Research in Science Education

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 1–28 | Cite as

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.


Elementary Curriculum Inquiry continuum Investigation questions 


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Asay, L., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in the science teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009a). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 517–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009b). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers’ curricular planning: a comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyer, C. J., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Bullough, R. V. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(3), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: form purposes to practices. Westport, CT: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  16. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their developments. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Eisenhart, M. A., Shrum, J. L., Harding, J. R., & Cuthbert, A. M. (1988). Teacher beliefs: definitions, findings, and directions. Educational Policy, 2(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: how local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 905–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forbes, C. T. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based elementary science. Science Education, 95, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnston, A. (2007). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to Settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: new teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: the role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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(4), 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirchner, 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
  45. 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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lee, C. A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. Educational Research, 41(3), 635–679.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Lustick, D. (2010). The priority of the question: focus questions for sustained reasoning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(5), 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  54. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roehrig, G. H., & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a reform-based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: the role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: the range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schwarz, C., Gunckel, K., Smith, E., Covitt, B., Enfield, M., Bae, M., & Tsurusaki, B. (2008). Helping elementary pre-service teachers learn to use science curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  72. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open‐inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Zembal-Saul, C., Mcneill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations