert-Earth Sci Ed 22 9 No 3 F
th
NK 7 BS-BiologyEd
MS-Science 5 16 Yes 0 F
th
HK 5 BA-Education
MS-Teach & Learn 20 2 No 3 F
th
TK 7 BS-Chemistry Ed
MS-Elementary 3 14 No 1 F
th
KO
McDow 5 BS-Education
Cert-Science Ed 23 1 No 1 F
th
MPD
ell 7 BA-Bio/Chem 22 32 Yes 4 F
HP 7
th MS-Elementary Ed
BS-Elementary Ed 32 7 No 10 F
th
DR 8 Cert-Science Ed
BS-Science Ed 2 21 No 1 M
AVG 11.0 11.7 3.4
M.Ed-TESOL

28
 Appendix B

Semi-structured interview
1. What is your motivation for attending Fossil Finders?
2. How comfortable do you feel with teaching subjects like geology and evolution? Do you
have any major concerns?
3. I see you have had (or not had) professional development related to scientific inquiry?
Describe it. What did you learn? Has it influenced your teaching in any way? How?
4. I see you have (if not, skip question) had some science research experience? What did
you do? Has it influenced your teaching in any way? How?
5. What does it mean to you to have an inquiry-based teaching approach?
6. In your application you describe a lesson (or unit) that….. Is this inquiry? If so, what are
the aspects of the lesson that make it inquiry (What makes it inquiry)?
-If not, can you describe for me an inquiry-based lesson? What are the aspects of the
lesson that make it inquiry (What makes it inquiry)?
7. In the video clip you sent I saw…… Tell me about this clip. Why did you choose to send
this clip? What is it demonstrating? Some people send their best, others send typical…..
Which were you thinking when you sent this? If this is representative of your teaching?
Why or why not? What would your most effective lesson look like, consider something
you taught in the last year?
8. Are there times or situations where inquiry teaching is not a useful method? Tell me
about these (Lotter et al., 2007).
9. What constraints do you feel you have to using inquiry-based science teaching (Lotter et
al., 2007)?
10. Do your students ever generate their own questions to investigate? Can you think of an
example? If not, do you ever give students questions to investigate? Can you think of an
example? When you do have students investigate questions (theirs or ones you pose),
how do you help them connect what they are studying with scientific knowledge?
11. Do you ever have students work with data? When your students collect data, what do
they do with it? Prompts: Do they graph it? Do they use it as evidence? How? Can you
give an example?
12. Do you ever have your students share their findings with others? If so, how does this
work? Do you have students engage in discussion about their findings? What does this
look like?

29
 Appendix C

Views Survey
1. Does science always involve doing experiments? Please explain your answer.
2. What is a scientific theory? After scientists have developed a theory, does the theory ever
change? If yes, what is the process by which a scientific theory may change? If no, please
explain why scientific theories do not change.
3. Scientists think that about 65 million years ago dinosaurs became extinct. Of the
hypotheses formulated by scientists to explain the extinction, two are widely supported.
The first, formulated by one group of scientists, suggests that a huge meteorite hit the
earth 65 million years ago, beginning a series of events that caused the extinction. The
second hypothesis, formulated by another group of scientists, suggests that massive and
violent volcanic eruptions were responsible for the extinction.
 How are these different hypotheses possible if both groups of scientists have
access to and use the same data to derive their hypotheses?
 Is it possible for two different scientists to perform the same scientific procedures
and reach different conclusions? Please explain your answer.
4. Is there a role for creativity and/or imagination in scientific investigations?
 If yes, then at which stage(s) (i.e., planning and design; data collection; after data
collection) of an investigation might a scientist use imagination and creativity?
Please explain your answer using an example.
 If no, please explain why not and provide an example.
5. Are observations the same as or different from inferences? Please explain your answer
using examples.
6. Current reform documents in science education call for teaching “science as inquiry”.
What does this mean? How would inquiry-based teaching look in your science
classroom?
7. What is the scientific method? Do all scientists use the scientific method? Please explain
your answer.
8. Explain the process a paleontologist might use to research how climate has changed
throughout the geological past in NY.

30
 References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers‟ conceptions of
nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science
Education, 22(7), 665-701.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. and Boujaoude, S. (1997) An exploratory study of the knowledge base for
science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673-699.
Abell, S. K., & McDonald, J. T. (2004). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the elementary
school. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science:
Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a
science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76(6), 581-595.
Ackerson, V.L. & Donnelly, L.A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and
preservice elementary teachers‟ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 20(1), 45-58.
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all
Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Bell, C. A. (2002). Determining the effects of a professional development program on teachers’
inquiry knowledge and classroom action: A case study of a professional development
strategy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 83, 701-723.
Capps, D.K., Crawford, B.A., & Constas, M.A. (in press). A review of empirical literature on
inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the
findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education.
Carey, R. L. & Stauss, N. G. (1970) An analysis of experienced science teachers‟
understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 366-376.
Carey, S., & Smith, D. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational
Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.
Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: quantitative evidence from
novice biology teachers‟ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 417–
481.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher
Learning in Communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.
Creswell, J.W. (2009).
Dewey, J. 1910. Science as subject matter and as method. Science 121-127.

31
Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The Knower and the Known: The Nature of Knowledge in
Research on Teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3-56.
Finson, K. D., Lisowski, M., Fitch, T., & Foster, G. (1996). The status of science education in K-
6 Illinois schools. School Science and Mathematics, 96(3), 120-127.
Gallagher, J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers‟ knowledge
and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121-133.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers‟ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and
their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining
pedagogical content knowledge (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), 51–94.
Ginn, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1999). Beginning elementary school teachers and the effective
teaching of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(4), 287-313.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and
physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120.
Haury, D.L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC CSMEE Digest, March. (ED 359
048).
Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues
relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science
Education, 14, 541-562.
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional
development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for
helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
Ladewski, B. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Harvey, C. L. (1994). A middle grade science teacher‟s
emerging understanding of project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal,
94(5), 499-515.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students‟ and teachers‟ conceptions about the nature of science: A
review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature
of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of
science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions
of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Lee, C. A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in
teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 37-
56.
Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from Didactic to Inquiry-Based Instruction in a
Science Laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions
on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
44(9), 1318-1347.
Loucks-Horsely, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing

32
 Professional Development for Teacher of Science and Mathematics, 2nd edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquiry-based
professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science
teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
McComas, W.F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M.P. (1998). The nature of science in science
education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
Morey, M. K. (1990). Status of science education in Illinois elementary schools. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 387-398.
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.
National Science Teachers Association. (1998). The National Science Education Standards: A
Vision for the Improvement of Science Teaching and Learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA.
Newman, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004).
Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 15(4), 257-279.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development
for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 73-88.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science
teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(1), 3 - 24.
Schwab, J.J. (1966). The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.S. (2004). Developing views of nature of
science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature
of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Stake, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL: The University of
Illinois.
van Driel, J. H., Biejaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in
science education: The role of teachers‟ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
Wells, G. (1995). Language and the Inquiry-Oriented Curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(3),
233-269.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative
experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science
Education, 87(1), 112-143.

33