Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to Support Primary Teachers’ Implementation of Inquiry: Teachers’ Reflections on Teaching Cooperative Inquiry-Based Science

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many primary teachers face challenges in teaching inquiry science, often because they believe that they do not have the content knowledge or pedagogical skills to do so. This is a concern given the emphasis attached to teaching science through inquiry where students do not simply learn about science but also do science. This study reports on the reflections of nine grade 6 teachers who taught two cooperative, inquiry science units once a term for two consecutive school terms. The study focused on investigating their perceptions of teaching inquiry science as well as the processes they employed, including the benefits and challenges of this student-centred approach to teaching, with longer task structures that characterises inquiry learning. Although the teachers reflected positively on their experiences teaching the inquiry science units, they also expressed concerns about the challenges that arise when teaching through inquiry. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Towards an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers’ development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 84, 577–610.

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 835–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2006). Enhancing science teaching and student learning: a BSCS perspective. Boosting science learning: what it will take. ACER Research Conference. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Duncan, R. (2009). Beyond the fringe: building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: success of failure? (pp. 311–332). London: Routledge.

  • Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2009). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: framing the debates. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 1–37). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

  • Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2013). Examining the beliefs and practices of four effective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 981–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2014). Uncertainty and scientific progress in classroom dialogue. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. AERA: Pittsburgh (in press).

  • Fulp, S.L. (2002a). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Elementary School Science Teaching. National Science Foundation (REC-9814246). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

  • Fulp, S.L. (2002b). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Middle School Science Teaching. National Science Foundation (REC-9814246). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

  • Gallardo-Virgen, J., & DeVillar, R. (2011). Sharing, talking, and learning in the elementary school science classroom: benefits of innovative design and collaborative learning in computer-integrated settings. Computers in the Schools, 28, 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. & Boyle, M. (2006). Ten Australian Elementary teachers’ discourse and reported pedagogical practices during cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 429--450.

  • Gillies, R. & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 933--940.

  • Gillies, R.. & Haynes, M. (2011). Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science, 39, 349--366. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9130-9

  • Gillies, R., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two strategic and meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children’s explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93--106.

  • Gillies, R. & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7--27.

  • Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in Australian schools. Canberra: Australian Government, Australian Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: a construction validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies in Reading, 5, 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation (CSC monograph series in evaluation no 8). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. (2008). An overview of primary connections: stage 3 research outcomes 2006–2008. Canberra: Australian Academy of Sciences.

  • Harris, C., & Rooks, D. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L. (2006). Intellectual role taking: supporting discussion in heterogeneous elementary science classes. Theory into Practice, 45, 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L., Palincsar, A., DeWater, L., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: a sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23--37). New York: Praeger.

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science. Science Education, 94, 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1021–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

  • Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: the relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). Securing Australia’s future: STEM country comparisons. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learner Academies (ACOLA).

  • Marshall, J., Horton, R., Igo, B., & Switzer, D. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 575–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, C. (2007). We’re off to look for aliens. UK: Walker Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51, 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23, 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary science classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experiences, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 Science education: practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association (2002). NSTA position statement: elementary school science. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx?

  • National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx/.

  • Newman, W., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Ottaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton-Meier, L., Hockenberry, L., Nelson, S., & Wise, K. (2008). Transforming pedagogy: embedding language practices within elementary science classrooms. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language (pp. 25--36). Sense: Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: the role of ideas, evidence and argument. Boosting science learning: what it will take. ACER Research Conference. http://www.acer.edu.au/research_conferences/2006.html.

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3, 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2009/10). An argument for arguments in science classes. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 62–66.

  • Palinscar, A. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—a response to C. Addison Stone’s “the metaphor of scaffolding: its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posnanski, T. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for in-service elementary teachers: project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 589–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseth, C., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, G., Lotter, C., & Singer, J. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ emerging expertise in inquiry teaching: the effect of a professional development model on beliefs and practice. Journal of Science Teachers’ Education, 22, 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthven, K. (2011). Using international study series and meta-analytic research syntheses to scope pedagogical development aimed at improving student attitude and achievement in school mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 419–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, B., Nazair, G., & Ledbetter, C. (2011). Observed implementation of a science professional development program for K-8 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 579–594.

  • Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurston, A., Topping, K., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E., & Murray, P. (2010). Cooperative learning in science: follow-up from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K., & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for school children: cognitive gains at 2-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 787–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K., Thurston, A., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Murray, P., & Karagiannidou, E. (2011). Cooperative learning in science: intervention in the secondary school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, C., Tuan, H., & Chin, C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 809–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging the students in science for Australia’s future. Australian education review. Camberwell: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Deur, P. (2010). Assessing elementary support for inquiry. Learning Environment Research, 13, 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veermans, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkaraienen, K. (2005). Patterns of guidance in inquiry learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H., Joung, Y., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42, 589–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, G., Chudinova, E., & Khavkin, E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: building a science curriculum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 201–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Statement of Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the relevant ethical clearance committee at our university, and a written informed consent was obtained by the participants who were interviewed in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 4072

    Robyn M. Gillies & Kim Nichols

Authors
  1. Robyn M. Gillies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kim Nichols
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn M. Gillies.

Appendix 1. Interview Questions

Appendix 1. Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    What were the issues you had to contend with as you taught the inquiry-based science units?

  2. 2.

    So how did you feel about the units as you were doing them?

  3. 3.

    Tell me about your previous experiences in teaching science.

  4. 4.

    What are the sorts of issues you consider when you’re getting the students ready to work on the science activities?

  5. 5.

    How did you set up the tasks for the students?

  6. 6.

    What sorts of strategies do you like to use?

  7. 7.

    How did the children respond to the science units?

  8. 8.

    How did the children respond to the group activities?

  9. 9.

    Reflecting on your experiences of teaching the units: How would you describe them?

    Has it changed the way you teach?

  10. 10.

    Are there any other issues that you’d like to discuss?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gillies, R.M., Nichols, K. How to Support Primary Teachers’ Implementation of Inquiry: Teachers’ Reflections on Teaching Cooperative Inquiry-Based Science. Res Sci Educ 45, 171–191 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9418-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9418-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation