Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Questioning Questions: Elementary Teachers’ Adaptations of Investigation Questions Across the Inquiry Continuum

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

Abstract

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.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The literature in this area uses different terms for representing different variations of inquiry (i.e., learner-guided, student-guided, student-led, student-directed, teacher-led, teacher-guided, teacher-directed, open inquiry, guided inquiry, full inquiry, etc.). For purposes of this study, I will use the terms student-directed and teacher-directed.

  2. Hereto forward referred to as the “inquiry continuum”

  3. Science curriculum materials are defined here as lesson plans, teacher guides, student worksheets, and other curricular resources; and are important resources that can support elementary teachers to engage students in inquiry-based science.

  4. The P-SOPd is a slightly modified version of the P-SOP rubric (Forbes et al. 2013) that considers the amount of teacher direction for each feature of inquiry

  5. District names is a pseudonym

  6. Pseudonym

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bullough, R. V. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(3), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: form purposes to practices. Westport, CT: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157–178.

    Article  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 

  • Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. New York: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their developments. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, C. T. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based elementary science. Science Education, 95, 1–29.

    Article  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. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Lustick, D. (2010). The priority of the question: focus questions for sustained reasoning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(5), 495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461–467.

    Article  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 

  • van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open‐inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.

    Article  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 180 Chambers, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Mandy Biggers

Authors
  1. Mandy Biggers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mandy Biggers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biggers, M. Questioning Questions: Elementary Teachers’ Adaptations of Investigation Questions Across the Inquiry Continuum. Res Sci Educ 48, 1–28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9556-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9556-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation