Running head: PRE SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Pre-service Teachers' Understanding and Perceptions of Scientific Inquiry and Self-efficacy in a Research Internship
Cathy K. Northcutt and Renee’ S. Schwartz Mallinson Institute for Science Education Western Michigan University
1
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
2
Abstract Teacher education has been the source of great research in relation to scientific inquiry and teacher self-efficacy. Studies show that most teachers are not prepared to teach scientific inquiry in their classrooms and have low self-efficacy about their abilities to do so. This study follows 13 pre-service teachers (fellows) through a 10-week research internship during the summer at a university. During this study the fellows were given the opportunity to work with a scientist mentor in a laboratory designing their own investigations, carrying them out, and presenting the results. They also made observations of inquiry teaching and applied their observations to their own inquiry laboratory experience. Through the collection of survey instruments, interview transcripts, and journal entries our study aims to measure the effects that the research experience has on the pre-service teachers’ (fellows) ideas about scientific inquiry and self-efficacy in teaching scientific inquiry. Findings show that the fellows perceptions of doing science through scientific inquiry increased; gaining knowledge, learning new techniques, and developing confidence in their ability to carry out scientific research. Findings also show that fellows’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in teaching through scientific inquiry increased but not significantly. This research experience is only part of a larger program that follows the fellows through research, course work, and teaching. Future work is still to be done to record the perceptions of fellows at each point during the program.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
3
Pre-service Teachers' Understanding and Perceptions of Scientific Inquiry and Self-efficacy in a Research Internship
Introduction and Conceptual Framework Teachers are charged with creating learning environments that engage students in practices of scientific inquiry to develop conceptual knowledge of science subject matter, scientific inquiry, and nature of science. Students need opportunities to explore their own questions through designing and conducting investigations, analyzing the data for meaning, and proposing conclusions that they can support with evidence. They need to develop knowledge, skills, and scientific thinking (National Research Council, 2000). Many teachers do not have the knowledge or experiences necessary to provide this type of learning for their students. They most likely have not had opportunities themselves to engage in scientific inquiry (Roth, 1998). Research shows that teachers with a limited knowledge of scientific inquiry may lack the required level of self-efficacy to teach it effectively. This low level of self-efficacy of carrying out scientific inquiry is likely to make teachers less motivated and less effective in teaching (McComas & Wang, 1998). Research has shown that inquiry methods are the most reliable means of developing high levels of self-efficacy (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Recommendations have been made to improve teachers’ inquiry conceptions and self-efficacy by emphasizing the need to engage teachers in scientific inquiry during teacher preparation programs (Windschitl, 2003). This can be done through authentic scientific research experiences (Brown & Melear, 2007; Melear, Goodlaxson, Warne, & Hickok, 2000). Most teacher programs do not offer preservice teachers the opportunity to experience scientific research themselves. Though research has been done in this area, there is still little known about pre-service teachers’ experiences with authentic scientific research and how it influences their ideas about scientific inquiry and their
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
4
abilities to teach scientific inquiry in their classrooms. The purpose of this study is to follow a cohort of pre-service teachers, called fellows, through a 10-week research internship. The study will investigate the ideas and perceptions that the fellows’ have about their experiences of ‘doing science’ through an inquiry, science research setting. The study will also gather information about the fellows’ views of their ability to teach science through inquiry. Scientific Inquiry Science education has put “authentic science” and “science inquiry” as a priority in the education of K-12 students (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990). The National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (1996) has stated that “inquiry into authentic questions generated from students’ experiences is a central strategy of teaching science” (p.21). The National Science Education Standards (1996) provide justification and guidelines making scientific literacy a priority in science education. To be scientifically literate in today’s society, learners need to understand science concepts, but more than that they need to understand the nature and practices of science. Science inquiry promotes active and authentic learning and encourages students to ask and answer science-related questions (Leonard, Johnson, Dantley, & Kimber, 2010). Within a classroom, scientific inquiry involves student-centered projects, with students actively engaged in inquiry processes. Authentic scientific inquiry is what scientists conduct in everyday practice (Roth, 1993). Authentic means “an activity in which the learner’s engagement has a large degree of resemblance with the activity in which members of the scientific community actually engage” (Roth 1995, p.29). According to the National Research Council (1996), science students must have the abilities and understandings necessary to do authentic scientific inquiry. In order for students to have this understanding it is implied that their science teachers have the ability and
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
5
knowledge to engage the students in inquiry-based science learning. What we cannot be sure of is if the science teachers themselves have experienced the process of inquiry and know how to implement it in their classrooms (Brown & Melear, 2007). Many teachers attempt to include science inquiry in their classrooms but many of them miss the main concepts and understandings of inquiry learning. Most teachers have factual knowledge about science content but do not have an understanding of what teaching science as inquiry really means and how that translates into classroom practice. Even when inquiry is included in the science curriculum it is often viewed as an accumulation of facts rather than a process of better understanding the world around us (Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007). Roth (1998) argues that undergraduate programs for science education do not require teachers to experience authentic scientific research; therefore they may not have the tools necessary to teach inquiry. This is also supported by Berns and Swanson (2000) who said that “this is an area often neglected by teacher preparation programs, and given little attention in the professional development offerings by school districts across the nation” (p.2). However, the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (2003), requires that science teachers: Engage students both in studies of various methods of scientific inquiry and in active learning through scientific inquiry. Teachers should encourage students, individually and collaboratively, to observe, ask questions, design inquiries, and collect and interpret data in order to develop concepts and relationships from empirical experiences. To show that they are prepared to teach through inquiry, teachers of science must demonstrate that they: (1) understand the processes, tenets and assumptions of multiple methods of inquiry leading to scientific knowledge and (2) engage students successfully in developmentally
