Inquiry teaching in primary science: A phenomenographic studyeprints.qut.edu.au/45772/1/Joseph_Ireland_Thesis.pdf · Inquiry teaching in primary science: A phenomenographic study

Inquiry teaching in primary science:

A phenomenographic study

Joseph Ireland

BSc(Psych), GrDipEd (Sec), MEd.

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Learning Innovation

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

April 2011

i

Keywords

Science education, inquiry learning, inquiry teaching, phenomenography,

conceptions of teaching.

ii

iii

Academic supervisors:

Associate Professor Jim Watters,

Associate Professor Jo Brownlee,

Doctor Mandy Lupton

iv

v

Abstract

In spite of having a long history in education, inquiry teaching (the

teaching in ways that foster inquiry based learning in students) in science

education is still a highly problematic issue. However, before teacher

educators can hope to effectively influence teacher implementation of inquiry

teaching in the science classroom, educators need to understand teachers’

current conceptions of inquiry teaching. This study describes the qualitatively

different ways in which 20 primary school teachers experienced inquiry

teaching in science education. A phenomenographic approach was adopted

and data sourced from interviews of these teachers. The three categories of

experiences that emerged from this study were; Student Centred

Experiences (Category 1), Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2), and

Student Generated Questions (Category 3). In Category 1 teachers structure

their teaching around students sensory experiences, expecting that students

will see, hear, feel and do interesting things that will focus their attention,

have them asking science questions, and improve their engagement in

learning. In Category 2 teachers structure their teaching around a given

problem they have designed and that the students are required to solve. In

Category 3 teachers structure their teaching around helping students to ask

and answer their own questions about phenomena. These categories

describe a hierarchy with the Student Generated Questions Category as the

most inclusive. These categories were contrasted with contemporary

educational theory, and it was found that when given the chance to voice

their own conceptions without such comparison teachers speak of inquiry

teaching in only one of the three categories mentioned. These results also

help inform our theoretical understanding of teacher conceptions of inquiry

teaching. Knowing what teachers actually experience as inquiry teaching, as

opposed to understand theoretically, is a valuable contribution to the

literature. This knowledge provides a valuable contribution to educational

theory, which helps policy, curriculum development, and the practicing

primary school teachers to more fully understand and implement the best

vi

educative practices in their daily work. Having teachers experience the

qualitatively different ways of experiencing inquiry teaching uncovered in this

study is expected to help teachers to move towards a more student-centred,

authentic inquiry outcome for their students and themselves. Going beyond

this to challenge teacher epistemological beliefs regarding the source of

knowledge may also assist them in developing more informed notions of the

nature of science and of scientific inquiry during professional development

opportunities. The development of scientific literacy in students, a high

priority for governments worldwide, will only to benefit from these initiatives.

vii

Table of Contents

Keywords i

Abstract v

Table of Contents vii

List of Figures x

List of Tables xi

Acknowledgements xiii

Statement of original authorship xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Rationale 4

1.3 Aim 6

1.4 Study Design 6

1.5 Organisation of the thesis 8

1.6 Conclusion 11

Chapter 2 Literature Review 13

2.1 Constructivism and learning in science 13

2.2 Epistemology and the Nature of Science (NOS) 16

2.2.1 The uncertain nature of the nature of science 17

2.2.2 Authentic science and the science classroom 19

2.3 Inquiry in the classroom 22

2.3.1 History of inquiry teaching 22

2.3.2 Status of inquiry teaching 23

2.3.3 What do we understand by inquiry teaching 25

2.3.4 Theoretical models of inquiry teaching 30

2.3.5 Contemporary issues regarding inquiry teaching 34

2.3.6 Studies to support inquiry teaching effectiveness 35

2.4 Ways of experiencing inquiry teaching 36

2.4.1 Conceptions of teaching in general 37

2.4.2 Conceptions of inquiry teaching in science education 49

2.4.3 Relationship between conceptions and practice 51

2.5 Conclusion 58

viii

Chapter 3 Methodology and Research design 61

3.1 Overview of phenomenography 62

3.1.1 Ontological and epistemological perspectives 62

3.1.2 Phenomenography and t qualitative research 64

3.1.3 Variation in approaches to phenomenography 65

3.1.4 Variation and the structure of awareness 68

3.1.5 Conceptions, categories, and outcome space 72

3.1.6 The experience of teaching 74

3.2 Methods 76

3.2.1 Participants 77

3.2.2 Data collection 79

3.2.3 Data analysis 84

3.2.4 Ethics 92

3.2.5 Research rigour 93

3.3 Conclusion 96

Chapter 4 Results 97

4.1 Overview of the Results 97

4.1.1 The outcome space: an overview 97

4.1.2 Dimensions of variation 100

4.1.3 The how and what 100

4.1.4 Conclusion 101

4.2 The Student Centred Experiences Category 101

4.2.1 Summary 102

4.2.2 Detail of the Student Centred Experiences category 103


4.3 The Teacher Generated Problems Category 112

4.3.1 Summary 112

4.3.2 Detail of the Teacher Generated Problems category 114


4.4 The Student Generated Questions Category 125

4.4.1 Summary 125

4.4.2 Detail of the Student Generated Questions category 126


4.5 The Outcome Space 137

ix

4.5.1 Comparison of the how and what of inquiry teaching 137

4.5.2 Quantitative comparison of category frequency 139

4.5.3 Outcome space for the awareness structures 140

4.5.4 Comparison of the Dimensions of variation 142

4.6 Conclusion 147

Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendations 149

5.1 General findings 150

5.2 Comparison with definitions of inquiry teaching 150

5.2.1 Comparison with theoretical models of inquiry teaching 153

5.3 Epistemology and the nature of science 156

5.4 Limitations 159

5.5 Recommendations 162

5.5.1 Recommendations for implementing Category 3 inquiry 162

5.5.2 Recommendations for general education 167

Chapter 6 Conclusion 171

Appendix A: Participant quantitative data 173

Appendix B: Interview schema 175

Appendix C: Comparison of categories 177

Appendix D: Sample personal profile 179

References 183

x

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Influences on teacher approaches to teaching. ..........................55

Figure 3.1. Referential and structural ways of experiencing .........................71

Figure 3.2. A schematic presentation of The structure of awareness ...........72

Figure 3.3. An analysis of the experience of learning ...................................75

Figure 3.4. The experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study. ......76

Figure 4.1. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.........101

Figure 4.2. Student Centred Experiences category how and what .............104

Figure 4.3. Teacher Generated Problems category how and what.............114

Figure 4.4. Student Generated Questions category how and what ............127

Figure 4.5. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.........138

Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of the outcome space of teachers’ ways

of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education. ...............................141

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations.........26

Table 2.2 Forms of inquiry teaching by Martin-Hansen.................................31

Table 2.3 The 5E’s instructional model by Bybee. ........................................33

Table 2.4 Researcher generated comparison of teacher conceptions. .........40

Table 2.5 Summary of dimensions of variation in studies cited. ..................48

Table 3.1 Outcome space as presented in this study ...................................73

Table 4.1 Outcome space for the phenomenon of inquiry teaching. .............98

Table 4.2 Structure of awareness for Category 1........................................106



Table 4.5 Outcome space for the awareness structures.............................140

Table 4.6 Summary of the dimensions of variation across categories .......142

Table 5.1 Comparison of results with major models of inquiry teaching. ....154

Table 5.2 Comparison of Perla and Carifio and the current study...............157

xii

"Of only one thing am I convinced: I have never seen anybody improve in the

art and techniques of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry.”

(Bruner, 1962, p. 94).

xiii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jim Watters for helping this project get started,

providing literally hundreds of hours of patient corrections and contentious

advice, connecting me with the world of inquiry and science education, for

the inspiration of a precise and ordered mind.

To Jo Brownlee for her studious and gentle manner or making the

complex obtainable, for unravelling some of the mysteries of epistemology,

and introducing me to the phenomenography community.

To Mandy Lupton, bringing her energy and enthusiasm, and

dangerously sharp intellect, to a project lost in the past.

To John Lidstone, for his politeness and good manners which got me

to QUT, and for his entire contribution to this thesis which involves

suggesting I try phenomenography in the first place.

To Mum and Dad, who taught me everything I know, or taught me to

love knowing, through which I now know I know everything that I know I know

and many things I do not know I know. May your legacy live on in me and the

words and ideas I inflict upon the world – this is just the beginning…

To my wife Samantha, who never fails to complain about every new

adventure I begin, and never fails to see me through them all. The journey

wouldn’t be the same without you!

And finally to God, for reasons of a personal nature…

xiv

Statement of original authorship

The work contained in this thesis as not been previously submitted for

a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of

my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signed:

Date:

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

This study investigates the qualitatively different ways in which

primary school teachers experience inquiry teaching in science education

(hereafter referred to by the simplified phrase “inquiry teaching”). After

defining some necessary terms here, this chapter provides the background

(Section 1.1) rationale (1.2), and the aim of the study (Section 1.3). The study

design is briefly overviewed (Section 1.4), and an overview of the thesis

structure is then given (Section 1.5). The section is then concluded (1.6)

summarising the main aim of the study.

The word inquiry in an educational context can be considered as: (a) a

process in which scientists engage in the community, that is, scientific inquiry

(Ruiz-Primo, Li, Tsai, & Schneider, 2010); (b) skills students should develop

about how to do science (Asay & Orgill, 2010), that is, student inquiry; (c)

outcomes students should learn about the Nature of Science

(NOS)(Lederman, 2004); and (d) as an approach to teaching science (Brown,

Abell, Demir, & Schmidt, 2006), that is, inquiry teaching. This thesis will take

the fourth definition, but the others are presented here for completeness.

Usually the literature focuses on the student’s role, where the term is

called inquiry learning. In this thesis, the term inquiry teaching is used to

focus the reader’s attention on teacher, not student, conceptions. The term

inquiry teaching may also potentially be used to refer to the act of inquiring

into the act of teaching, that is, inquiring into what it means to teach (Hill,

Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). This thesis does not use the term in that way as it

would require the focus of a different study. Finally, the terms experience,

conception, and understanding are used somewhat interchangeably in this

thesis.

The background for this thesis will now be explored in order to locate

the study in the context of contemporary science education.

1.1 Background to the study

High quality science education is a priority in Australia and

internationally (Department of Education, Services, and Training [DEST],

2002; National Research Council of America, 1996, 2000; National Science

2

Board, 2007). Governments world wide recognise the contributions a rich

science education gives to their citizens. For example, the Australian

National Curriculum Board in its draft document of the science curriculum

(National Curriculum Board, 2009), states:

Young children and adolescents frequently pose questions to

gain a sense of themselves and the world about them. The

intrinsic curiosity and simple wonder that is involved in such

inquiry is the quality that drives learning and understanding.

Passion, excitement, frustrations, uncertainty and

enlightenment are experienced in the quest for science

understanding and a scientific view of the world. (p. 4)

Inquiry teaching is encouraged internationally as one of the most

effective means of educating students in science (Campbell, Abd-Hamid, &

Chapman, 2010; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010; National Curriculum Board,

2009; National Research Council of America, 2000, 2005). The National

Research Council of America (NRC, National Research Council of America,

1996, 2000) speaks of scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching as such:

Inquiry is a set of interrelated processes by which students

pose questions about the natural world and investigate

phenomena; in doing so, students acquire knowledge and

develop a right understanding of concepts, principles, models

and theories. Inquiry [teaching] is a critical component of a

science program at all grade levels and in every domain of

science, and designers of curricula and programs must be sure

that the approach to content, as well as the teaching and

assessment strategies, reflect the acquisition of scientific

understanding through inquiry. Students then will learn science

in a way that reflects how science actually works. (p. 214,

parenthesis added)

Nationally and internationally, calls are being made to include inquiry

as part of the curriculum (Lunetta, Hofstein, & Clough, 2007). The National

Science Teachers Association of America (2007) state that “Inquiry-based

laboratory investigations at every level should be at the core of the science

program and should be woven into every lesson and concept strand” (p. 2).

Inquiry teaching is promoted as having several quality outcomes for students

3

and teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2009; Abd-El-Khalick, Baujaoude,

Duschl, Lederman, Mamlok-Naaman, Hofstein et al., 2004; Gibson & Chase,

2002; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002). For

example, it can improve preservice teachers’ views regarding how science is

taught and learned that are more in line with constructivist ideals (Sanger,

2007); help students develop accurate scientific knowledge and skills (Fleer

& Hardy, 2001; Skamp, 2004; Wynne, Macro, Reed, & Schilling, 2003);

improve student motivation (Windschitl, 2004); develop content knowledge

(Sandoval, 2005); improve student scientific literacy (Goodrum et al., 2001;

Harwood, Hansen, & Lotter, 2006; Seroussi, 2005); attract and sustain

student interest (Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins, 2009); and in the

context of English as a second language (ESL) learners, provide valuable

hands on learning experiences and contextualised language experiences

(Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2004).

In many ways, the advantages in the preceding paragraph can be

summarised as a means to helping students to develop scientific literacy.

Inquiry teaching has much to contribute to the development of scientifically

literate citizens for the modern knowledge economy (Goodrum et al., 2001;

Harwood et al., 2006; Seroussi, 2005). Governments world wide have

recognised scientific literacy as a high priority for their citizens. Science

education today aspires to do more than train the next generation of

scientists; it aims to prepare all citizens of the community to participate fully

in a knowledge driven society (Goodrum et al., 2001):

The purpose of science education is to develop scientific

literacy which is a high priority for all citizens, helping them to

be interested in, and understand the world around them, to

engage in the discourses of and about science, to be sceptical

and questioning of claims made by others about scientific

matters, to be able to identify questions and draw evidence-

based conclusions, and to make informed decisions about the

environment and their own health and well-being. (p.ix)

Consequently, advocacy for inquiry teaching is increasingly common

in education policy documents (National Curriculum Board, 2009; National

Research Council of America, 1996, 2000; National Science Board, 2007).

4

For example, science taught through inquiry is highlighted as a characteristic

of best practice in science education in the Status and quality of science

teaching in Australian schools report (Goodrum et al., 2001), and science

inquiry skills are one of the three core strands of the emerging Australian

National Science Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009). Given

national and international investment in inquiry teaching outcomes, it is

important to invest in research relating to teacher understanding of inquiry

teaching in science education.

1.2 Rationale

Although much has been written in support of inquiry teaching, it is yet

to be embraced by the average teacher in daily practice (Asay & Orgill, 2010;

Goodrum et al., 2001). Furthermore, research indicates that its actual

implementation in schools is problematic (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Bybee,

2000; Campbell & Bohn, 2008; Justice et al., 2009; Lederman, 2004; Lee et

al., 2004). This argument, touched on here, is elaborated more fully in

Chapter 2.

One approach the science education community has taken to

understand and address this issue has been to explore the influence of

teachers’ knowledge on their enactment of inquiry in the classroom. This is in

terms of understanding teachers’ conceptions or ways of experiencing inquiry

teaching (e.g., Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, & Orr, 2000). This body of

literature is supported by the supposition that teacher knowledge (e.g.

conceptions, understandings, etc) of inquiry teaching has an influence on

teacher practice (Åkerlind, 2004; Ho, 2001; Kember, 1998). By understanding

this form of teacher knowledge, a better awareness of its influence on

teacher practice may be constructed. For some time now, a considerable

amount of research which is focused on teacher knowledge has been

undertaken to gain a greater understanding of teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching (e.g., Kember, 1998; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007). This

research has been reported through two distinct bodies of literature, each

with their strengths and limitations.

5

First, many of the studies that explore teachers’ knowledge of inquiry

teaching seek from the outset to compare teachers’ knowledge to a

theoretical model promoted in the literature, derived theoretically or from the

practice of expert teachers (e.g. Harwood et al., 2006). For example, studies

which derive a definition of inquiry teaching based on an understanding of the

epistemology of authentic science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), or scaffolding

teacher understanding towards open or full inquiry teaching approaches

(Martin-Hansen, 2002), are essentially comparing teacher knowledge to a

philosophical ideal. These comparison studies, while having much to

contribute to our understanding of the role of teacher knowledge in inquiry

teaching, do not explore the depth of individuals’ understanding of the

phenomenon, especially in terms of teachers’ own understanding and

language. This study seeks to give teachers a voice in expressing their

understandings and experience of inquiry teaching before contrasting their

conceptions with theoretical models. Related to this limitation, one possible

cause of the inability of many professional development programs to change

teacher practices in regards to the teaching of science though inquiry might

be a misunderstanding of their conceptions in the first place (Porlán & Pozo,

2004; Sandoval, 2005). The call has been made for studies which document

teacher thinking rather than those which are “looking for fidelity of

implementation” of the theoretical models (McDonald & Songer, 2008, p.

974).

The second body of literature attempts to understand the phenomenon

of inquiry teaching from teachers’ perspectives. However, in spite of their

important contributions, a significant limitation still remains. These studies are

typically based on recounts of individual experiences of the phenomenon,

implying and sometimes finding that there are as many understandings of

inquiry teaching as there are teachers trying to implement it (e.g., Fazio,

2005; Seroussi, 2005). While individual recounts are a valid and useful

research technique, and powerful in terms of highlighting individual

experiences of the phenomenon, it may be more helpful to consider teachers’

perspectives by using a phenomenographic outcome space (Cope, 2004). An

outcome space maps a limited range of categories of understanding of the

phenomenon which relate to the group, not the individual (Marton, 2000).

6

Use of an outcome space can provide a succinct and parsimonious set of

categories of teachers’ experiences without diluting the diversity of teacher

practices and opinions. These categories are expected to define in succinct

and parsimonious terms the major differences in the ways that teachers

experience inquiry teaching, distilling the essence of teachers’ experiences

without diluting the diversity of teacher practices and opinions. Categorising

the qualitatively different ways in which teachers’ experience this aspect of

teacher knowledge has the potential to be highly fruitful for the theory- praxis

nexus and may be used to inform preservice and inservice teacher education

programs.

1.3 Aim

This study seeks to explore the range of experiences that teachers

have of inquiry teaching. The research question is:

What are the qualitatively different ways in which primary school

teachers experience inquiry teaching in science education?

The intent of this question is to uncover teachers underlying

conceptions of what it means to teach science though inquiry.

1.4 Study Design

Phenomenography has been chosen as the research approach for this

thesis. Phenomenography is a methodology developed by a research group

at the University of Goteborg in Sweden in the 1970s (Pang, 2003).

