Using Technology to Engage Preservice Elementary Teachers in Learning about Scientific Inquiry
Keywords:
Classroom response systems, Clickers, Elementary science education, Scientific inquiry, Technology
Abstract
Elementary teachers are often required to teach inquiry in their classrooms despite having had little exposure to inquiry learning themselves. In a capstone undergraduate science course preservice elementary teachers experience scientific inquiry through the completion of group projects, activities, readings and discussion, in order to develop a sense of how inquiry learning takes place. At the same time, they learn science content necessary for teacher licensure. The course exposes students to different pathways of scientific discovery and to the use of the computer both as a tool for conducting inquiry-based investigations and as a means of collecting and sharing student opinions. The students involved have many misconceptions about science and it is often difficult for them to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Computer simulations are used to help students understand that difference. In addition, a classroom response system using “clickers†is used to poll student opinions on controversial issues and to stimulate discussion.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ardac, D., & Akaygün, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that
emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317-337.
Bryson, B. (2003). A Short History of Nearly Everything. London: Doubleday.
Cochran, K., & Jones, L. L. (1997). The Subject Matter Knowledge of Preservice Science
Teachers. In B. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education
(pp. 707-718). Kluwer: The Netherlands, 1998.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Davis, K. S., & Falba, C. J. (2002). Integrating technology in elementary preservice teacher
education: Orchestrating scientific inquiry in meaningful ways. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13(4), 303-329.
DeBoer, George E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Derry, G. N. (1999). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Draper, S.W., & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increased interactivity in lectures using an electronic
voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquirybased
learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8(3&4), 391-450.
Fagen, A., Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: results from a range of
classrooms. Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209.
Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular
structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227-1245.
Fleming, N.D., (1995). I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the
tertiary classroom. In A. Zelmer (Ed.), Research and Development in Higher Education,
Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research
Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA),HERDSA, Volume 18 (pp. 308 – 313).
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific Inquiry and the Nature of Science:
Implications for Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. Netherlands: Springer.
Fortino, C. (2003). From historical stories to hands-on labs. Colorado Science Convention,
Denver, CO, Nov. 21.
Gabel, D. (2003). Enhancing the conceptual understanding of science. Educational
HORIZONS, 81(2), 70-76.
Gitlin, A., Barlow, L., Burbank, M. D., Kauchak, D., & Stevens, T. (1999). Pre-service
teachers’ thinking on research: implications for inquiry oriented teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 753-769.
Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary
teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
Howes, E. V. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do
preservice teachers bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 845-869.
Interactive Clickers can increase student response. (2006). Curriculum Review, 45(4).
Jones, L. L., Buckler, H., Cooper, N., & Straushein, B. (1997). Preparing Preservice
Chemistry Teachers for Constructivist Classrooms through Use of Authentic Activities. J.
Chemical Education, 74, 787-788.
Jones, L. L., & Smith, S. G. (1993). Multimedia Technology: A Catalyst for Change in
Chemical Education. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 65, 245-249.
Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of
sodium chloride dissolving affect students' explanations. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 16(5), 413-429.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools
in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science
Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.
Luera, G. R., & Otto, C. A. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based
elementary science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(3), 241-258.
MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable
to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187-195.
McDevitt, T. M., Troyer, R., Ambrosio, A. L., Heikkinen, H. W., & Warren, E. (1995).
Evaluating prospective elementary teachers’ understanding of science and mathematics in
a model pre-service program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(7), 749-775.
Millar, R., & Lubben, F. (1996), Knowledge and action: Students’ understanding of the
procedures of scientific enquiry. In G. Welfor, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in
Science Education in Europe (pp. 191-199). London: The Falmer Press.
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.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the Science Education Standards, National
Research Council, 2000, Washington: National Academy Press. Retreived April, 19, 2011
from http://books.nap.edu/html/inquiry_addendum/.
Nelson, M. (2000). A case of preservice elementary teachers exploring, retelling, and
reframing. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 417-433.
Newman, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M.
(2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 15(4), 257-279.
Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14, 25-28.
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.) (2005). Educating the Net Generation, Educause.
Retreived April, 19, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.
Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (1995). The Importance of Learning Styles. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Å imenc, M. (2008). The status of the subject in the classroom community of inquiry.
Theory and Research in Education, 6(3), 323-336.
Taber, M. R., & Quadracci, K. (2006). Building geosciences vocabularies using a data
visualization tool. In C. Manduca, & D. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists
Think and Learn about the Earth, Boulder. Colorado: The Geological Society of America.
Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms:
student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using
student response systems. Learning Media and Technology, 32, 21-40.
Tuan, H-L., Chin, C-C., Tsai, C-C., & Cheng, S-F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of
inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541-566.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can
investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice?
Science Teacher Education, 112-143.
emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317-337.
Bryson, B. (2003). A Short History of Nearly Everything. London: Doubleday.
Cochran, K., & Jones, L. L. (1997). The Subject Matter Knowledge of Preservice Science
Teachers. In B. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education
(pp. 707-718). Kluwer: The Netherlands, 1998.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Davis, K. S., & Falba, C. J. (2002). Integrating technology in elementary preservice teacher
education: Orchestrating scientific inquiry in meaningful ways. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13(4), 303-329.
DeBoer, George E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Derry, G. N. (1999). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Draper, S.W., & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increased interactivity in lectures using an electronic
voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquirybased
learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8(3&4), 391-450.
Fagen, A., Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: results from a range of
classrooms. Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209.
Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular
structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227-1245.
Fleming, N.D., (1995). I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the
tertiary classroom. In A. Zelmer (Ed.), Research and Development in Higher Education,
Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research
Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA),HERDSA, Volume 18 (pp. 308 – 313).
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific Inquiry and the Nature of Science:
Implications for Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. Netherlands: Springer.
Fortino, C. (2003). From historical stories to hands-on labs. Colorado Science Convention,
Denver, CO, Nov. 21.
Gabel, D. (2003). Enhancing the conceptual understanding of science. Educational
HORIZONS, 81(2), 70-76.
Gitlin, A., Barlow, L., Burbank, M. D., Kauchak, D., & Stevens, T. (1999). Pre-service
teachers’ thinking on research: implications for inquiry oriented teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 753-769.
Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary
teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
Howes, E. V. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do
preservice teachers bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 845-869.
Interactive Clickers can increase student response. (2006). Curriculum Review, 45(4).
Jones, L. L., Buckler, H., Cooper, N., & Straushein, B. (1997). Preparing Preservice
Chemistry Teachers for Constructivist Classrooms through Use of Authentic Activities. J.
Chemical Education, 74, 787-788.
Jones, L. L., & Smith, S. G. (1993). Multimedia Technology: A Catalyst for Change in
Chemical Education. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 65, 245-249.
Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of
sodium chloride dissolving affect students' explanations. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 16(5), 413-429.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools
in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science
Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.
Luera, G. R., & Otto, C. A. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based
elementary science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(3), 241-258.
MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable
to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187-195.
McDevitt, T. M., Troyer, R., Ambrosio, A. L., Heikkinen, H. W., & Warren, E. (1995).
Evaluating prospective elementary teachers’ understanding of science and mathematics in
a model pre-service program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(7), 749-775.
Millar, R., & Lubben, F. (1996), Knowledge and action: Students’ understanding of the
procedures of scientific enquiry. In G. Welfor, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in
Science Education in Europe (pp. 191-199). London: The Falmer Press.
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.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the Science Education Standards, National
Research Council, 2000, Washington: National Academy Press. Retreived April, 19, 2011
from http://books.nap.edu/html/inquiry_addendum/.
Nelson, M. (2000). A case of preservice elementary teachers exploring, retelling, and
reframing. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 417-433.
Newman, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M.
(2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 15(4), 257-279.
Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14, 25-28.
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.) (2005). Educating the Net Generation, Educause.
Retreived April, 19, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.
Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (1995). The Importance of Learning Styles. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Å imenc, M. (2008). The status of the subject in the classroom community of inquiry.
Theory and Research in Education, 6(3), 323-336.
Taber, M. R., & Quadracci, K. (2006). Building geosciences vocabularies using a data
visualization tool. In C. Manduca, & D. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists
Think and Learn about the Earth, Boulder. Colorado: The Geological Society of America.
Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms:
student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using
student response systems. Learning Media and Technology, 32, 21-40.
Tuan, H-L., Chin, C-C., Tsai, C-C., & Cheng, S-F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of
inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541-566.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can
investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice?
Science Teacher Education, 112-143.
Published
2011-03-31
How to Cite
Jones, L. L., MacArthur, J. R., & Akaygün, S. (2011). Using Technology to Engage Preservice Elementary Teachers in Learning about Scientific Inquiry. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.443
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