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
6
appropriate inquiries that require them to develop concepts and relationships from their observations, data, and inferences in a scientific manner (p.18). For teachers to gain the necessary knowledge and skills, inquiry experiences should be provided throughout science teacher education (AAAS, 1993). Since science teachers are being encouraged to teach following inquiry-based instruction, teacher preparation institutions need to evaluate their programs and make changes to graduate future science teachers that have actually experienced authentic inquiry-based research. Authentic Science Research As stated above teacher education programs are challenged with developing programs that provide explicit research experiences that would aid in the development of teachers who can teach using inquiry-based methods (Brown & Melear, 2007). According to Brown and Melear (2007), the research experience should be implemented to allow pre-service teachers the opportunity to experience ‘real science’ before they are expected to teach science. These research experiences should introduce the pre-service teacher to the world of science and aid them in learning new skills and developing scientific thinking (Melear, Goodlaxon, Warne, & Hickock, 2000). Previous research has reported several strengths as a result of the science research experience. Positive results included increased teacher content knowledge (Granger, 2002; Raphael, Tobias, & Greenberg 1999), classroom laboratory activity (Westerlund, Garcia, Koke, Taylor, & Mason 2002), teacher scientific presentation (Westerlund et al., 2002), and inquiry-based skills and/or scientific ability (Granger, 2002). Through the research experience students come in as the novice working alongside the expert. The goal of the experience is that
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
7
skills and knowledge will be transferred from the expert scientist to the novice pre-service teacher (Brown & Melear, 2007). Self-Efficacy The study of self-efficacy follows the theoretical framework of Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory and its relationship to early authentic research experiences. The social cognitive theory explains how people form ideas about themselves in relation to the events around them and how they may respond to these events. More specifically it is the thoughts about an individual’s own capacity and positive or negative judgments about herself/himself (Azar, 2010). Self-efficacy can be divided into two distinct areas: efficacy expectations and outcome expectations (Bandura, 1997). Gurvitch and Metzler (2009) describe these two areas as; “Efficacy expectations represent an individual’s belief in his/her personal capability to succeed in the specific course of action. Outcome expectations represent the belief that certain executed behaviors will lead to a specific set of results” (p. 438). According to Armor and Bandura (2001) a teachers’ self–efficacy is the judgment that his abilities would be effective for his students to learn and achieve. For the pre-service teacher the development of self-efficacy is essential for producing effective, committed, and enthusiastic teachers (Woolfolk & Hoy, 2000). High efficacy levels increase teacher motivation and effectiveness. If teachers do not believe that they have the ability to achieve a certain outcome then they will not continue to pursue that goal. Teachers who develop a higher level of efficacy will be more willing to take on new challenges and tasks leading to higher levels of learning for the students within their classrooms (Gurvitch & Metzler, 2009). Bandura (1994) presents four sources that influence the establishment of efficacy beliefs; mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological state. According to Bandura (1997) the most effective way of building strong self-efficacy is
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
8
through mastery experiences. These mastery experiences offer an opportunity for individuals to participate in an activity which they are then able to reflect upon the success of their experience. If the individual perceives a successful performance during the activity there is an increase in their self-efficacy. In contrast a perception of failure will result in a decrease in self-efficacy (Gurvitz & Metzler, 2009). Therefore, in order for teachers to be able to teach scientific inquiry successfully they must be able to participate in an activity within a mastery experience that would aid in the development of increased self-efficacy. Design Participants The program was presented to education majors and science majors in their current education and science courses from the same Midwest US university. It was presented as an opportunity to conduct research and learn how to transfer what they learned into their own teaching. Students were able to apply to the program and were offered a $5000 stipend, housing, and meal plan if accepted. The sample of participants for this study was chosen through this application process. A team consisting of three faculty members and one research assistant selected 13students to participate in the program. The fellows consisted of seven males and six females. Five of the fellows were science majors, four were secondary science education majors, and four were elementary or middle school education majors. Since this was the first time an experience like this was offered, there were limited applications and those that were selected met most of the following criteria: major in science education, interest in teaching, interest in science, future career goals. For this study the varying majors were not taken into account in the evaluation of the fellows’ perceptions of scientific inquiry and self-efficacy.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
9
Context of Study This study focuses on the first part of a three part program called ExpeRTS (Experiencing Research for Teaching Science), funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. In this first part of the program fellows participated in a 10-week long summer research internship. The purpose of this research internship was to give fellows the opportunity to experience various scientific roles while developing scientific thinking. Each fellow was paired with a mentor in the areas of biology, physics, chemistry, or geosciences. The fellows were to observe and interact with the scientist mentors and engage in a project in order to gain understanding about authentic research. Two fellows worked together with one mentor on a joint project. The goal of the research was guiding the fellows from a more dependent to an independent form of research. Fellows spent time in their research settings with their faculty mentors, graduate students and other undergraduate interns making hypotheses, conducting tests, and analyzing data. The fellows were exposed to a wide range of research practices and topics. At the completion of the internship the fellows presented their research by creating a poster and presenting it during a poster symposium open to faculty and students. Areas of research and poster titles are found in Table 1. Fellows’ posters also included a section titled: Teaching Connections. This section of the poster gave the fellows the opportunity to make connections between their research experience and teaching science in the future. Table 1.
