Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 503–529 | Cite as

The Impact of an Inquiry-Based Geoscience Field Course on Pre-service Teachers

  • Gwen Nugent
  • Michael D. Toland
  • Richard Levy
  • Gina Kunz
  • David Harwood
  • Denise Green
  • Kathy Kitts
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine the effects of a field-based, inquiry-focused course on pre-service teachers’ geoscience content knowledge, attitude toward science, confidence in teaching science, and inquiry understanding and skills. The field-based course was designed to provide students with opportunities to observe, compare, and investigate geological structures in their natural environment and to gain an understanding of inquiry via hands-on learning activities designed to immerse students in authentic scientific investigation. ANCOVA and MANCOVA analyses examining differences in outcome measures between students in the field experience (n = 25) and education students enrolled in the traditional, classroom-based course (n = 37) showed that students in the field course generally had significantly higher scores. Results provide evidence of the value of the field and inquiry-based approach in helping pre-service teachers develop the needed skills and knowledge to create effective inquiry-based science lessons.

Keywords

Science inquiry Field work  Geoscience Pre-service teachers  Teacher professional development 

References

  1. AAAS. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Ager, A., & O’May, F. (2001). Issues in the definition and implementation of “best practice” for staff delivery of interventions for challenging behavior. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 26, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. (2007). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry: Results of a three year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1043–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ambers, R. (2005). The value of reservoir-bottom field trips for undergraduate geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 508–512.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Britton, E., & Raizen, S. (2003). Comprehensive teacher induction in five countries: Implications for supporting U.S. science teachers. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Science teacher retention: Mentoring and renewal (pp. 13–21). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bybee, R., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 349–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deen, M. Y., Bailey, S. J., & Parker, L. (2001). Life skills evaluation system. Wenatchee, WA: Washington State University Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
  16. Dodick, F., & Orion, N. (2003). Measuring student understanding of geological time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunne, K. A., & Newton, A. (2003). Mentoring and coaching for teachers of science: Enhancing professional culture. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in science education: Science teacher retention: Mentoring and renewal. Retrieved July 16, 2010, from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/store/pb127x4web.pdf.
  18. Elkins, J., & Elkins, N. (2007). Teaching geology in the field: Significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 126–132.Google Scholar
  19. Enders, C. K. (2003). Performing multivariate group comparisons following a statistically significant MANOVA. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 40–56. Available from http://mec.sagepub.com/.
  20. Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, L. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control of preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fennema, E., & Leder, G. (Eds.). (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  23. Gerber, B., Price, C., Barnes, M., Hinkle, V., Barnes, L., Gordon, P., & Stanley, L. (2003). Excellence in rural science teaching: Examining elements of professional development models. Available from ERIC database. (ED475163).Google Scholar
  24. Guertin, L. A. (2005). Integrating handheld technology with field investigations in introductory-level geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 143–146.Google Scholar
  25. Hemler, D., & Repine, T. (2006). Teachers doing science: An authentic geology research experience for teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 93–102.Google Scholar
  26. Hmelo, C. E., Gotterer, G. S., & Bransford, J. D. A. (1997). Theory-driven approach to assessing the cognitive effects of PBL. Instructional Science, 25, 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science & Mathematics, 101, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302–308. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huberty, C. J., & Petoskey, M. D. (2000). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 183–208). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ingersoll, R. M., & Kralik, J. M. (2004, February). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says. Education Commission of the States Review. Retrieved September 27, 2004, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm.
  32. Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary teachers’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year science in-service programme and their effects on pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1787–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K. L., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  35. Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koballa, T., & Glynn, S. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teacher’s conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  41. Libarkin, J. (2001). Development of an assessment of student conception of the nature of science. Journal of Geosciences Education, 49, 435–442.Google Scholar
  42. Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2005). Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the geoscience concept inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 394–401.Google Scholar
  43. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  44. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experiences secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 912–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacDonald, H. R., Manduca, C. A., Mogk, D. W., & Tweksbury, B. J. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 on the cutting edge survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 237–252.Google Scholar
  47. MacKenzie, A., & White, R. (1982). Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structure. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 623–632.Google Scholar
  48. Manduca, C. A., Mogk, D. W., & Stillings, N. (2004). Bringing research on learning to the geosciences: A report from a workshop sponsored by NSF and the Johnson Foundation. Northfield, MN: Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College.Google Scholar
  49. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Minner, D., & DeLisi, J. (2010). Inquiring into science instruction observation protocol (ISIOP) user’s manual. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Molitor, L. L., & George, K. D. (1976). Development of a test of science process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2008). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar
  53. Naff, C. F. (2009). Surviving field school. Earth, 54, 54–61.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  55. Norman, G. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67, 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Levy, R., Harwood, D., & Carlson. (2008). The impact of a field-based, inquiry-focused model of instruction on preservice teachers’ science learning and attitudes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  57. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Neil, M. (2003). Field-based research experience in earth science teacher education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, 64–70.Google Scholar
  59. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pianta, R. C. (2005). A new elementary school for American children. SRCD Social Policy Report, 19, 4–5.Google Scholar
  61. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1999). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  62. Plymate, T. G., Evans, K. R., Gutierrez, M., & Mantei, E. J. (2005). Alumni of geology B.S. program express strong support for field geology and related field and laboratory experiences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 215–216.Google Scholar
  63. Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1996). The challenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 138–146.Google Scholar
  64. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2007). A review of outdoor learning. Available from http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research-areas/pims-data/summaries/fsr-a-research-review-of-outdoor-learning.cfm.
  65. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rutherford, A. (2001). Introducing ANOVA and ANCOVA a GLM Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  67. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scher, L., & O’Reilly, F. (2009). Professional development for K-12 math and science teachers: What do we really know. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 209–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schuster, D., & Cobern, W. (2011). The pedagogy of science teaching test (POSTT). Retrieved August 29, 2011 from http://www.wmich.edu/science/inquiry-items.
  70. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  71. Tretinjak, C. A., & Riggs, E. M. (2008). Enhancement of geology content knowledge through field-based instruction for pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56, 422–433.Google Scholar
  72. Vanosdall, R., Klentschy, M., Hedges, L. V., & Weisbaum, K. S. (2007, April). A randomized study of the effects of scaffolded guided-inquiry instruction on student achievement in science. Paper presented at the conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  73. Wallace, C., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallace, E., & Pedersen, J. E. (2005). Evaluative case study of a summer academy program. Electronic Journal of Science Education. Available from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/wallaceetal.pdf.
  75. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2009). The relative effects of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning and argumentation about sleep concepts: A randomized control trial. In S. Plank (Chair), Strategies for reform. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  76. Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Teacher Education, 87, 112–143.Google Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67. Available from http://www.sas.com/govedu/edu/teacher_eval.pdf.

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gwen Nugent
    • 1
  • Michael D. Toland
    • 2
  • Richard Levy
    • 3
  • Gina Kunz
    • 1
  • David Harwood
    • 1
  • Denise Green
    • 4
  • Kathy Kitts
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.GNS ScienceLower HuttNew Zealand
  4. 4.Central Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  5. 5.Northern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations