Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Science Teacher Education
Published in: Journal of Science Teacher Education 1/2010

01-02-2010

Analysis of Essential Features of Inquiry Found in Articles Published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007

Authors: Loretta D. Asay, MaryKay Orgill

Published in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Issue 1/2010

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In order to provide a picture of how inquiry is practiced in everyday science classrooms, the articles published in The Science Teacher from 1998 to 2007 were analyzed for explicit evidence of features of inquiry. Inquiry was operationally defined by the essential features detailed in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC 2000). Few articles described full inquiry. Gathering and analyzing evidence were significantly more prominent than the other features of inquiry, which were present in less than 25% of the articles. This pattern may be related to teachers’ viewing inquiry more as a process than as a vehicle for learning science content. Each feature found was also rated for whether it was student- or teacher-directed. Most activities were teacher-directed.
previous article Recognizing Students’ Scientific Reasoning: A Tool for Categorizing Complexity of Reasoning During Teaching by Inquiry
next article Development of Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Critique and Adapt Inquiry-based Instructional Materials

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
Abad, E. A. (2001). Boiling ice. The Science Teacher, 68, 44–45.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlock-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.CrossRef
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.CrossRef
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–404). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ash, L. E., & Luckey, J. (1998). Outdoor achievement. The Science Teacher, 65, 28–32.
Atwater, M. M., & Brown, M. L. (1999). Inclusive reform. The Science Teacher, 66, 44–48.
Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 177–209.CrossRef
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, F. (2000). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science course on preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12, 1–6.CrossRef
Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 117–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Carnes, G. N. (1997). Teacher conceptions of inquiry and related teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 151–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.CrossRef
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323–393.CrossRef
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRef
Crawford, B. A. (1997). A community of inquiry: Changing roles for teachers and students. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175–194.CrossRef
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.CrossRef
Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 613–637.CrossRef
Deters, K. (2004). Inquiry in the chemistry classroom. The Science Teacher, 71, 42–45.
Dogancay, D. (2005). Flame tests performed safely. The Science Teacher, 72, 34–38.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.CrossRef
Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385–400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Eareckson, L. A. (2002). What do amphibians have to offer? The Science Teacher, 69, 48–51.
Flick, L. B. (1997). Focusing research on teaching practices in support of inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 15–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hagger, H., Burn, K., Mutton, T., & Brindley, S. (2008). Practice makes perfect? Learning to learn as a teacher. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 159–178.CrossRef
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.CrossRef
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.CrossRef
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRef
Hogan, K., & Berkowitz, A. R. (2000). Teachers as inquiry learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 1–25.CrossRef
Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 32–41.CrossRef
Johnson, E., Borleske, B., Gleason, S., Bailey, B., & Scantlebury, K. (1998). Structured observation. The Science Teacher, 65(3), 46–49.
Jorgensen, L. M. (2001). Science literates or science experts? The Science Teacher, 68, 46–49.
Kang, N.-H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 337–354.CrossRef
Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140–165.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315–333.CrossRef
King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13–17.CrossRef
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.CrossRef
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, 483–497.CrossRef
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRef
Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 923–948.CrossRef
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 73, 34–39.
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, 517–534.CrossRef
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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 Research Council. (2001). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientific method based upon research scientists’ conceptions of scientific inquiry. In Proceedings of the annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science. Charlotte, SC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465618).
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Settlage, J., Odom, A. L., & Pedersen, J. E. (2004). Uses of technology by science education professors: Comparisons with teachers’ uses and the current versus desired technology knowledge gap. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4, 299–312.
Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.CrossRef
Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 543–558.CrossRef
Stiles, K. E., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Professional development strategies. The Science Teacher, 65(6), 46–49.
Strieb, M. (1998). Signs for the tides. The Science Teacher, 65, 23–25.
Texley, J. (2004). Cool books for hot days. The Science Teacher, 71, 20–23.
Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89, 879–900.CrossRef
Vondracek, M. (2002). Particle physics primer. The Science Teacher, 69, 40–43.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRef
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936–960.CrossRef
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.CrossRef
Westbrook, S. L. (1997). The lab’s done…now what? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Windschitl, M. (2002). The reproduction of cultural models of “inquiry” by preservice science teachers: An examination of thought and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
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.CrossRef
Witham, S. A., Krockover, G. H., Burgess, W., & Bayley, B. (2004). Digging up a CRIME. The Science Teacher, 71, 56–59.
Metadata
Title
Analysis of Essential Features of Inquiry Found in Articles Published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007
Authors
Loretta D. Asay
MaryKay Orgill
Publication date
01-02-2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Science Teacher Education / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9152-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Journal of Science Teacher Education 1/2010 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Development of Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Critique and Adapt Inquiry-based Instructional Materials

OriginalPaper

Recognizing Students’ Scientific Reasoning: A Tool for Categorizing Complexity of Reasoning During Teaching by Inquiry

OriginalPaper

Developing Elementary Teachers’ Understandings of Hedges and Personal Pronouns in Inquiry-Based Science Classroom Discourse

OriginalPaper

Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms

OriginalPaper

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and the 2003 Science Teacher Preparation Standards for NCATE Accreditation or State Approval

EditorialNotes

One Size Fits None?