Fellow Research Areas and Projects Areas of Research
Biological Science – Neuroscience Biological Science – Endocrinology Biological Science - Neuroscience
Poster Title The Relationship Between Connexon43 and Pax6 Aromatase Expression is Reduced in Obese Mice Testis but not in Old Mice Activated Astrocytes and VCAM-1 in Multiple System Atrophy
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Physics - Nuclear Astrophysics Physics - Astronomy Biological Science - Ecology/ Chemical Ecology Chemistry - Organic
10
Findings on Classroom Application of Collaborative Research in Science The Fe II Spectrum of the Orion Nebula Population dynamics and cardenolide sequestration by two specialist aphid species on common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca The Exploration for Organophosphate Sensors: 1,10-Phenanthroline Derivatives
Geoscience - Aqueous Geochemistry Eutrophication of Woods Lake and Biogeochemistry A Revision Synthesis of Modafinil [2Chemistry – Organic (diphenylmethylsulfinyl) acetamide Biological Science Neurobiology/Physiology Biological Science - Evolutionary Genetics Chemistry – Organic
The Differing Effects of Acetylcholine and Carbachol on GDNF Secretion in C2C12 Skeletal Muscle Cells Investigating Amino Acid Residues of Inositol Dehydrogenases that May Confer Substrate Specificity for Stereoisomers myo-inositol and scyllo-inositol in Sinorhizobium meliloti Organophosphate Sensors: Derivatives of Phenanthrene
Two week orientation. At the start of the 10-week internship fellows were required to attend two weeks of orientation on program requirements, lab safety, research ideas, and inquiry and direct teaching instruction. These topics were covered to aid the students in the adjustment of the lab work they would be conducting, and also aid in making correlations between scientific inquiry and what they were doing in their own lab settings. During this time fellows attended orientation in the mornings and worked in their research settings with their mentors in the afternoon. Inquiry teaching observations. During the third and fourth weeks of the internship fellows spent the mornings observing five experienced middle school science teachers, teach science lessons to 8th graders during a science summer day camp. The fellows observed and helped out in each classroom. They made observations of the differences in teaching styles,
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
11
paying close attention to inquiry and direct instructional methods. They recorded their observations in a journal, daily. At the end of each day the fellows would meet with the experienced teachers and other education faculty to discuss their observations and ask any questions that they might have about the methods of teaching. In the afternoons fellows would work in their research settings. Discussion and written reflection. Weekly, the fellows would meet with various program staff to discuss the authentic research they were conducting and how it related to their own understanding of scientific inquiry. This meeting would also allow the fellows to ask questions and voice concerns about their research and their perceptions of their self-efficacy in teaching inquiry to others. Written reflections were assigned at various times throughout the internship experience. Writing prompts for these reflections included: Describe your research setting. Who are the people you have met? What are their roles? What questions are being pursued in the lab? Why are these important scientific questions? What, if any, hypotheses are being tested in your research? What information are the hypotheses based on? (i.e. where did the hypothesis come from?) Describe two things that stand out to you as interesting and important about your research setting or research project. (e.g. what have you learned so far??) What techniques have you learned to do in your research? (e.g. PCR, mass spect, sampling, etc.) In comparing the different teachers, what techniques have you noticed that exemplify "effective teaching" of science?
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
12
What features of authentic science inquiry (like that you are doing in your research setting) do you see in the classrooms you are observing? (e.g. asking scientific questions, collecting data, forming evidence-based conclusions, using creativity, negotiating with peers, etc.). Using both the weekly discussion and written reflections students were challenged to think how their experiences in the research setting could be used in their own teaching classrooms in the future. Methodology This is an exploratory study about the experience of a group of pre-service science teachers involved in authentic science research. The purpose of the study is to explore in depth the pre-service science teachers developing understanding of scientific inquiry and their level of self-efficacy in relation to teaching science inquiry. Through the analysis of survey instruments, journals, interviews, and research posters, ideas about scientific inquiry and self-efficacy will be identified. Research Questions This study will attempt to answer the following question by looking at the students’ 10week summer research experience. (1) How do pre-service teachers’ ideas about scientific inquiry change during an authentic science research internship? (2) How do pre-service teachers’ ideas about teaching scientific inquiry change during an authentic science research internship? (3) How do pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy about doing science and teaching science through scientific inquiry change during an authentic science research internship?
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
13
Data Collection and Analysis Data sources included a survey, questionnaire, interviews, journal entries, and posters. Self –efficacy was measured with a pre/post internship format using the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument form B [STEBI-B] (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). Views of scientific inquiry were assessed using a pre/post internship format using the Views of Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire [VOSI-270] and follow-up interview protocol (Schwartz, Lederman, & Lederman, 2008). Journal entries were photocopied, interviews were transcribed, and posters were viewed. The STEBI-B was developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990) to assess science teaching efficacy for pre-service teachers. For this study the survey was used as it was easy to administer, easy to analyze, and it measured the fellows’ beliefs about science teaching. The STEBI-B consists of 23 statements rated on a five choice Likert scale; strongly agree (SA), agree (A), uncertain (UN), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD). The STEBI-B is divided into two subscales; Personal Science Teacher Efficacy (PSTE) subscale, which reflect science teachers’ (fellows) confidence in their ability to teach science and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) subscale, which reflect science teachers’ (fellows) beliefs that students learn by being influenced by effective teaching. PSTE was measured with 13 questions and STOE was measured by 10 questions. Positive statements were coded as 5-4-3-2-1, and negative statements were coded as 1-2-3-4-5. Negative question items, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23 were scored inversely. Scores acquired from the two subscales indicate the belief level in science teaching about that factor. The possible range of PSTE scores is 13 to 65 while that of STOE scores is from 10 to 50. A high score indicates high level of self-efficacy and a low score indicates low level of self-efficacy. It should be noted that the PSTE and STOE do not add up to a total score as they measure two different aspects of science teaching self-efficacy.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
14
The VOSI-270 was chosen as a widely used and valid way for collecting information about participants’ views of scientific inquiry. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a list of core guiding questions. The questionnaire and interview data were analyzed using accepted protocols from the research of Schwartz et al. (2008). Each fellow’s pre/post surveys were analyzed following the list of areas identified in the literature as important areas of assessing ideas about scientific inquiry (Schwartz et al., 2008). See Table 2. Table 2.
Aspects of Scientific Inquiry identified in the VOSI-270
a) scientific questions guide investigations b) multiple methods of scientific investigation c) multiple purposes of scientific investigation d) justification of scientific knowledge e) recognition and handling of anomalous data f) distinctions between data and evidence
The journal responses and discussion transcripts were analyzed by looking for themes and patterns regarding thoughts about learning through inquiry, their research experience, and their ability to teach through scientific inquiry. They were coded using the essential elements of inquiry teaching specified in the literature by Schwartz et al. (2008). The combination of the VOSI-270 and STEBI-B surveys were used along with the interview transcriptions, journal entries, and posters to assess and measure any change of the fellows’ perceptions of doing science and teaching science. It also measured the fellows’ science self-efficacy and science teaching self-efficacy from the start of the research internship to the end of the internship.
Results
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
15
Scientific Inquiry The VOSI, follow-up interviews, and journal entries were analyzed to gather information about their perceptions of inquiry. Aspects of inquiry were categorized following the guidelines specified by Schwartz, et al. (2008). See Table 2 above. Scientific questions. In analyzing the pre-survey 9 out of the 13 (9/13) fellows identified questions as being a part of science. These questions came from observations and were used to create hypotheses and design experiments. The other four fellows did not identify questions as being a part of the scientific process. From the post-survey 12 out of the 13 (12/13) fellows identified questions as a part of science. Questions were described as coming from observations or from the desire to learn something new and questions can lead to experiments. One fellow still did not mention any type of questioning in science. In the follow-up interviews and journal entries the fellow’s described scientific questions as, “They go about their work first by finding a question that they want answered.” “The natural world is the scientist’s dreamscape, where they can question and visualize the world that is available for direct and indirect observation.” Multiple methods and purpose of scientific investigations. Fellows began the program describing the acts of scientists as those who hypothesize, do experiments, collect data, analyze that data, and make conclusions for the main purpose of answering some question. The scientific method was mentioned by 10 of the 13 fellows and they describe this method as necessary for organization, validity, and experimentation.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
16
“If the method is not followed when conducting an experiment there can be inconsistencies in the data collected….” “Scientists must follow the scientific method; so that the scientific community is able to evaluate claims.” “I do think that in order to do good science scientists should follow the scientific method because it works well for thinking about what it is you’re actually trying to accomplish through doing a certain investigation, provides a good outline for setting up an experiment to test a hypothesis, is useful in determining what went wrong if it didn’t turn out right, and is very helpful for other scientists trying to repeat the same experiment” Only three fellows included the idea that there are multiple methods of doing science. There was little evidence of other types of tasks for scientists. “There are many scientific methods because not everything can be controlled perfectly.” “When you put restrictions and limitations on creative thinking which is the basis for making observations and determining good methods for experimentation, you are limiting output of potential findings.” Through the post-survey fellows demonstrated how scientists do not follow just one method. Eight fellows stated that there is no specific scientific method. Scientists can do many things such as; research, make observations, ask questions, and do experiments. They may investigate topics that are new, continue with ideas that have already been presented, or take past evidence and create new ways for analyzing the data.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
17
“There are many scientific activities that happen through a more exploratory basis of gathering information.” “I once thought that there is just the one scientific method….However, upon further reflection there are many scientific methods.” “I think there are numerous ways to go about answering scientific questions. To be honest, the single “scientific method” approach hinders scientific findings because it forces the researchers to work inside a narrow mind set.” Three fellows still felt that there was one scientific method which was necessary to gather accurate information, carry out experiments, and allow for research to be standardized. “In order to get accurate data, scientists must follow some sort of method.” Two fellows demonstrated that they were still not sure about the scientific method. They included the ideas of observations and looking for patterns as investigations, but they also said that there must be controlled experiments through testing methods. “There are particular aspects of the scientific method which are essential to performing science, such as identifying variable, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting results. However, one can vary from this method.” Justification of scientific knowledge. In analyzing the pre-survey, replication of procedures(9/13), peer review (6/13), and having evidence (7/13) were identified by the fellows as the three most important ways of knowing when scientists should publish their work. Replication included repeating their own research and also having others repeat it, step-by-step. This replication was needed to validate the work that was done. Peer review referred to both
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
18
colleagues working together to ‘edit’ each other’s work and also repeating other’s work to make sure they found the same results. Evidence was vaguely described using phrases such as ‘prove or ‘disprove’ the hypotheses and ‘must have enough evidence’. “Scientists are ready to make their research public only after repeating their experiments and allowing their data, results and conclusions to be peer reviewed.” “Scientists know they are ready to go public when they have done numerous repetitions of their experiments as well as others having done it and got the same results. They need evidence to show that their findings are valid, as well as be able to prove to everyone else that there is no plausible way to find that their investigation is wrong.” “They need to prove to themselves that they are in fact right. They should be the toughest critic. They should speak with a few colleagues whether or not he is missing a fact. They need to show all their evidence and counter evidence.” The post-survey analysis still showed evidence of student beliefs in replication (7/13), peer review (5/13), and evidence (7/13) but there also were ideas about presenting your data, explaining your method of analysis, and drawing conclusions through that analysis. Fellows also mentioned examining the data from all different angles to make sure all information was covered. Replication was still considered important for validating the research but it was also identified as a way to find anomalous data and make corrections when needed. Replication also aided in a low error rate and increased confidence for the researcher that their findings are correct. The peer review was also found important however, there was no description of what it meant for the work to be peer reviewed. In the post-survey evidence was described in detail such as; ‘results that back up the claim’ and ‘supporting data’
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
19
“Working in the lab, I have seen that in order for something to be published there needs to be a low error. Also multiple angles need to be covered. When something goes to a reviewer, there needs to be no doubt in the information given. This means having supporting data, for your own data, and also using multiple techniques all getting the same information” “First, they themselves have to become their greatest critic. After thinking of all the possible errors, a peer inspection for possible errors should be completed. Evidence gathered should be clean cut. Abnormal results should be rerun for further inspection.” Anomalous data. The VOSI gets at two basic questions regarding anomalous data; what is it or how do you identify it? and what do you do with it? In analyzing the pre-survey six fellows described anomalous data as an exception to the norm. This might include how the new information doesn’t compare or is inconsistent with other findings. “An anomaly may be an observation of phenomena that is not consistent with past findings.” “If one trial of an experiment gives you vastly different results than previous trials, this could be considered an anomaly.” Four of the fellows described anomalous data as something that can not be explained. “Anomalies are identified in science as occurrences that cannot be explained within the scientific understanding and knowledge to date…” The other fellows did not give a clear answer as what anomalous data is or how you identify it. To answer the question; what do you do with it? Fellows identified many ways that anomalous
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
20
data is handled. Nine out of the 13 fellows explained that repeated testing was needed to see if there was an error in the procedure, error in the norm, or if they continued to get inconsistent findings. “They figure out what may have caused this inconsistency and do whatever they can to fix it. This may involve doing more trials of the experiment.” “I would think that they would try to repeat the experiment. They may try and look back seeing where if any there were mistakes along the way.” “I think scientists when anomalies occur repeat testing several times until they decided to reject or accept the original finding.” Three fellows explained that questions need to be asked to explain why there is anomalous data. “When an anomaly is found it is noted and further questions are asked whether the procedure that was followed was precise.” Only one of these three fellows went on to say that this questioning of why could lead to further research. “When scientists come across an anomaly they will often repeat an experiment to rid data of anomalous data that has the potential to throw off proper analysis. The same goes for an anomaly that is inconsistent with past data. If these things are done and the anomaly remains, the scientist may set a question aside to later investigate why this anomaly is occurring.” One fellow explained how anomalous data is recorded but isn’t used in the research.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
21
“Usually the data is recorded, but not utilized because it is an abnormality and is not conducive to their scientific research.” The post-survey indicated that the fellows still were divided on the meaning of anomalous data. It was described as the exception to the norm (4/13) and unexpected data (7/13). “In our lab there would be times when one set of data would look different than anything we had ever gotten before, so it was sate for us to assume this was anomalous data.” “An anomaly occurs when data strays far from the expected trend.” Two fellows did not give answers to that part of the question. For the post-survey fellows gave multiple explanations for what to do with anomalous data; research why (7), test again (7), throw it out (2), and ask new questions (3). Some fellows gave more than one explanation for addressing anomalous data. Those that included the idea of asking new questions described how future research can continue from the new data found. “They seek out why the anomaly appeared. Rerunning the experiment to see if there was an error in the experiment is one way to see if the anomaly was a mistake or a piece of evidence that may lead to other scientific inquiries and solutions.” “When an anomaly is found, a scientist will question why it occurred, trying to isolate it from their data so as to minimize its impact on their conclusions. Or if it is a frequent occurrence, will question why it occurred again, but rather investigate and try and recreate the anomaly, raising new questions, and possibly expanding upon their own and the age’s body of scientific knowledge.”
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
22
Data and evidence. In the pre-survey fellows identified data as facts, numbers and sets of information gathered through experiments and/or observations. Three fellows described data as a collection of factual information. Six fellows stated that data included numbers, measurements, or graphs. Five fellows explained that the data came from observations where seven fellows felt data was found through experiments. “Data is factual information on a given subject that can be used to begin an experiment or found during an experiment.” “Data is compiled figures or results from an experiment…” “Data is made up of the numbers or measurements taken from the experiment.” “Data in science means the statistics, graphic, or written observations taken during an experiment...” For the pre-survey six fellows described evidence as the information used to support or reject a hypothesis. “Evidence is data that has been filtered and refined to a point where it is found to support or disprove a given hypothesis.” Four fellows identified the analysis of data as a step in creating evidence. “Evidence is the interpretation of the data.” “Only after data are analyzed into results can one even begin to claim that their experiment is evidence.”
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
23
Other descriptions of evidence included the summation of data, or information collected that leads you in a direction. Through the post survey, data was still identified as information found through observations and experiments however, the number of fellows who described where data is found, flipped. Seven fellows thought data was gathered through observations and five fellows described data as being gathered through experiments. “Data is what is gathered from making observations during experimentation.” “Data is the information gathered through an observation or measurement of an event.” “Data is the information one collects after performing a scientific experiment, or observation. It can be both quantitative or qualitative.” The fellows state that the purpose of collecting data was to find trends, gather scientific knowledge, and aid in explaining phenomenon. “(Data is) a series of information that has been collected in order to hopefully find some sort of trend.” “Data is information that can be used and interpreted for scientific knowledge.” “Evidence is the information gathered that is useful in explaining a phenomenon while data is all of the facts.” For the post-survey 12 out of the 13 fellows described a relationship between data and evidence; data becomes evidence after it is analyzed or interpreted, data that is useful becomes evidence, and evidence is the data that supports. “Evidence is caused by the interpretation of data.”
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
24
“I think certain data can be considered evidence. Such as if you have a point you are trying to prove, there could be a piece of data that proves your point, which is evidence.” “Evidence is anything that is used to support your ideas.” Inquiry in the Classroom and Research Setting During the third and fourth weeks of the internship fellows’ made observations of inquiry and direct teaching and recorded their observations. Through these written journals they identified some key components that make up a scientific inquiry learning experience. These components fell into two categories found in Table 3. Table 3.
Fellows’ observations of key components in scientific inquiry
Teacher Role Connection with students Ask questions. Why? What do you think? Give good examples that relate to students Encourage participation Hands-on work and demonstrations Be energetic and animated Explain Make learning relevant
Student Role Ask questions Problem solve Guess/answer often Take ownership of their answers Collaboration Keep engaged Make inferences from observations Become thinkers
Fellows were also given a written prompt to help them make connections between effective teaching and scientific inquiry during their classroom observations. Their responses included descriptions of teacher actions, student actions, and the interaction of both the teacher and students. Their responses also compared the aspects of scientific inquiry found in the classrooms and their own research settings.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
25
Prompt 1: In comparing the different teachers, what techniques have you noticed that exemplify "effective teaching" of science? “In the inquiry classrooms the teachers could be seen asking students questions that checked for deep understanding and also pulling the ideas that were to be learned out of them.” “When observing the different teachers I noticed that the more involved the instructor can get the students the better they learn and engage in the lesson.” “Effective techniques I observed in the classroom were allowing students to brainstorm answers before giving the correct answer and utilizing hands-on models.” “I feel that the teacher’s attitude has a huge impact on how effective the teaching of science is in the classroom….Also feel that classroom management has a strong influence on the effectiveness.” Prompt 2: What features of authentic science inquiry (like that you are doing in your research setting) do you see in the classrooms you are observing? (e.g. asking scientific questions, collecting data, forming evidence-based conclusions, using creativity, negotiating with peers, etc.). “In regards to scientific inquiry that is similar to what I use in my setting the student were forced to ask questions that were given to them or self-generated to come to a conclusion about what was presented to them.”
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
26
“The teachers were posing questions to the students, then the student would do some sort of activity to investigate and come up with the answers to these questions based on the evidence they had found.” “When the teachers directed the student to break down tasks such as timing, gathering data, and being a team leader, it was quite realistic because scientists often will divide up parts of a larger research question while they have a combined end goal.” The posters at the end of the summer internship included fellow’s ideas about how their research introduced them to and helped them develop their thinking about scientific inquiry. “I have gained much valuable knowledge and experience during this program that will help me in my future class room. When I first got involved in my project, I knew almost nothing of what the experiment was about. I came into the experiment in the data organization and analysis phase. It took a long time for me to generate the understanding I have now. I had to come up with the right questions to ask my mentor in order to discover the true meaning of what I was doing. Dr. didn’t just hand me a bunch of literature and tell me to read and find out that way. He waited for me to come in with the right questions in order to make me think critically about what I was doing.” “Participating in the program’s laboratory hands-on research improved my knowledge and experience of experimentational procedures, their uses, and how to evaluate/produce/categorize conclusions of expected or unexpected results.”