Phenomenography was described by one of the principal pioneers Ference

Marton (1994) as:

the empirical study of the limited number of qualitatively

different ways in which various phenomena in, and aspects of,

the world around us are experienced, conceptualized,

understood, perceived and apprehended. (p. 4424)

Phenomenography therefore explores the different ways a group of

individuals experience (or conceptualise) a phenomenon. The application of

7

phenomenography to the problem of teacher understanding and

implementation of inquiry teaching in schools is a departure from previous

attempts which compared teachers’ conceptions to theorised models, or

developed as many conceptions as individual teachers. Phenomenography

maps a limited range of categories of understanding of the phenomenon

which relate to the group, not the individual, and does so without comparing

them to preconceived models during analysis. This argument, touched on in

sections 1.2 and 1.3, is developed through the review of the literature in

Chapter 2.

No phenomenographic studies of primary teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching have been found. Indeed, while there has been a great deal

of research investigating teachers’ conception of teaching (Boulton-Lewis,

Smith, McCrindle, Burnett, & Campbell, 2001; Kember, 1998; Samuelowicz &

Bain, 1992), and teacher conceptions of science teaching (Porlán & Pozo,

2004; Skamp & Mueller, 2001; Tsai, 2002), the literature regarding teachers’

conceptions of teaching science though inquiry is scant (Crawford, 2007;

Harwood et al., 2006), and in the context of primary teaching, appears to be

entirely absent (see Section 2.4).

The study was performed with teachers from several metropolitan

primary schools within the same educational jurisdiction in Brisbane,

Australia, with relatively diverse socio-economic status, cultural perspectives

and ethnicity. Participants were sought initially from among a group of

teachers who responded to the offer of participating in a study into

conceptions of inquiry teaching in science, and secondarily those who could

be enticed into participation with the promise of a free science show for their

students. As is typical for a phenomenographic study, variation in

participants’ experience of the phenomenon was actively sort in order to

maximise the expression of variation in the data. Variation exists in terms of

gender, years in teaching, school year level taught, school, and previous

experience with science. Participants were interviewed once each for an

average of 40 minutes each at their place of work, usually after the students

had left for the day.

Data were analysed in a phenomenographic tradition, see Chapter 4

for full details. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed for

8

emergent themes. Personal profiles were developed for participants in order

to assist in maintaining fidelity to their individual conceptions. After time, a

tentative categorisation scheme was developed, known as an outcome space

in phenomenography. This outcome space was rigorously examined for its

appropriateness through repeated iterations with the data, as well as

numerous meetings with research supervisors, interested peers and a

conceptual papers presented at the Australasian Science Education

Research Association conference (ASERA) 2008 and Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics in Education conference (STEM) 2010. After

the final outcome space was developed and validated the data analysis

phase was complete.

1.5 Organisation of the thesis

The purpose of this thesis is to answer the question: What are the

qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers experience

inquiry teaching in science education? In order to answer this question,

Chapter 2 will review relevant literature from the field of education. First, the

theoretical frameworks that are referents for teaching science in primary

schools are discussed and analysed (2.1). Second, the influence of teacher

epistemological beliefs of the Nature of Science (NOS) and science

education (2.2) are discussed in order to unveil how this might influence their

conceptions of teaching science. Third, the definition, justification and history

of inquiry teaching are generated from the literature (2.3), with attention given

to contemporary issues in inquiry teaching. Fourth, conceptions of inquiry

teaching in science education are explored, including a discussion of

conceptions of teaching in general (2.4.1) as part of the context of

conceptions of inquiry teaching (2.4.2) for this study. This section also

includes a focus on the relationship between conceptions and practice as

part of the justification for the study (2.4.3). The chapter is then concluded

(2.5) summarising the main findings of the literature review section.

Chapter 3 describes and justifies the selection of phenomenography

as the appropriate research approach for this study. Issues discussed include

the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the research

9

methodology (3.1.1), phenomenography within the paradigm of qualitative

research (3.1.2). Variations in approaches to phenomenography are dealt

with in Section 3.1.3 in order to contextualise the current research in the

contemporary field of phenomenography. Theoretical foundations for the

data analysis are then discussed, including the structure of awareness

(3.1.4), conceptions, categories of description, and the outcome space

(3.1.5). To complete this section, a theoretical model of the nature of

learning by Marton and Booth (1997) is adapted to this study of conceptions

of teaching.

The chapter on methodology continues with a discussion of the

research design and methods (3.2) in order to establish the approach this

particular study will take. Participant data and selection procedures are

discussed in Section 3.2.1, followed by the detailed description of data

collection procedures (3.2.2). Section 3.2.3 contains a record of data analysis

procedures, and issues of ethics are dealt with in detail in Section 3.2.4.

Research rigour, including the validly and reliability of the study, are dealt

with in detail in Section 3.2.5. The chapter on methodology is concluded in

Section 3.3, summarising major methodological considerations for the

research.

Chapter 4 presents the results of the study using a

phenomenographic framework. Phenomenography was chosen as a

research methodology as it had not yet been applied to the research

problem, and it generates a limited number of qualitatively different

categories of experiences from which to draw conclusions. This chapter

describe the outcome space, which comprises the three qualitatively different

categories uncovered in this thesis: Student Centred Experiences (Category

1); Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2); and Student Generated

Questions (Category 3). It was found that teachers did not make overt use of

educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically with regards to

levels of inquiry (National Research Council of America, 2000), or

terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002). Section

4.1 contains an overview of the results. Detailed descriptions of the main

categories, including an examination of the how and what of teaching (see

Section 3.1.6), the structures of awareness of the phenomenon, and a

10

comparison of the dimensions of variation are dealt with in sections 4.2

through 4.4. A summary of the categories and a description of the outcome

space are found in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 concludes the chapter

highlighting the major research findings.

Chapter 5 discusses the results and various implications of the

research findings, and explores the potential impact on teacher development

programs in science education. Section 5.1 deals with general findings

arising from the study, The findings are analysed (5.2) in relation to the

inquiry teaching literature, such as the US National Standards (National

Research Council of America, 2000; National Science Board, 2007) and

various models of inquiry teaching (Bybee, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002).

Issues of epistemology arising from the results of this study (Section 5.3) are

given special treatment, in particular, the literature regarding teacher and

student understanding of the Nature of Science (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,

2000) and the authentic science debate (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002).

Limitations of the study are discussed, and the potential areas of research

are addressed in Section 5.3, including: (a) assessing student outcomes in

terms of the findings of this study; (b) comparing the teacher reports of

behaviour to actual teacher practice; (c) comparing individual teachers to the

categorisation scheme uncovered in this thesis; (d) exploring whether the

results of this thesis differ at different contexts such as educational

institutions, high school, or cultural contexts; (e) comparing the results of this

thesis to other curriculum areas, that is, inquiry teaching in English or

Religious education; and (f) exploring further the teacher perception of the

necessity to use equipment in science classes.

Chapter 5 then discusses recommendations developed from the

findings of this study. This discussion is dealt with in two sections; first, six

specific recommendations are made to help teachers implement Category 3

inquiry (5.4.1). Second, two recommendations are made regarding the

potential of this study to contribute to further research to the development of

teacher education programs (5.4.2).

11

Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, briefly summarising and emphasising

the importance of this unique research approach to the research question:

What are the qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers

experience inquiry teaching in science education?

1.6 Conclusion

In spite of being strongly promoted for science education (National

Research Council of America, 2000), inquiry teaching is still a highly

problematic issue in education today (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Goodrum

et al., 2001), notwithstanding its potential to benefit student learning (Wynne

et al., 2003). Through use of the phenomenographic research approach this

study addresses this concern by investigating the qualitatively different ways

in which primary school teacher’s experience inquiry teaching.

12

13

Chapter 2 Literature Review

The purpose of this thesis is to address the question: What are the

qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers experience

inquiry teaching in science education? In order to address this question, the

following chapter will present the theoretical framework that supports this

study of teacher conceptions. First, the theoretical frameworks that are

referents for teaching science in primary schools are discussed and analysed

(2.1). This discussion is followed by an investigation of teacher

epistemological beliefs with regards to the Nature of Science (NOS) and

science education (2.2), and how this might influence teachers’ conceptions

of teaching science. Third, the history and status of inquiry teaching is

synthesised from the literature (2.3), with attention given to contemporary

issues in teaching to foster learning through inquiry including the difficulties

surrounding defining inquiry teaching. Fourth, conceptions of teaching in

general, and of inquiry teaching in science education in particular are

explored, with a focus on the relationship between conceptions and practice

as part of the justification for the study (2.4). The chapter is then concluded

(2.5) by summarising the literature and highlighting important considerations

for the study.

2.1 Constructivism and learning in science

Modern movements in philosophy and pedagogy, in particular social

constructivism, often challenge previously held beliefs and theories

surrounding the educational enterprise. Teachers are challenged to

reconstruct notions of teaching and learning in terms of the student centred

curriculum (American Psychological Association, 1997; McCombs, 2003),

helping students to become constructors of knowledge within their social

context; to engage in higher order thinking rather than merely reproducing

knowledge. This focus on learners as active agents in their own learning is

due in part to the influence of philosophies which appreciate how teaching

and learning take place in social contexts (Windschitl, 2002). Students are

encouraged to address real world ill-structured problems and engage in

14

collaborative learning (see also Elen & Clarebout, 2001; Yang, Chang, &

Hsu, 2008).

Approaches to teaching science through inquiry, referred to as inquiry

teaching herein, are strongly influenced by constructivist philosophies (Keys

& Bryan, 2001). Constructivism is the philosophical position postulating that

individuals construct their personal interpretation of reality based on their

experiences (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) is

commonly credited with the original idea, with philosophers such as

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) later developing the philosophical foundations of

the theory (Mahoney, 1996). The use of empirical, interpretive research

methodologies often characterise this philosophical position (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2005), which focuses on the private creation of knowledge, or the

meaning-making activity of the individual mind (Young & Collin, 2004).

Keys (2005) outlined constructivism as one of three major issues

impacting contemporary education in Australia along with outcomes based

education and curriculum integration. Constructivism has come to play a

major role in education as a philosophical referent for constructivist learning

theory. Constructivist learning theory holds that students acquire knowledge

through diverse experiences that help them to make connections from

previously learned material to new information (Colburn, 2000).

Specifically, social constructivist learning theory focuses on how

construction of knowledge is influenced by the social environment (Kim,

2001). Knowledge is considered a human product, created by the individual

through his or her social and cultural interactions within the environment

(Ernest, 1999). Learning does not take place solely within an individual, nor is

it developed by external forces in the environment, but learning occurs as

individuals engage in social activities (McMahon, 1997). From this

perspective, science learning is seen as more than the construction of

meaning by individuals, but by individuals embedded in their social

environment and influenced by such social factors as culture and language

(Keys & Bryan, 2001).

Social constructivist learning theory has an influence on the teaching

of science (Hodson & Hodson, 1998) through viewing the concepts taught in

science education not as hard facts, but as evidence based conclusions

15

given by scientists to account for their observations: “The objects of science

are not the phenomena of nature but constructs that are advanced by the

scientific community to interpret nature” (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, &

Scott, 1994, p. 5). Hodson and Hodson (1998) argue that teaching science

influenced by the constructivist principles of learning does not mean students

are permitted to generate any explanation for any reason or that any

explanation will do. Rather, the world presents many challenging phenomena

that students can develop critical understandings of through the processes of

science. Thus, students are scaffolded by teachers to construct an

understanding of the phenomena, which also promotes evidence-based

understandings for students (Hodson & Hodson, 1998).

Teaching approaches based on Social constructivist learning theory

contrasts with a transmissive approach to teaching that dominated education

up until the 20th century and is still highly prevalent today (Brownlee, 2004;

Crawford, 2007). The role of the teacher during the transmissive approach is

to be a keeper and purveyor of knowledge, to present information in a logical

and clear manner so that students can understand or receive this knowledge

(Abruscato, 2001). Transmissive science teaching tends to assume that

learning occurs by the implantation of new information into a tabula rasa

brain.

Constructivist based approaches to teaching strive to be student

centred, reflecting the use of the concept of a continuum from teacher-

centred to student-centred approaches, terms which are problematic yet also

ubiquitous in teacher conception literature (Pratt, 1992; Pratt, Arseneau, &

Collins, 2001). Conceptions of teaching which may be considered teacher-

centred tend to focus on the teachers’ role in students’ learning (Kember,

1997). Teachers are concerned with imparting information to students, and

thus knowledge is considered transmitted to students rather than constructed

by them.

On the other hand, conceptions of teaching which may be considered

student-centred tend to focus on the students’ role in learning (American

Psychological Association, 1997). Teachers are concerned with how students

learn best, and are motivated by internal rewards such as helping students to

16

improve as people. Teaching is seen as “an interactive process where

meaning is negotiated” (McKenzie, 2003, p. 25).

