Questioning Questions: Elementary Teachers’ Adaptations of Investigation Questions Across the Inquiry Continuum
Questioning is a central practice in science classrooms. However, not every question translates into a “good” science investigation. Questions that drive science investigations can be provided by many sources including the teacher, the curriculum, or the student. The variations in the source of investigation questions were explored in this study. A dataset of 120 elementary science classroom videos and associated lesson plans from 40 elementary teachers (K-5) across 21 elementary school campuses were scored on an instrument measuring the amount of teacher-direction or student-direction of the lessons’ investigation questions. Results indicated that the investigation questions were overwhelmingly teacher directed in nature, with no opportunities for students to develop their own questions for investigation. This study has implications for researchers and practitioners alike, calling attention to the teacher-directed nature of investigation questions in existing science curriculum materials, and the need for teacher training in instructional strategies to adapt their existing curriculum materials across the continuum of teacher-directed and student-directed investigation questions. Teachers need strategies for adapting the teacher-directed questions provided in their existing curriculum materials in order to allow students the opportunity to engage in this essential scientific practice.
KeywordsElementary Curriculum Inquiry continuum Investigation questions
- Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
- Abell, S. K., & McDonald, J. T. (2004). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the elementary school. Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, 25, 249–261.Google Scholar
- Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.Google Scholar
- Biggers, M., & Forbes, C. T. (2012). Balancing teacher and student roles in elementary classrooms: preservice elementary teachers’ learning about the inquiry continuum. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2205–2229. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.694146.
- Biggers, M., Forbes, C. T., & Zangori, L. (2013). Elementary teachers’ curriculum design and pedagogical reasoning for supporting students' comparison and evaluation of evidence-based explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 48–72. doi: 10.1086/670738.
- Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
- Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–37). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: form purposes to practices. Westport, CT: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don’t know the answer: tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
- Clark, R., Clough, M. P., & Berg, C. A. R. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs: a different way of teaching a standard laboratory engages students and promotes understanding. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40–43.Google Scholar
- Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their developments. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Elstgeest, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Primary science: taking the plunge (pp. 36–46). Oxford, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Forbes, C. T., Biggers, M. & Zangori, L. (2013). Investigating essential characteristics of scientific practices in elementary science learning environments: the practices of science observation protocol (P-SOP). School Science and Mathematics, 113(4). doi: 10.1111/ssm.12014.
- Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Beginning elementary teachers’ beliefs about the use of anchoring questions in science: a longitudinal study. Science Education, 94, 365–387.Google Scholar
- Forbes, C. T., Sabel, J. L., & Biggers, M. (2015). Elementary teachers’ use of formative assessment to support students’ learning about interactions between the hydrosphere and geosphere. Journal of Geoscience Education, 63(3), 210–221. doi: 10.5408/14-063.1.
- Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: a project-based approach. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. Educational Research, 41(3), 635–679.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., & Putz, A. (2000). Designing classrooms that support inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 80–99). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: implications for every day, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2008). Ready, set, science: putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington D.C.: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Penuel, W. R., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Benbow, A. E., Mably, C., & Hayden, M. M. (2009). Teaching for understanding in Earth Science: comparing the impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769–802).Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Open coding. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed., pp. 101–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
- Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, P., Banilower, E., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: a study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Zembal-Saul, C., Mcneill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar