Abstract
There is a current national emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Additionally, many states are transitioning to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which encourage teachers to incorporate engineering in science classrooms as well as have their students learn science by doing science. Methods courses are also shifting to adequately prepare preservice science teachers in these areas. This study examines preservice science teachers’ pre- and post-ideal inquiry-based lesson plan scenarios before and after intervention in their Secondary Science Methods I and II courses. These preservice science teachers participated in a variety of opportunities to practice authentic science inquiry (ASI) pedagogical techniques as well as integrated STEM topics, with a particular emphasis on computer programming throughout their 80 h of Methods instruction. ASI is a type of inquiry where students learn science by conducting science research in a grade-appropriate manner. Thirty-eight preservice teachers’ scenarios were analyzed using a rubric from Spuck (2014) to determine the degree to which the ten components of ASI were included in scenarios pre- to post-instruction. Trends in ASI component inclusion are discussed. These findings indicate that preservice science teachers are proficient at writing inquiry-based lessons where they planned opportunities for their future students to collaborate, use scientific instrumentation, and collect and analyze data, but need additional support with developing student activities where students create testable questions, revise their question and methods, participate in peer review, and disseminate their results to their peers or the larger scientific community. Overall, the results suggest Methods instruction should reinforce preservice teachers’ focus on planning lessons which include opportunities for all ASI components. Interventions in the aforementioned areas of weak inclusion may be beneficial to preservice teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abraham, L. M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 75(5), 229–223.
Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 403–421.
Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 38(1), 70–102.
Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Loughran, J. J., & Gunston, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(1), 27–31.
Bleicher, R. E. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1115–1133.
Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2005). Investigation of secondary science teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938–962.
Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2016). U.S. Development of Labor, Occupational employment statistics, Accessed 27 Feb 2016. www.bls.gov/oes.
Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2015). A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2–3), 318–330.
Crawford, B. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Davis, D. D. (1999). The research apprenticeship program: promoting careers in biomedical science and the health professions for minority populations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Ontario.
DeBoer, G. E. (2014). The history of science curriculum reform in the United States. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Exploring Computer Science. (2016). Accessed 27 Feb 2016. http://www.exploringcs.org/about/mission .
Goldston, J. M., Dantzler, J., Day, J., & Webb, B. (2012). A psychometric approach to the development of a 5E lesson plan scoring instrument for inquiry-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 527–551.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.
Jones, G. M., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf, J. (2007). What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 49–64.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning the nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
McNees, P. (2004). Why Janie can’t engineer: raising girls to succeed (pp. C09). The Washington Post.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, D. C: The National Academies Press.
NSTA (2012). Standards for science teacher preparation. Accessed 7 Apr 16. http://www.nsta.org/preservice/docs/2012NSTAPreserviceScienceStandards.pdf.
Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256.
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM education. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09258.
Shulman, L. S. (2016). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Spuck, T. (2014). Putting the “authenticity” in science learning. In T. Spuck, L. Jenkins, & R. Dou (Eds.), Einstein fellows: best practices in STEM education (pp. 118–156). New York: Peter Lang.
Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students’ understanding of inquiry: what do prospective science teachers notice? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 189–208.
Taylor, J. A., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ conceptions of scientific evidence: an exploratory case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 721–736.
Wallace, J., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teacher learning. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 24, pp. 295–306).
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andrew, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Oxford: National Staff Development Council.
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(5), 481–512.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge partial to full funding, as well as activity trials, for this study from the following grants: (A) Sustaining Wyoming’s Advancing Reach in Mathematics and Science - SWARMS (NSF DUE Noyce #1339853) and (B) Faculty PD of Solid Body Guitar Design (NSF ATE DUE #0903336).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Debbie French has received the following NSF Grants: ATE DUE #1700531, #1304405, and #0903336. She is an active member of the American Association of Physics Teachers and is on their committee for Physics Teacher Preparation. Dr. French is also a member of NSTA, PAC-TE, ASTE, ASCD, and PASCD. Dr. French has not received any honoraria and does not own stock in a company.
Dr. Andrea Burrows has received funding from the NSF Noyce Grant (ends in 2019) (#1335893) and Wyoming Department of Education MSP grant (ending 2018) (#1003857). Dr. Burrows is on the following committees: AERA AR SIG Chair, AERA STL SIG Program Chair, AERA CIAE Chair-Elect, ASEE PCEE Division Program Chair, and the ASTE Membership committee. She has not received honoraria and does not own company stocks.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
French, D.A., Burrows, A.C. Evidence of Science and Engineering Practices in Preservice Secondary Science Teachers’ Instructional Planning. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 536–549 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9742-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9742-4