Student-centred approaches to teaching are claimed to be more

effective than teacher-centred approaches to teaching in most circumstances

(Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008). Inquiry teaching, in general, aspires to

be a student centred approach to teaching as evidenced by the use of

student centred approaches to teaching in the literature on effective inquiry

teaching (Bybee, 2000; Martin-Hansen, 2002; National Research Council of

America, 2000).

In conclusion, social constructivist learning theory has had an impact

on modern pedagogy and inquiry teaching in particular. This section has

outlined the theoretical frameworks necessary for situating the current thesis

in contemporary education. The next section discusses teachers’

understandings of the epistemology of science in order to interrogate how

teacher beliefs of science can influence their teaching of science in the

classroom.

2.2 Epistemology and the Nature of Science (NOS)

Teacher beliefs are considered agendas for action in given situations

(Sandoval, 2005). One very important belief in regard to the current study is

teacher beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge, or more specifically

scientific knowledge. Teacher beliefs regarding the epistemology of science

are shown to influence how teachers enact the teaching of science in the

classroom, and the kinds of experiences their students are likely to have

(Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004).

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of

knowledge (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), and the phrase the nature of science

usually refers to the epistemology of science – how scientific knowledge is

created, justified and used in the community (Sandoval, 2005). Teacher

beliefs regarding the epistemology of science are subsumed under the

phrase NOS (the Nature of Science) in this study, where such beliefs have

been called the “linchpin” to developing scientific literacy in students and

teachers (Hogan, 2000, p. 52).

17

2.2.1 The uncertain nature of the nature of science

One line of inquiry into the difficulties that teachers have in

implementing inquiry teaching sees the problem as being related in part to

student and teacher misunderstanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) and

the nature of scientific inquiry itself. For example, several reviews of NOS

literature showed that students and teachers consistently fail to understand

given aspects of the nature of science as defined by these reviews (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 1992). In the words of Lederman and

Neiss (1997):

The longevity of this educational objective [NOS] has been

surpassed only by the longevity of students’ inability to

articulate the meaning of the phrase ‘nature of science’, and to

delineate the associated characteristics of science. (p. 1)

Many reasons may be sought to explain student and teacher

misunderstanding of the formalised understanding of NOS. First, the

changing nature of our understanding of NOS historically creates confusion

for teachers and teacher educators (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000).

Second, the divergent methods and philosophies employed in the various

branches of science cannot be easily subsumed under a single banner (Van

Gigch, 2002). Third, disagreement among educators and philosophers of

science might contribute to confusion among teachers (Osborne & Collins,

2003). Each of these issues will be discussed in turn.

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) divide teachers’ understandings

of NOS historically into pre- and post-Kuhnian eras, as a way to explain the

changes in our understanding of NOS. Pre-Kuhnian (Perla & Carifio, 2008)

philosophy defined NOS based on logical and epistemological grounds while

failing to acknowledge the important influence of social and psychological

factors in the scientific endeavour. The latter two factors were seen as

external to science and thus the era is referred to as externalist. For

example, the scientist was seen as an independent worker searching to

discover nature’s truths, as exemplified by individuals such as Newton,

Darwin and Einstein. This era was followed by the Post-Kuhnian period

dominated by an internalist approach which in reaction to the externalist

approach may have placed excessive emphasis on the history and context of

18

discovery in an attempt to explore the social factors of science (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000).

Thus, the definition of what constitutes NOS has also changed over

time (Van Gigch, 2002), with such studies as the Osborne et al. (2003)

Delphi study setting out to try to address which ideas about science ought to

be taught in schools. For example, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) cite

the leap “from a classical deterministic approach in physics to a quantum

indeterministic conceptualisation of the discipline” (p. 666). These historical

factors contribute to teacher confusion regarding both the nature of science,

and also the depiction of science they attempt to employ during inquiry

teaching.

The second reason teachers might experience difficulty understanding

the formalised definitions of NOS is that some accounts of the nature of

science take for granted the divergent methods of scientific inquiry among

various scientific disciplines. The experimental method which is occasionally

lauded as the quintessential model for science is not the only manner in

which science is legitimately pursued in the various scientific fields

(Lederman, 2004). Over a century ago, the Central Association for Science

and Mathematics Teachers (1907) noted the different epistemologies that

inform modern physics as opposed to the social sciences. These divergent

accounts of scientific inquiry add further confusion to teachers who are

already struggling to understand NOS.

Finally, another difficulty facing teachers may be the failure among

academics and philosophers to agree upon a single definition of NOS

(Duschl, 1990; Osborne & Collins, 2003; Perla & Carifio, 2008). In order to

rectify this, in 2003 a Delphi study (Osborne & Collins, 2003) of 23 science

education community experts attempted to consolidate understanding of the

most important attributes of NOS that they felt should be taught in schools.

The study developed nine themes which were: (a) scientific method and

critical testing; (b) creativity (specifically to help make science education

engaging); (c) historical development of scientific knowledge; (d) science and

questioning; (e) the diversity of scientific thinking; (f) analysis and

interpretation of data; (g) science and certainty; (h) hypothesis and

prediction; and (i) cooperation and collaboration in the development of

19

scientific knowledge. Interestingly, the relationship between scientific laws

and theories was not explicitly considered in the Delphi study, despite being

treated as a core attribute by several studies into NOS (Lederman, 1992, p.

352), such as found in the Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire

Version C (VNOS-C, Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002).

Similar to the nine themes developed by the Delphi study, Perla and

Carifio (2008) provided five core characteristics of the nature of science as

distilled from the literature and national science curriculum documents, such

as the NSA. Their categorisation scheme is also used in other studies, such

as Bell, Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick (2000). These five characteristics are

referred to again in the discussion section of this thesis, and it is felt they

contain the nine themes of the Delphi study in a more general degree. They

are that:

• Science is empirical;

• Science is a human enterprise;

• Science involves creativity and human imagination;

• Scientific knowledge is subjective and theory laden;

• Scientific knowledge is stable yet tentative.

These three reasons; historical changes, divergent methodologies,

and contemporary uncertainty, contribute to a confusing situation for

practicing teachers already facing multitudinous demands on their time

(Akerson & Hanuscin, 2006). Teacher understanding of NOS has been

shown to influence their enactment of inquiry teaching in the classroom, and

thus the experiences of students in developing scientific literacy

(Bartholomew et al., 2004). The following section will explore issues around

teachers’ understanding of what they perceive to be the nature of science in

the classroom setting.

2.2.2 Authentic science and the science classroom

Studies have been undertaken to explore teacher misunderstanding of

the formalised nature of science, finding that formal understanding of NOS is

not equivalent to personal understanding (Hogan, 2000), and that teacher

understanding of NOS may not necessarily translate into practice (Bell et al.,

2000). Many studies have begun to explore the relationship between inquiry

20

as it is practiced in the classroom and inquiry as it is practiced by

professional scientists in the community (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Chinn

& Malhotra, 2002; Goodrum et al., 2001; Hogan, 2000; Lotter et al., 2007;

Watters & Diezmann, 2004).

Chinn and Malhotra (2002) contrasted school and community science,

criticising school inquiry for not teaching children what they termed an

authentic epistemology of science. In this way, the authors were attempting

to model school science on their perception of science in the community. In

authentic inquiry, the authors argued, the scientist generates the research

questions, identifies, selects and where necessary even invents the variables

to be studied. They further argued that scientists must often create or use

complex procedures to study the phenomenon of interest, and often devise

analogue models (analogies) to express their understanding of the

phenomenon. School science, on the other hand, rarely questions the

appropriateness of such analogue models. Scientists must devise their own

controls for variables, employ their own planning measures, and employ

elaborate measures to overcome factors such as observer bias. Chinn and

Malhotra (2002) remind us that in school science, these processes are

usually performed by the teacher, not the learner.

Of special interest is the use of indirect reasoning in authentic science,

where “observations are related to research questions by complex chains of

inference”, and where “observed variables are not identical to the theoretical

variables of interest” (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002, p. 181). For example, it takes

several layers of understanding to conclude that the dark x-shaped blotches

on a piece of photographic film represent the spiral nature of the double helix

structure as viewed through x-ray crystallography, or that a stream of 1’s and

0’s represents valuable information about star formation from a radio

telescope. Students, on the other hand, are rarely asked to discuss

alternative explanations of their observations, especially in traditional didactic

approaches to science education. In this way the epistemological

requirements of school and community science are different (Kuhn, 2009).

Although the preceding discussion (Lawson, 2000, based on Lawson,

1978) attempted to argue that school science ought to be epistemologically

more representative of community science, school-aged students are

21

understandably going to have some difficulties with aspects of a school

science as authentic as scientific inquiry in the community. Young students,

in particular, may lack the content knowledge and ability of abstract thinking

required by indirect reasoning. Therefore it may be unwarranted to assume

that inquiry as used in the scientific community is functionally equivalent to

inquiry as used in the classroom. A recent study (Brown & Melear, 2006)

which attempted to improve teacher use of inquiry teaching through providing

authentic inquiry experiences, stated that:

In conclusion, we find the inquiry-based science course

experience necessary, but not sufficient, in bringing about belief

and behavior change with secondary science teachers. (Brown

& Melear, 2006, p. 962).

This suggests that scientific inquiry and school inquiry are not

equivalent activities, since teachers were assisted in understanding,

however incompletely, the formalised description of the nature of

science and authentic science as it is practiced in the community

through engaging in their own authentic science experiences. This

also suggests the need for a study to explore teachers’ conceptions of

what it means to teach science through inquiry, and not just teachers’

conceptions of inquiry alone.

In essence, the propositions emerging out of the review of the

difference between natural science research and school based inquiry

science are as follows. Some NOS studies are about helping teachers

understand, or researching why they misunderstand scientific inquiry

and the nature of science, and are not about understanding teachers’

current perspectives of inquiry teaching (Waters-Adams, 2006).

However, teacher understanding of NOS has been found to be only

one aspect of successful inquiry teaching (Bartholomew et al., 2004).

This review highlights the need to know more about teacher

understanding of teaching science through inquiry, but unfortunately,

some NOS studies fail to explore what those understandings are

before comparing them to theorised models. This is not to implicate

that teacher understandings of NOS do not profoundly affect the

enactment of teaching science through inquiry; they most certainly do.

22

Along with presenting the literature with regards to the authentic

inquiry debate, this section highlights the fact that NOS and scientific

inquiry considerations inform inquiry teaching, while not necessarily

being functionally equivalent to inquiry teaching.

Conclusion to Section 2.2

To conclude, this section has explored teacher understanding of the

epistemology of science. This section has been used to support the claim for

a detailed qualitative study that thoroughly documents the reported

experiences of teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching and not just inquiry

itself, whatever that may be. Giving teachers the space to voice their

uncertainties, as opposed to measuring up to an outside ideal, will assist

certain teachers to reflect upon their understanding of scientific inquiry and

teaching science through inquiry.

2.3 Inquiry in the classroom

The previous section reviewed key literature regarding teacher

understanding of the epistemology or the NOS and its enactment in the

classroom. This next section reviews the voluminous literature regarding

inquiry in the classroom. The intention of this section is to explore issues

surrounding the conceptualisation and implementation of inquiry teaching.

2.3.1 History of inquiry teaching

According to DeBoer (2004) inquiry, and by implication inquiry

teaching, has been promoted as a valuable pedagogical tool from the

beginning of formal attempts to include science in the school curriculum.

Around the middle of the 19th century, advocates such as Thomas Huxley

(1825 – 1895), Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) and German philosopher

Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776 – 1841) were arguing for the inclusion of

science as a school subject. Science was seen as a means of helping

students develop strong inductive reasoning skills which other classical

subjects were not inclined to do. In the words of Spencer (1864):

Children should be led to make their own investigations, and to

draw their own inferences. They should be told as little as

23

possible, and induced to discover as much as possible. (p. 124-

125, emphasis in original).

The term inquiry learning was perhaps first used by philosopher,

psychologist and educational reformer John Dewey (1859-1952) around the

beginning of the 20th century (Barrow, 2006). As part of what became known

as progressive education, Dewey first advocated student inquiry as a means

of helping students not only understand science better, but also the

processes involved in the creation of scientific knowledge. Hence the role of

teachers was to foster inquiry based learning, or in terminology adopted in

this thesis, to implement inquiry teaching. However, the Cold War era mid

century saw a shift from a process driven to a content driven curriculum,

arguably in an attempt to produce the best scientists possible (Rudolph,

2002). This change in emphasis and other factors such as the need to cover

crowded syllabus requirements led to defocusing on the scientific method

(DeBoer, 2004).