Self- Efficacy
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
27
To determine fellows’ self-efficacy beliefs the results of the STEBI-B were analyzed along with their journal entries, interview transcripts, and posters. All four data sources were compared to discover patterns of change in the fellows’ perceptions about their ability to teach science. STEBI-B. Through the analysis of the STEBI-B the fellows’ beliefs about their ability to teach and student learning became evident. (All 13 fellows completed the pre-survey but only 12 fellows completed the post-survey.) Results from the pre and post- test STEBI-B are found in table 4. The first subscale, PSTE, reflected the fellows’ confidence in their ability to teach science. According to Palmer (2006) a score of 39 on the PSTE showed neutral efficacy and a score of 30 on the STOE indicated neutral beliefs that students learn through effective teaching. Table 4.
Pre-test and Post-test STEBI-B Scores
Participant
Pre-PSTE
Post-PSTE
Pre-STOE
Post-STOE
55 54 63 59 51 59 63 60 61 56 57 58
Net Change +5 +6 +3 -3 +4 +8 +3 +10 -1 +2 -3 +5
35 27 31 42 32 29 41 31 30 34 40 32
40 34 37 41 34 34 39 34 37 34 36 31
Net Change +5 +7 +7 -1 +2 +5 -2 +3 +7 0 -4 -1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average (whole number)
50 48 60 62 47 51 60 50 62 54 60 53 55
58
+3
34
36
+2
As indicated in table 4 all fellows scored above the neutral score of 39 on the PSTE at the start of the research experience. A gain of five points was used to show a significant change in PSTE
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
28
from pre to post test (Palmer, 2006). Two fellows began with a score of 62 out of a possible 65 points. The opportunity for them to gain five points was limited by the scoring potential. Five fellows showed a significant positive change in PSTE from the pre to post survey, gaining five or more points. Three fellows showed a negative change in PSTE losing one to three points from pre to post survey. Four fellows showed gains in PSTE but were not considered significant as the gains were less than five points. No fellows’ scores stayed the same. For the STOE nine fellows scored above the neutral score of 30 at the start of the research experience. Two fellows started with scores below neutral and one fellow started with a neutral score of 30. Again, a gain of five points was used to show significant change in STOE from pre to post test (Palmer, 2006). Five fellows showed a significant positive change in STOE from the pre to post survey, gaining five or more points. Four fellows showed a negative change in STOE losing one to four points from pre to post survey. Two fellows showed gains in STOE but were not considered significant as the gains were less than five points. One fellow scored the same on the pre and posttest showing no change in STOE efficacy. Journals, posters, and interviews. Fellows showed through their journal entries and pre and post interviews an increase in confidence in doing science and teaching science. They also described their ideas and feelings of doing and teaching science through their posters in the section titled, Teaching Connections. These results are found in Table 5. The fellows described that they felt they had learned more scientific content and therefore would be able to teach that information to their students. They also showed an increase in confidence as scientists. Those that were education majors had little past experience in the lab and were excited about all they had learned during their experience.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
29
Fellows’ views on the research experience
Table 5.
“I am actually doing research. I never thought that I would ever do this.” “This experience has made me way more comfortable than I was before.” Efficacy to do science
“For some reason, I seem to be able to bypass my own shyness in the scientific setting more than I would be able to do in a normal situation.” “Working in the lab has far and beyond taught me more ‘useful’ skills than all of my previous class lab experience combined.” “With more experience I was feeling more confidence.” “I just think this program is great for teachers because, of what I am learning that as a teacher, I didn’t think I would ever be doing.”
Efficacy to teach scientific inquiry
“Doing this program has really given me a lot of insight not only on how to be a better science teacher but on how to be a better teacher in general.” “Getting students thinking about what they’re learning, and allowing them to develop and test their own ideas makes the learning process so much more rewarding. That is what this program has done for me and that is what I hope to do for my future students.”
Discussion The previous results section presented the data from the various sources of information collected during the internship experience. In this section each research question will be presented and compared to the data that lends itself to answering the given question. Q1: How do pre-service teachers’ ideas about scientific inquiry change during an authentic science research internship? As indicated above in the results all aspects of scientific inquiry presented by Schwartz et al. (2000) were identified in the various data resources collected from the fellows. Through the VOSI students were given a clear question that identified each aspect of scientific inquiry and allowed them to present their thinking about each one. The results showed that most fellows
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
30
believed that questions were a part of science. Those who did not identify questions as important at the beginning of the program did discover that questions are essential to carrying out scientific investigations and experiments. Through the prompting of journal reflections students had to think about their own research questions and identify them and the basis for the research being done. Making this connection to their own scientific questioning may have given the fellows a better idea about the importance of scientific questions leading scientific research. Though the data given fellow’s ideas about the multiple methods of science showed a significant change. All but three of the fellows began the research experience with a narrow view of the one ‘scientific method’ that must be followed to produce accurate, valid, results. This idea of the one ‘scientific method’ can be attributed to students’ prior experiences in science education where teachers believed this was the only way. Through this research experience students were able to practice multiple methods in conducting scientific investigations in their own lab setting. Fellow’s felt that they were better able to ‘do’ science now that they had the experience of being in the research setting. Q2: How do pre-service teachers’ ideas about teaching scientific inquiry change during an authentic science research internship? Data used to answer this question relied on the journal entries and poster reflections regarding teaching through inquiry. As fellows made observations in the science classrooms they were able to identify aspects of teaching and learning that were necessary for effective teaching to occur. As they identified these aspects they seemed to categorize them into things that the teacher did and things that the students did. They stressed the importance of the relationship between the teacher and students, classroom management, and teaching styles as aspects of the classroom that affect the effectiveness of the teaching. Observations of the
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
31
teaching classrooms seemed to have more of an impact on their views about inquiry type teaching than their lab experiences. A few fellows were able to connect what they were doing in their lab setting with what was happening in the classroom, but the connections were based mostly on asking questions and doing experiments. There is a missing connection between what the students were experiencing in their research setting and how that influences the way they will teach in their science classrooms. Q3: How do pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy about doing science and teaching science through scientific inquiry change during an authentic science research internship? Through the analysis of the data, fellows’ development of self-efficacy became evident more in the area of doing science than being able to teach science. Through their journal entries fellows shared how they felt more confident in their work in the research setting as they gained new knowledge, learned new techniques, and became more independent. Fellows also demonstrated an increase in self-efficacy to do science through the VOSI questionnaire and the follow-up interview questions. Fellows described how their views had changed in doing science and how they felt more confident in the work they were doing. In relation to self-efficacy in teaching scientific inquiry the STEBI-B survey showed an overall increase in self-efficacy for both the Personal Science Teacher Efficacy (PSTE) subscale and the Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE). Even though there was an overall increase there were still fellows whose scores decreased. There are no specific indications in fellows’ journals, interviews, or posters that give an explanation for this negative change in self-efficacy at this time.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
32
Future Research This study is only part of a larger research project on pre-service teacher education. The project follows the group of fellows as they complete the 10-week research internship described in this study, a course which focuses on scientific inquiry and nature of science, and a teaching experience where the participating fellows teach for two weeks, utilizing units that they created during the course. The next step in the research study is to look at the data collected during the course and teaching experience and complete the analysis of that data to look at the fellows’ perceptions of scientific inquiry and self-efficacy in teaching through inquiry for the duration of the program. After looking at the program as a whole I will then look at each section separately; research experience, course, and teaching experience. I will then compare each part of the program to see which experiences have the most effect on the fellows’ perceptions of doing science through scientific inquiry and teaching utilizing scientific inquiry.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
33
References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Azar, A. (2010). In-service and pre-service secondary science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs about science teaching. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(4), 175-188. Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: And Angetic. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 1-26. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramacaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4, 71-81. New York: Academic Press. Berns, B., & Swanson, J. (2000, April). Middle School science. Working in a confused context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Brown, S., & Melear, C. (2007). Preservice teachers' research experiences in scientists' laboratories. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 573-597. Granger, C.R. (2002). Student and teachers as research scientists (STARS). Retrieved February 25, 2013, from University of Missouri-St. Louis, Science Education Program Web site: http://www.umsl.edu/~sep/STARS/stars_desc.html Hohloch, J., Grove, N., & Lowery Bretz, S. (2007). Pre-service teacher as researcher: The value of inquiry in science learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(9), 1530-1534. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39(6), 497521.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
34
Leonard, J., Johnson, J., Dantley, S., & Kimber, C. (2010). Teaching science inquiry in urban contexts: The role of elementary pre-service teachers' beliefs. Urban Rev, 43, 124-150. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research: fifth edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. McComas, W.F., & Wang, H.A. (1998). Blended science: The rewards and challenges of integrating the science disciplines for instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 340-348. Melear, C., Goodlaxson, J., Warne, T., & Hickok, L. (2000). Teaching pre-service science teachers how to do science: Responses to the research experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 77-90. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. National Science Teachers Association, NSTA. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation 2003. Available from the National Science Teachers Association Web site: http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self‐efficacy of preservice primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655-671. Raphael, R., Tobias, S., & Greenberg, R. (1999). Research experience as a component of science and mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 147158.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
35
Riggs, I.M., & Enochs, L.G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637. Roth, W.M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25-48. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2008, March). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD. March 30-April 2, 2008. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63-89. Weld, J., & French, D. (2001) An undergraduate science laboratory field experience for preservice science teachers. Journal of science Teacher Education, 12, 133-142. Westerlund, J.F., Garcia, D.M., Koke, J.R., Taylor, T.A., & Mason, D.S. (2002). Summer scientific research for teachers: The experience and its effect. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 63-83. Windschitl, M. (2003) Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER SCIENCE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
36
Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
