See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225613582

Experience and Reflection: Preservice Science Teachers’ Capacity for Teaching

Inquiry

Article in Journal of Science Teacher Education · October 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s10972-008-9104-9

CITATIONS READS

58 856

4 authors:

Wayne Melville Xavier E Fazio

Lakehead University Thunder Bay Campus Brock University
68 PUBLICATIONS 550 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 749 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anthony Bartley Doug Jones

Lakehead University Thunder Bay Campus Lakehead University Thunder Bay Campus
24 PUBLICATIONS 225 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Science and literacy integration View project

Science Teacher Development and Preparation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wayne Melville on 21 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Sci Teacher Educ (2008) 19:477–494
DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9104-9

Experience and Reflection: Preservice Science

Teachers’ Capacity for Teaching Inquiry

Wayne Melville Æ Xavier Fazio Æ Anthony Bartley Æ

Doug Jones

Published online: 11 June 2008

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2008

Abstract In this article, we investigate the relationship between preservice

teachers’ inquiry experience and their capacity to reflect on the challenges involved
in implementing inquiry into classrooms. For data, we draw on the personal nar-
ratives of preservice science teachers enrolled in science instruction courses.
Preservice teachers with extensive inquiry experiences perceive implementation
challenges principally in terms of teaching and student learning. This contrasts with
the perceptions of preservice teachers with limited inquiry experience for whom the
main concerns relate to the negative perceptions of others, time, the curriculum, and
materials. By identifying these perceptions, it may be possible to develop courses
that assist limited and moderate-experience preservice teachers’ move toward the
perceptions of their more inquiry experienced colleagues.

Keywords Pre-service teacher education
Scientific inquiry
Inquiry experience

Introduction

Secondary science teachers are constantly encouraged to pursue an inquiry-based

curriculum to improve the learning outcomes of their students (Bencze et al. 2006;
Windschitl 2004). An inquiry-based curriculum seeks to actively engage students in

W. Melville (&)
A. Bartley

Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada P7B 5E1
e-mail: wmelvill@lakeheadu.ca

X. Fazio
Faculty of Education, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, ON, Canada L2S
3A1

D. Jones
Sir Winston Churchill Collegiate and Vocational Institute, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada P7C 1V5

123
478 W. Melville et al.

their own learning so they develop strategies for generating and solving problems
and a capacity to pursue those strategies to produce data. These data can then be
analyzed to produce valid conclusions that may be presented to a variety of
audiences. Although the language may differ between countries, the message
promoting inquiry is consistent (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 1997;
Goodrum et al. 2001; National Research Council 1996; Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority, England 2000).
Despite this rhetoric, it is well documented that science teachers face many
‘‘dilemmas’’ in the pursuit of an inquiry-based curriculum (Anderson 2002, p. 8).
These include, but are not restricted to, teachers’ limited conceptions of the nature of
science and a subsequent constriction in their teaching repertoires (Abd-El-Khalick
and Lederman 2000; Bencze et al. 2006), content knowledge (Harris et al. 2005),
inexperience with the range of inquiry-based approaches (Anderson 2002; Crawford
2000; Windschitl 2002, 2004), and an inadequate understanding of inquiry (Keys and
Bryan 2001; Zacharia 2003). As current and former school science teachers and
science chairs—who have encouraged inquiry in our teaching—we understand these
very real dilemmas that science teachers face in their classes, in their departments, and
in their schools. Equally, as science teacher educators, we believe that it ‘‘seems
intuitive that teachers who use an inquiry approach must have rich and deeply
developed understandings of science content, student learning, the nature of science,
and ways to engage students in investigative practices’’ (Keys and Bryan 2001, p. 637).
Herein lies the challenge: to prepare preservice teachers for the dilemmas they will
face when encountering the realities of the classroom.
It is not solely the responsibility of university preservice science education
courses to encourage inquiry (Melville et al. 2007). It is, however, vital for science
educators to attend to the dilemmas that their students will encounter as they enter
the profession. Our students enter the curriculum and instruction (C&I) courses with
a variety of inquiry experiences, some of which are conducive to the teaching of
inquiry. Through inquiry and reflection, we seek to prepare our students for the task
of teaching inquiry in their own classrooms. The question this article addresses is,
therefore, at the heart of our work as science teacher educators: ‘‘To what extent
does inquiry experience influence preservice teachers’ capacity for reflection on the
teaching of inquiry?’’

Preservice Teachers: Inquiry Experience and Reflection

Inquiry Experience

Preservice teachers bring a range of inquiry experiences into their courses in

education faculties. Because they contribute to the identities that beginning science
teachers develop, these experiences are important. These identities combine ‘‘parts
of their past, including their own experience in school and in teacher preparation,
with pieces of their present’’ (Feiman-Nemser 2001, p. 1029). These experiences
have the potential to either encourage—or discourage—the development of a
teacher’s confidence in the use of inquiry in the classroom (Flores and Day 2006).

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 479

The teaching of science that preservice teachers have experienced as students of

science at both school and undergraduate level are clear examples of these
experiences (Adams and Krockover 1997; Bencze et al. 2006; Friedrichsen et al.
2006). Teachers’ capacity to shape, either positively or negatively, their students’
dispositions toward inquiry should not be underestimated (Bencze et al. 2006).
Deleterious experiences must be acknowledged, as they can be amplified through
the general lack of opportunities for preservice science teachers to engage in the
kinds of experiences needed to encourage inquiry, to the point where it ‘‘is the norm
and not the exception’’ (Jeanpierre et al. 2005, p. 669). At the undergraduate level,
the current teaching of science would seem to discourage a positive disposition
toward inquiry. The majority of science students are not exposed to teaching that
‘‘encourages undergraduates to become actively involved in their own learning (i.e.
scientific teaching)’’ (DeHaan 2005, p. 253). As a result, many preservice science
teachers who have undergraduate degrees in science struggle with the purpose and
pedagogy of an inquiry-based science curriculum. As Windschitl (2002) stated, ‘‘It
is unreasonable to assume that, as teachers, these individuals will spontaneously
embrace the idea of using open inquiry with their own students or feel capable of
managing such complex instruction’’ (p. 113).
Windschitl (2002) has made the case for the importance of preservice teachers’
inquiry experience and their capacity to use inquiry in the classroom:
The sole condition common across all three participants who used inquiry
regularly was that they had previous long-term research experiences in which
they played significant roles in authentic investigations. Conversely, the two
participants with no research experience in their backgrounds...failed to use
inquiry instruction of any kind in the classroom. (pp. 138–139)
Several strategies need to be considered to develop preservice teachers’ positive
disposition toward, and capacity for, inquiry. As van Driel et al. (2001) stated, the
role of knowledge in reforming education is ‘‘complex and multifaceted’’ (p. 144).
Preservice teachers must be given a context in which they can develop their own
understanding of science as a subject and an understanding of the challenges they
will encounter in using inquiry as a teaching strategy. If teachers are expected to
implement an inquiry-based curriculum successfully, then they must have the
opportunity to experience ‘‘active learning strategies to engage students in the
process of science and teaching methods that have been systematically tested’’
(Handelsman et al. 2004, p. 521). Bencze et al. (2006) argued for ‘‘explicit
instructional techniques, such as discussions surrounding assigned readings, along
with some implicit approaches, such as encouraging them to conduct student-
directed, open-ended scientific inquiries about which they are asked to reflect’’
(p. 418). The opportunity for preservice teachers to reflect on their experiences is an
imperative in the encouragement of inquiry. Without challenging experiences, and
the ability to constructively reflect on those experiences, the development of
positive preservice teacher attitudes to inquiry may be truncated (Bell et al. 2003;
Van Zee and Roberts 2001; Windschitl 2002; Zembal-Saul et al. 2002). In this
article, we consider the reflective capacity of preservice teachers with different past
experiences with inquiry.

123
480 W. Melville et al.

Reflection

There is a sizeable literature on preservice teacher reflection (Fendler 2003). In

establishing the notion of reflection in studies of education, Dewey (1933) defined
reflection as being ‘‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the
further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought’’ (p. 9). The
conceptual framework for considering reflective preservice teacher education must
commence with consideration of the initial orientation of preservice teachers toward
the ‘‘beliefs-knowledge, values-attitudes, skills and emotions’’ of their chosen
subject and the impetus for that reflection (LaBoskey 1994, p. 9). While all
researchers agree that reflection is a special form of thought, the term continues to
represent a wide variety of conceptualizations in the educational research literature
(Hatton and Smith 1995). For the purposes of this article, the guiding definition of
reflection for preservice teachers comes from LaBoskey, who believed that
The fundamental goal of teacher education is to teach novices to temper their
judgments, to replace unsubstantiated opinion with...grounded belief that is
constantly in flux and open to revision...good teaching requires thoughtful,
caring decision making wherein educators are able to move beyond the
tendencies of their own biographies and the apparent mandates of their current
circumstances to envision and consider alternative interpretations and
possibilities. (p. 9)
From this foundation, LaBoskey (1994) expounded on three domains that
constitute the act of reflection. The first of these is the content that is to be reflected
upon (Goodman 1991; LaBoskey 1994; Zeichner and Tabachnich 1991). Reflection
on content involves three dimensions: technical, practical, and critical (Goodman
1991; LaBoskey 1994). The second domain is the process by which rational and
intuitive thought processes are brought to bear on the area under reconsideration
(Goodman 1991; LaBoskey 1994; Zeichner and Tabachnich 1991). The third
domain involves the attitudes of open mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheart-
edness (Goodman 1991; LaBoskey 1994). In addition to these domains, LaBoskey
(1994) and Zeichner and Tabachnich (1991) discussed the importance of the context
of the reflection, for the structure of the reflection is crucial to the quality of the
reflection. These domains form the theoretical framework for the analysis of our
data.

Method and Methodology

Our current work is based on data drawn from research conducted with students
enrolled in science C&I courses at a Canadian university during the 2005–2006
academic year. For this research, questionnaires, semistructured interviews, and
placement reports were used to gather information on any changes in preservice
teachers’ perceptions toward science as inquiry and the nature of science. This use
of multiple data sources emphasizes the emergent nature of qualitative research

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 481

design (Patton 2002). For this article, we draw heavily on the personal narratives
of 12 preservice science teachers who were involved in the interviews. The selection
of participants for the interviews was by purposive sampling to ensure a balance of
gender, scientific discipline, undergraduate degree, and life experience.
Within the literature on teachers and teaching, narratives are a way of telling
stories about teachers that are both ‘‘personal—reflecting a person’s life history
[and] social—reflecting the milieu, the contexts in which teachers live’’ (Connelly
and Clandinin 1999, p. 2). For Patton (2002), studies of narrative assist researchers
to understand teachers’ ‘‘lived experience and perceptions of experience’’ (p. 115).
In seeking to understand these experiences and perceptions, we make use of
Bochner’s (2001) narrative turn to understand the capacity that our preservice
teachers have for the teaching of inquiry. In doing so, we seek to move ‘‘away from
facts and toward meanings; away from master narratives and toward local stories’’
(p. 134). Polkinghorne (1995) described the strategy that we use as narrative
strategy. Under this a priori strategy, data are analyzed using concepts ‘‘derived
from previous theory...and applied to the data to determine whether instances of
these concepts are to be found’’ (p. 13). We have used two concepts in the analysis
of our data: (a) the connection between inquiry experience and preservice teachers’
use of inquiry (Windschitl 2002) and (b) the discussions on reflection provided by
Goodman (1991) and LaBoskey (1994).
The interview audiotaped recordings referred to in this article were conducted
toward the end of the academic year by Fazio (the second author), a colleague in a
university not connected with the students. The average length for each interview
was 26 min. The recordings were listened to twice to develop a sense of their
coherence and emergent themes and were also transcribed and analyzed for
common themes. The analysis of these themes, using our frameworks, was an
iterative process, requiring us to move between the questionnaire results, recordings,
placement reports, and the participants to clarify particular points. In our analysis,
the participant’s verbatim answers were used. Pseudonyms have been used
throughout the article.

Inquiry Experience

All of the preservice secondary teachers in our courses possess undergraduate

degrees in science, the majority in the biological sciences. Our C&I courses are
taught from an inquiry perspective and include ongoing reflections as to the nature
of science, scientific inquiry and the challenges of science teaching. The course
requirements stress involvement with a range of structured, guided, and open
inquiries (Colburn 2004). These activities were reflected on in a number of ways:
classroom discourse, reflective writing on their beliefs and experiences, the
integration of theory and practice, and seminars with teachers from local secondary
schools (see Appendix). The specific purpose of this article is to examine the
dispositions that the preservice teachers expressed regarding the use of inquiry in
their future classrooms. Expressing a disposition is relatively easy; to put these
inquiry dispositions into classroom practice is difficult.

123
482 W. Melville et al.

Table 1 Inquiry and teaching experience

Name Prior Self-identified Minimum of Inquiry
teaching as experienced 2 years experience
experience with scientific undergraduate cohort
inquiry inquiry
(in education experience
or employment)

Ted Yes None No Limited

Ping Yes None No Limited
Natalie No None No Limited
Paul No None No Limited
Chan No None No Limited
Rod No None Yes Moderate
James No Yes No Moderate
Kris No None Yes Moderate
Mary No Yes Yes Extensive
Kate Yes Yes Yes Extensive
Lyn No Yes Yes Extensive
John No Yes Yes Extensive

Using Windschitl’s (2004) work as a theoretical framework, we examined the

teaching and science inquiry experiences of the 12 preservice teachers who
volunteered to be interviewed. Three distinct cohorts emerged, which we have
labeled as extensive, moderate, and limited. The inquiry backgrounds of these
preservice teachers are summarized in Table 1.
Of the four individuals with extensive experience, Mary and Lyn had completed
a thesis as part of an honors degree, Kate had recently completed a doctorate, and
John had worked in biochemical research. Each also identified a minimum of
2 years of undergraduate inquiry experience. The three individuals classified as
moderate experience had gained that experience at either secondary school or in
their undergraduate studies. The five individuals with limited experience could not
identify any inquiry experience in their secondary or undergraduate education or in
any employment.
From this initial organization, each cohort is discussed in terms of their answers
to interview questions inquiring into their perceptions of the content, process,
attitudes, and context of reflection. These perceptions, and our analyses of them,
form the next section of this article. The quotes are given verbatim.

Results and Discussion

It has been argued that the ‘‘influence of preservice programs might be strengthened
by a stronger focus on opportunities to experience and reflect upon personal
biography’’ (Flores and Day 2006, p. 230). Our data seem to indicate that the
explicit nature of our courses, which provide preservice teachers with an
opportunity to both engage in, and reflect upon, inquiry did have an impact on

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 483

their disposition toward inquiry in their future classrooms. This impact, which
appears to be moderated by the individual’s inquiry experience and capacity for
reflection, can be considered in two findings. First, previous experience with inquiry
appears to provide preservice teachers with a firmer grasp on the content, process,
and attitudes of reflection. Second, previous experience with inquiry appears to
expand the context of preservice teachers’ learning from their immediate situation
to the larger science education community. Rearick and Feldman (1999) identified
this expansion of the context for reflection as ‘‘communal reflection’’ (p. 336).
Communal reflection engages participants in reflection beyond their individual and
immediate context and raises consideration of cultural, historical, and institutional
objects and events. It is toward these findings that we now turn, using the theoretical
framework of reflection as content, process, and attitudes.

Reflection: Content, Process, and Attitudes

Our data indicate that, in combination with inquiry experiences prior to their
preservice teaching courses, a willingness and capacity to reflect on the nature of
scientific inquiry permits an individual to transform from perceiving the challenges
of inquiry in terms of material and temporal limitations to the deeper pedagogical
issues of teaching and learning. The process of nurturing and developing a reflective
perspective is, we would argue, both an individual and shared responsibility.
Schwartz et al. (2004) believed that preservice teachers require explicit opportu-
nities for reflection, an authentic research context for the inquiry that they engage in,
and the capacity to develop a reflective perspective. Certainly, there is a shared
responsibility for science educators, whether they are in schools or universities, to
view preservice teachers as ‘‘legitimate participants and brokers who can transform
practices within these [science education, science and school] communities’’
(Friedrichsen et al. 2006, p. 541). Nevertheless, it is an individual’s responsibility to
be prepared to reflect on the nature of science and inquiry for, without reflection,
‘‘One is less likely to consider the nature of the enterprise which he/she has become
a part’’ (Schwartz et al. 2004, p. 635). It is this dual nature of individual and shared
responsibility for the cultivation of reflective preservice teacher perception that is of
greatest interest to us. These perceptions incorporate the content, process, attitudes,
and context of the reflection (Goodman 1991; LaBoskey 1994).

Content: Extensive Inquiry Experience

The preservice teachers with extensive inquiry experience consistently phrased

the challenges of teaching inquiry in terms of scaffolding student’s knowledge of
the processes of scientific inquiry and their role in guiding the development of the
students’ inquiries (Furtak 2006). As Mary described, ‘‘It is a process that they have
to learn. I don’t think that they are familiar or comfortable with it...it is also difficult
[for students] to change and maintain variables.’’ For John, there was a real concern
as to ‘‘where to start. To tell someone to go and research something...is an
overwhelming task, or can be if you haven’t done it before.’’ For Lyn, the building
of a ‘‘framework of what it is, and how to go through it...I’m going to have to go

123
484 W. Melville et al.

through a whole process and slowly integrate it into my classroom.’’ There was also
a concern as how to guide students with their inquiries, rather than supply the
answer when asked the question, ‘‘Where do I go next, sir?’’ For Kate, helping
students was important up to a point: ‘‘You can guide them, but you won’t give
them the answer.’’
Despite their inexperience in the classroom, these preservice teachers appeared
capable of deploying the pedagogical content knowledge that they have experien-
tially and reflectively acquired ‘‘to provide situationally appropriate learning
experiences for their students’’ (Barnett and Hodson 2001, p. 433). This reflective
capacity to focus on the content of teaching inquiry distinguishes this cohort from
their colleagues. They are able to see beyond the immediate concerns of daily
teaching to ‘‘the ideal, the long-term goal of improving the lives of students’’
(LaBoskey 1994, p. 11)

Content: Moderate Inquiry Experience

The three preservice teachers with moderate inquiry experience appear to represent
the reflective struggles of individuals still focusing on the technical, practical, and
critical aspects of inquiry teaching. These preservice teachers had the same
opportunities and explicit instruction in reflection as the experienced cohort. Their
moderate inquiry experience, however, appears to confront their growth as reflective
thinkers. As a group, they are supportive of inquiry and express confidence in their
ability to develop as inquiry-based science teachers. However, this confidence is
tempered by the uncertainty that will accompany inquiry teaching into their
classrooms. Their apprehensions cover a range of concerns—from the pedagogical
to the curriculum, from the temporal to the material. According to one of our
preservice teachers, Rod, teachers he worked with were asking, ‘‘How does this fit
into the curriculum?’’ While Rod could see the connection between open inquiry
and the curriculum, the question appeared to trouble him. James appreciated the
connection between action and reflection:
Doing it [the open inquiry in the C&I course] was good...doing it from a
teacher’s perspective...here’s why you are doing this from a teacher’s
perspective. You can always reflect back on what it was like when you did do
it, but when you are doing it and applying what you are learning to what you
are doing, it probably gives a really good indication of what is going through
the child’s mind and what should be going through your mind.
This parallel support for, and anxiety with, inquiry again suggests that experience
with inquiry is foundational to the efficacy of preservice teacher education and the
development of a positive attitude toward reflection.

Content: Limited Inquiry Experience

In stark contrast to the experienced cohort, the limited-experience cohort stressed

time, curriculum, and materials as the major constraints on inquiry. Additionally,

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 485

four of the five individuals perceived that a major impediment to the use of inquiry
was the reaction of students. These reactions ranged from students’ feeling
‘‘intimidation,’’ ‘‘frustration,’’ and ‘‘reluctance’’ to student’s inability to achieve
good results due to a lack of ‘‘competence in using the equipment.’’ They also
explicitly noted the potential negative reactions of parents, colleagues, and schools
as issues that would inhibit inquiry. One of the preservice teachers, Ted, also stated
emphatically that he was unconvinced as to the value of inquiry in contemporary
science classrooms. Based on evidence in our interview data, these findings may
reinforce the view that these perceptions are a manifestation of the science
education that these preservice teachers have themselves received (Bencze et al.
2006; Windschitl 2002; Lederman 1999).
There is no doubt that teachers need to have a deep understanding of the subject
that they wish to teach (Harris et al. 2005). Scientific knowledge alone, though, is
insufficient for teachers. A very real risk for preservice teachers who rely
predominantly on subject knowledge to support their classroom practices, is that
they will ‘‘... tend to have simplistic views of teaching and learning, which
predispose them to didactic methods’’ (Barnett and Hodson 2001, p. 433).
Teachers need content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and a form of
practical wisdom to guide their teaching; the episteme, techne and phronesis of
teaching (Coulter and Orme 2000; Squires 1999). For science teachers, there is a
strong case for content knowledge to include the ‘‘history, philosophy, and
sociology of science and/or technology [and] experience conducting independent
scientific inquiry or technological design projects’’ (Bencze et al. 2006, p. 402).
Overall, without deep content knowledge, the process of reflection appears to be
problematic for preservice teachers.

Process

The process of reflection is a ‘‘messy integration of both rational and intuitive

thought processes’’ (LaBoskey 1994, p. 12). This integration involves the teacher’s
moving:
back and forth between issue definition and analysis of alternatives many
times before reaching a tentative conclusion; anywhere during the process the
teacher may have an intuitive insight that suggests a reconfiguration of all or
part of his or her previous deliberations; after much consideration, no option
may appear warranted, yet the teacher may still need to choose an action; or
new circumstances may develop, causing the teacher to abort the process.
(LaBoskey 1994, pp. 12–13)
Such an iterative process requires a suitable knowledge base, a difficulty for some
preservice teachers who are attempting to reflect on their own teaching (Hatton and
Smith 1995). A content knowledgeable individual possesses the capacity to consider
issues of teaching practice from a variety of evidentiary viewpoints and the
implications of any decision before acting (LaBoskey 1994). Differences in this
capacity were clearly demonstrated in the three experience cohorts.

123
486 W. Melville et al.

Process: Extensive Inquiry Experience

For the extensive inquiry experience cohort, the process of reflection involved the
preservice teachers asking questions of both their own views of science education
and how to implement their beliefs in the classroom. For Mary, the perceptual
change was substantial. At the start of the course, her view of science education was
‘‘more about imparting information...my marks revolved around being able to
memorize large quantities of information. That’s what education meant to me.’’ By
the end of the course, she believed, ‘‘It is not all about information, it is about
helping them [students] find the right question and then being able to answer that
question.’’ Faced with implementing inquiry in his classroom, John recognized the
challenge of finding ‘‘where to start. To tell someone to go and research
something...is an overwhelming task, or can be if you haven’t done it before.’’
Experience with inquiry—and a preparedness to reflect on the implications of
inquiry for their own teaching—gave these preservice teachers the confidence to
implement inquiry in their own classrooms.

Process: Moderate Inquiry Experience

As a preservice teacher with moderate inquiry experience, Rod struggled with many
of the usual barriers to the teaching of inquiry—time and covering the curriculum.
Looking beyond these constraints, however, Rod believed that he could implement
inquiry in his classroom. Having some inquiry experience gave him ‘‘the ability to
see where students would falter, so I could help students that way...I can foresee
where they are going to have problems.’’ Rod also believed that the use of different
levels of inquiry as a strategy would allow him to implement inquiry in a way that
dealt with his major concerns of the curriculum and time: ‘‘You can use guided
inquiry to cover parts of the curriculum.’’ The capacity to visualize both the
challenges that his students would face, and alternative strategies for implementing
inquiry are indicative of a nascent capacity to move ‘‘back and forth between issue
definition and analysis of alternatives many times before reaching a tentative
conclusion’’ (LaBoskey 1994, p. 12).

Process: Limited Inquiry Experience

In contrast to the extensive- and moderate-experience cohorts, the limited-

experience cohort data appear to demonstrate that the process of reflection may
run counter to some preservice teacher’s conception of teaching. Hatton and Smith
(1995) reported, ‘‘The persistence and strength of [preservice teachers’] own
conceptualization of teaching proved a considerable barrier’’ (p. 36) to the
enactment of reflection. One preservice teacher, Ted, declared that ‘‘I personally
think that the way things are now with regards to prescribed labs is fine.’’ For Chan,
who was concerned with ‘‘covering the entire curriculum and getting good results,’’
there was disappointment in how the C&I courses addressed issues of implementing
inquiry: ‘‘They [the instructors] didn’t talk about how to deal with them, they
identified them. There was a lot of discussion relating to the issues, not so much on

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 487

how to deal with them.’’ Neither of these preservice teachers implemented inquiry
during their placements.
Such statements as these indicate a lack of deliberation around issues of
inquiry—the unreflective, ‘‘commonsense thinker’’ (LaBoskey 1994, p. 162). An
understanding of the nature of science and inquiry, nurtured through experience and
explicit instruction, appears to be foundational to preservice teachers’ capacity to
engage in the processes of reflection—the reflective ‘‘alert novice’’ (LaBoskey,
p. 162). Our data indicate that our courses made little impact on the capacity of
limited inquiry experience individuals to engage in the processes of reflection.

Attitudes

Without content knowledge, the process of reflection becomes difficult. The

encouragement and development of positive attitudes also has implications for both
the content and process of reflection (LaBoskey 1994). These attitudes are open
mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness (Goodman 1991). Open minded-
ness refers to the preparedness of preservice teachers to ‘‘examine the rationales that
underlie what they may initially take for granted as right and natural in the schools.
They realize that traditional perceptions of education may or may not be valid, and
they are willing to question.’’ Preservice teachers with the attitude of responsibility
do ‘‘not automatically assume that the goals of a given school district reflect the best
interests of their students’’ (Goodman 1991, pp. 59–60). To be responsible, they
must consider both short and long-term goals (LaBoskey 1994). The attitude of
wholeheartedness is eloquently described by Goodman (1991) in terms of the
dilemmas faced by preservice teachers:
Many preservice teachers express fears of making mistakes, being criticized,
disturbing traditions, and making changes...one cannot be truly reflective
unless she or he is willing to take risks and act. Wholeheartedness enables
preservice teachers to work through their fears and insecurities, and thus
provide a basis for action. (p. 59)
These attitudes are clearly seen to vary in the three experience cohorts of our
study.

Attitudes : Extensive Inquiry Experience

Open mindedness toward inquiry was most enthusiastically exhibited by this cohort,
with each individual expressing a willingness to utilize inquiry in their future
classrooms. Lyn questioned the perceived status of inquiry in schools: ‘‘[It] should
be used more...it is not used enough.’’ Mary believed that her future colleagues had
a role to play in promoting the use of inquiry: ‘‘... in grades 9 and 10, and working
with other colleagues and getting students’ doing guided inquiries so you can work
up to something bigger.’’
In terms of responsibility and wholeheartedness, this cohort was convinced of the
value of inquiry for their students’ learning, they were prepared to practice a
pedagogy they believe in. Confronted with negativity regarding inquiry that they

123
488 W. Melville et al.

found in schools, their response was to persevere with inquiry in their placements.
In many cases, their belief in inquiry was challenged by their placement experience,
but they remained undaunted. Mary believed that implementation would ‘‘be a
lengthy process it won’t happen overnight, but it is worth it as the students learn a
lot more.’’ For Lyn, there was a conviction that perseverance was the key in
promoting inquiry: ‘‘If you keep pressing it, then more people will listen.’’

Attitudes: Moderate Inquiry Experience

The responses of the moderate-experience cohort were not quite as definitive, but
did display a positive disposition toward open mindedness. According to James, the
implementation of inquiry would rely heavily on the support of colleagues: ‘‘The
ideal situation would be good relationships with colleagues, being on the same page
and implementing the same ideas at the same time.’’ All three members of this
cohort did experiment with guided and structured inquiries on their placement.
The preservice teachers in this cohort all believed in the value of inquiry, even as
they also expressed concerns around time, resources, and the curriculum. Rod, who
initially was reluctant to leave the textbook for fear of the time constraints, stated:
‘‘I could really see the difference in the class as they made connections, how they
manipulated variables, you could see how they could make up their own
experiment.’’ Such a statement indicates both responsibility and a developing sense
of wholeheartedness.

Attitudes: Limited Inquiry Experience

Within the limited-experience cohort, observations were made around the lack of
inquiry in schools, but these were not questioned. This indicates a potential lack of
open mindedness, although we are also mindful of the pressure on preservice
teachers to conform. Chan’s experience was typical: ‘‘He basically gave me a lesson
plan and expected me to follow it to the word...they were mainly directed.’’ Ted
recounted, ‘‘We were expected to follow, make sure you cover all this.’’
In relation to responsibility and wholeheartedness, the members of the limited
cohort were ambivalent about their responsibility for the teaching of inquiry, linking
it to the reactions of their colleagues, schools, employers, and students. For Natalie,
she recognized that inquiry may help her students ‘‘feel like they were doing
something,’’ but the use of inquiry was secondary to obtaining a position: ‘‘If it is
me or inquiry, sorry, but inquiry’s got to go, at least for a little while.’’
For this cohort, the context in which they commence their careers could be
pivotal for their professional learning. It is the issue of context that we now address.

Context: The Immediate to the Wider Science Education Community

The role of the C&I courses and the wider science education community in shaping
preservice teachers’ capacity for inquiry cannot be underestimated. Barnett and

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 489

Hodson (2001) have situated science teachers’ episteme, techne, and phronesis in
the phrase pedagogical context knowledge. A major medium for the development of
this complex form of knowledge is reflection and discourse, both formal and
informal, with other members of the science education community (Barnett and
Hodson 2001; Bell et al. 2003; Bencze et al. 2006; van Driel et al. 2001). All seven
preservice teachers with inquiry experience described how the courses had helped
equip them to teach inquiry. More important, for their future professional learning,
each of them described the crucial role of their colleagues in both their schools and
in the wider science education community. Colleagues within schools were seen to
have experiences and abilities that could be drawn upon when the young teachers
faced challenges in their teaching. As Rod described his experience:
She gave me a task to go and make up an experiment; she didn’t want me to
use the ones in the textbook...I could use it as a framework, but not verbatim.
I’d bring it in and a lot of the feedback that I got was that it was not inquiry
enough...I think I have a firm grasp on how to make a guided inquiry now, and
I can thank her for that.
One aspect of the courses that was explicitly noted was the question and answer
session held by a local science chair to all the preservice science teachers on his
school’s inquiry-based curriculum. Lyn specifically reported that the seminar had
given her ‘‘strategies that you use, to be able to talk to your colleagues
professionally.’’
Assisted by such connections as this, all seven preservice teachers explicitly
mentioned a desire to seek out contacts with science-based groups in the
community, science teachers in other schools, members of their C&I classes, and
their science education faculty instructors:
I have a lot of friends in the education program that went through the same
classes I did, I can talk to my colleagues, not necessarily within my school, but
in the community at large, and say I’m trying this, how is this working for
you? ...You always have support, maybe not in your school, but in the
profession. (Lyn)
The ability to develop such links and contacts in the early stages of their careers
bodes well for the ongoing professional learning of these individuals. There is
growing support for ‘‘viewing both the practicum (under the responsibility of higher
education authorities) and the induction period (under the responsibility of the
employer) as a single developmental stage in the initial professional formation of
new teachers’’ (Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education
2003, p. 142). For a beginning teacher to plan, undertake, and sustain an inquiry-
based classroom is extremely difficult to do and adds a further dimension to the
challenges that beginning teachers face, but one that we believe is achievable with
suitable preservice teacher education and school level support.
A significant difference between the cohorts with extensive or moderate
experience and their limited-experience colleagues was the capacity to engage in
these challenging discourses. The limited-experience cohort overwhelmingly
considered their teaching colleagues as a resource to be tapped for ‘‘tips of the

123
490 W. Melville et al.

trade’’ and physical resources. Only one member of the cohort mentioned making
contacts with teachers in other schools. One individual also stated a preference to
struggle on alone to do his ‘‘own thing.’’ Ted did not intend to teach inquiry, as he
remained unconvinced as to its efficacy ‘‘Until I see some scientific evidence, or
evidence, to show that this is definitely superior to the way that I have been taught,
or the way that science is currently taught in most schools, I’m not going to
change.’’ An inability, or unwillingness, to reflect on their teaching practice,
combined with such a narrow view of the science education community is
worrisome so early in one’s career.

Conclusions

The importance of preservice teachers’ both engaging in authentic scientific inquiry

and reflecting on the nature of scientific inquiry, is demonstrated in a growing
contemporary literature (Bell et al. 2003; Bencze et al. 2006; Lederman 1999; Van
Zee and Roberts 2001; Windschitl 2002; Zembal-Saul et al. 2002). The analysis of
our data adds further weight to the importance of preservice teachers having access
to inquiry experiences and opportunities for reflection on those inquiry experiences.
‘‘Doing science’’ by itself is insufficient. Our analysis contributes to the knowledge
base in the field of preservice science teacher education, as we have illuminated a
connection between inquiry experience and the reflections of preservice teachers.
Knowledge and experience with inquiry appears to be crucial in providing the
content for preservice teachers’ reflections. Without content, the process and
attitudes of reflection are undermined—and the capacity of preservice teachers to
reflect—appears compromised. This finding has two implications for the selection
process of preservice teachers into science education courses. First, well-creden-
tialed individuals with limited inquiry experience may satisfy the academic
requirements of their courses, but return to school science classrooms with their
perceptions of teachers and teaching essentially unchanged. Second, there is
currently no objective method of quantifying—and situating—the individual’s
inquiry experience for the purposes of entry into education courses. Both
implications require further scrutiny.
We have also identified differences in the perceived challenges that preservice
teachers see in the implementation of inquiry in their own classrooms. Preservice
teachers with extensive inquiry experiences view implementation challenges in
terms of teaching and student learning: the development of students’ inquiry skills
and comfort with the uncertainties of science are seen as the major challenges for
them as beginning teachers. This contrasts starkly with the perceptions of preservice
teachers with limited inquiry experience. For this cohort, the main concerns relate to
time, the curriculum, and materials. They also explicitly noted the potential negative
reactions of students, parents, colleagues, and schools as issues. For those
individuals with moderate inquiry experience, there was a juxtaposition of the
concerns from both ends of the experience continuum. The C&I courses appear to
assist these students move toward the perceptions of their more inquiry experienced
colleagues.

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 491

The relationship between inquiry experience and reflection is multifaceted.

Inquiry experiences, which develop preservice teachers’ understanding of the nature
of scientific inquiry, provide the content for reflection. Our analysis indicates that
preservice teachers with this content knowledge were empowered by the C&I
courses to move beyond the immediate demands of teaching and onto consideration
of the most appropriate teaching and learning strategies for their students. Those
individuals with limited inquiry experience struggled to move beyond the immediacy
of their situation. The importance of the process of reflection is also tightly bound to
content. Relying more on their own perceptions of teaching, developed during their
time as students, preservice teachers with limited inquiry experience are challenged
to consider different conceptualizations of teaching. This, in turn, has an impact on
the attitudes to reflection that are developed. While we firmly believe in the
importance of providing opportunities for inquiry and reflection in C&I courses, we
are strongly challenged as to how to encourage preservice teachers with limited
inquiry to grow from ‘‘commonsense thinkers’’ to ‘‘alert novices.’’ Nonetheless, as
science educators we heed the affirmation by LaBoskey (1997, p. 162) who, when
asked if reflectivity ought to be a goal for all teachers, responded:
The presumption [of the question] seemed to be that because it was so difficult
for many to achieve, it might be an unreasonable educational aim. A
colleague...asked me the same question the other day. My response, both then
and now is: ‘‘Yes!’’ ‘‘Yes!’’ and ‘‘Absolutely yes!’’ All students deserve
teachers who are both willing and able to construct and examine their practice
in conscientious, principled, and judicious ways. (p. 162)

Appendix

C&I Course Inquiry and Reflection

Our students participate in a number of activities designed to engage them with a

range of structured, guided and open inquiries, and reflection on those experiences.
The following inquiries and opportunities for reflection are presented in an
approximate chronological order through the academic year.
1. At the beginning of the academic year, all preservice teachers are asked to
participate in a questionnaire that asks about their inquiry experience, their
understandings of the nature of science, and their expectations for the C&I
courses. The same questionnaire is administered at the end of the course in
order to examine perceptual changes.
2. Open inquiry. The preservice teachers are asked to prepare an open inquiry on a
topic of their choice. In introducing this activity, the instructors highlight the
difficulties that will be encountered, such as the development of a question, the
shaping of a method, the identification of variables, data collection and analysis,
and presentation. The finished inquiry is presented towards the end of the course
to their colleagues, local science teachers, and faculty members from both the
education and science faculties. The preservice teachers are periodically asked to

123
492 W. Melville et al.

reflect on their progress (or lack of) and what they are learning of the nature of
inquiry. These reflections are drawn together at the end of the course in
discussions around the nature of science and their understanding of the scientific
method.
3. Structured and guided inquiries. Throughout the course there are several
opportunities for preservice teachers to engage in these forms of inquiry. These
may be demonstrations by the instructors, activities posed by the instructors, or
lessons developed by the preservice teachers when they are asked to present
material from the provincial curriculum. An important consideration in these
inquiries is the development—and application—of protocols for the giving and
receiving of feedback. Public opportunities for both written and oral reflection
and discussion are provided after each activity or presentation.
4. In the fall semester, before the first placement, all preservice teachers visit a
local high school that has developed a reputation for the teaching of inquiry.
During this visit, the preservice teachers are encouraged to observe the teaching
and learning that occurs in different teachers’ classrooms and to talk to both
students and teachers about their observations. Opportunities are provided for
the preservice teachers to reflect on their visit after their return to the faculty.
5. During the first placement in November and December, all preservice teachers
are encouraged to keep in contact with their instructors. For those preservice
teachers who remain in the local area, the instructors will visit their classes and
provide feedback on what they have observed. These visits are continued in the
second placement. The preservice teachers are also required to provide a written
reflection on their experiences.
6. Early in the winter semester, the science chair of the school that was visited in
the fall presents a session on the challenges that his school has faced in
implementing inquiry over the past 8 years. This includes such issues as
perceived constraints on the use of inquiry, the importance of collaboration and
political support from the school administration, assessment, and the benefits of
inquiry. The preservice teachers are encouraged to discuss any of the points that
are raised and also provide a written reflection on what they have heard and
seen in the presentation.
7. Preservice teachers are asked to volunteer to be interviewed about their
perceptions of the nature of science, the scientific method, and the teaching of
science as inquiry. Those interviews and the questionnaires form the data set for
this research.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of
science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary science and
mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81(1), 29–50.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.

123
Capacity for Teaching Inquiry 493

Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what
good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science
apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and
scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.
Bencze, J. L., Bowen, G. M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science
projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90, 400–419.
Bochner, A.P. (2001). Narrative’s virtues. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 131–157.
Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 63–66.
Committee for the Review of Teaching, Teacher Education. (2003). Australia’s teachers, Australia’s
future:. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Coulter, D., & Orme, L. (2000). Teacher professionalism: The wrong conversation. Education Canada,
40(1), 4–7.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common frameworks of science learning outcomes,
K–12. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Secretariat.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.
DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 14, 253–269.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston: Heath.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching, Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.
Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political
reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25.
Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A
multiperspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219–232.
Friedrichsen, P. M., Munford, D., & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science
teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90, 522–543.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching.
Science Education, 90, 453–467.
Goodman, J. (1991). Using a methods course to promote reflection and inquiry among preservice
teachers. In B. R. Tabachnich & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry oriented
teacher education (pp. 56–76). London: Falmer.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of
science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R. L., Gentile, J., Lauffer,
S., Stewart, J., Tilgheman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670),
521–522.
Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified
for science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from
http://www.acds.edu.au.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that
effect change in science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42,
668–690.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential
research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.
LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York:
Teachers College Press.
LaBoskey, V. K. (1997). Teaching to teach with purpose and passion: Pedagogy for reflective practice. In
J. Loughran, & T. Russell (Eds.), Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 150–
163). London: Falmer.

123
494 W. Melville et al.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors
that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.
Melville, W., Jones, D., & Bartley, A. (2007). The encouragement of scientific inquiry: A shared
responsibility. The Register, 9(3), 16–19.
National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington DC: National
Academy Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R.
Wisniewski (Eds.). Life, history, and narrative (pp. 5–24). London: Falmer.
Qualifications & Curriculum Authority, England. (2000). National curriculum for England. Retrieved
May 19, 2006. from: http://www.nc.uk.net.
Rearick, M. L., & Feldman, A. (1999). Orientations, purposes, and reflection: A framework for
understanding action research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 333–349.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (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.
Squires, G. (1999). Teaching as a professional discipline. London: Falmer.
van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science
education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38,
137–158.
Van Zee, E. H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach:
Prospective teachers’ reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85,
733–757.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences
reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of ‘‘inquiry’’: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and
practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,
481–512.
Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of
computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40, 792–823.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnich, B. R. (1991). Reflections on reflective teaching. In B. R. Tabachnich &
K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry oriented teacher education (pp. 1–21).
London: Falmer.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding
preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection.
Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.

123
View publication stats