Science, a process approach (AAAS, 2009; Arthur, 1964) was another

movement in science education which ran from 1960-1974. However, undue

emphasis on processes over the context of learning may have helped spark

the context based learning movement. Context based learning, such as that

espoused by Wilson (1993), King (2009) and Bennett and Holman (2002), is

common in education today and focuses on bringing students to

understanding through the context of a situated problem that students may

face in the real world or local community.

Inquiry teaching began a resurgence in interest by teachers from

around the 1970s and eighties, perhaps due in part to the prevalence of

constructivism as a referent for pedagogy (Seroussi, 2005). Today inquiry

teaching is promoted as one of the most valuable means of helping achieve

the modern science educator’s goals (National Curriculum Board, 2009;

National Science Board, 2007). Thus, this next section will review the impact

and influence of inquiry in education.

2.3.2 Status of inquiry teaching

Much has been written in support of inquiry teaching, but for reasons

that will now be discussed, it has yet to see much application in the average

24

teacher’s daily practice (Goodrum et al., 2001). In a review of the literature as

a foundation for their study into the science laboratory experiences of high

school students in Utah, US, Campbell and Bohn (2008) found that many

teacher educators feel that inquiry is not happening in the science education

classroom. As far back as the early eighties, Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhead and

Robinson (1981) stated:

The widespread espoused support of inquiry is more simulated

than real in practice. The greatest set of barriers to the teacher

support of inquiry seems to be its perceived difficulty. There is

legitimate confusion over the meaning of inquiry in the

classroom. (p.40)

This confusion over the meaning of inquiry continues even today

(Asay & Orgill, 2010). Teachers seem eager to display their style of teaching

as modern simply by labelling it inquiry. Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie

(2001) found that even traditional transmissive approaches have been

labelled inquiry. In line with the findings of Section 2.2.1, Flick and Lederman

(2004) stated that teachers are uncertain about scientific inquiry itself, as well

as how it is to be applied in the classroom:

Unfortunately, classroom teachers, as well as teacher

educators, remain uncertain about the specific attributes of

scientific inquiry and nature of science, let alone their

integration into current science instruction and curricula. (p. ix)

Asay and Orgill (2010), in a review of the essential features of inquiry

found in articles published in The Science Teacher between 1998 and 2007,

cite research illustrating teacher confusion regarding the use of the term

inquiry. This includes describing inquiry as discovery learning, hands on

activities (Crawford, 2000), authentic problems (Kang & Wallace, 2005), and

classroom debate (Carnes, 1997). While inquiry encompasses all these, such

beliefs still represent a limited perception of the role inquiry teaching can play

in the science education classroom. “Inquiry, as described in the Standards,

puts emphasis on learners working under the guidance of experienced

teachers to construct understandings of scientific concepts through

interactions with scientific questions and data“ (Asay & Orgill, 2010, p. 58).

25

As has been claimed in the literature, teachers are struggling with

understanding inquiry and the nature of inquiry teaching in science

education. The study reported in this thesis has been performed to inform the

science education literature with regards to the conceptions that teachers

actually have concerning inquiry teaching. In order to situate this question

within the field, the challenges facing a formal definition of inquiry teaching

will now be expanded.

2.3.3 What do we understand by inquiry teaching

This section will discuss the formalised definition of inquiry teaching in

science education as derived from the literature. However, in the words of

Minner et al. (2010), “the field has yet to develop a specific and well-accepted

definition of what is meant by that term“ (Minner et al., p. 475). This

sentiment is echoed in Brown, Abell, Demir and Schmidt (2006) who state

that there exists a “… lack of agreement about what constitutes an inquiry-

based approach” (p. 786), which they found to be part of the difficulty in

comparing studies of inquiry teaching.

Defining inquiry teaching must begin with the definition of inquiry itself.

Many lines of argument maintain that inquiry teaching is simply the

application of authentic science processes to teaching methodology (DeBoer,

2004), to a greater or lesser degree depending on school and student

requirements. Internationally many documents draw their definition of inquiry

teaching from the 1996 American document, by the NRC (1996) which

states:

Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making

observations; posing questions; examining books and other

sources of information to see what is already known; planning

investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of

experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and

interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and

predictions; and communicating the results. (p. 23)

This statement provides the basis for understanding inquiry teaching

as it is understood in this thesis. Another influential publication regarding

inquiry teaching is the document Inquiry and the national science education

26

standards, which presents a model of inquiry learning provided by the

National Research Council of America [NRC] (2000), from which related

teacher behaviours for inquiry teaching may be assumed. Table 2.1

summarises this NRC definition.

Table 2.1

Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations

Variations Essential Feature

More---------------Amount of learner self-direction-------------Less Less------Amount of direction from teacher or material------More

[levels as defined by current study]

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

1. Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions

Learner poses a question

Learner selects among questions, poses new questions

Learner sharpens or clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other source

Learner engages in question provided by teacher, materials, or other source

2. Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions

Learner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it

Learner directed to collect certain data

Learner given data and asked to analyse

Learner given data and told how to analyse

3. Learner formulate explanations from evidence

Learner formulates explanation after summarizing evidence

Learner guided in process of formulating explanations from evidence

Learner given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanation

Learner provided with evidence and how to use evidence to formulate explanation

4. Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge

Learner independently examines other resources and forms the links to explanations

Learner directed toward areas and sources of scientific knowledge

Learner given possible connections

5. Learner communicates and justifies explanations

Learner forms reasonable and logical argument to communicate explanations

Learner coached in development of communication

Learner provided broad guidelines to use sharpen communication

Learner given steps and procedures for communication

Note. From the NRC (2000), p.29.

27

The NRC definition of inquiry requires teachers to structure teaching

around a continuum of more or less teacher direction, the far right being

highly teacher directed and far left student highly student or self directed.

While the table specifically discusses inquiry from the student’s perspective,

that is, inquiry learning, aspects of inquiry from the teacher’s perspective or

inquiry teaching are easily derived. The five qualities that make up

“Classroom inquiry” are: (a) learner engages in scientifically oriented

questions; (b) learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions;

(c) learner formulates explanations from evidence; (d) learner connects

explanations to scientific knowledge; and (e) learner communicates and

justifies explanations (emphasis added). Minner (2010) noted The National

Science Education Standards adds one more to this list, that learners design

and conduct investigations (NRC, 1996). The Australian National curriculum

documents (National Curriculum Board, 2009), the cultural context in which

this study may be placed, include all these qualities in a manner that allows

for greater complexity across year levels.

The NRC definition also illuminates the issue of the role of student

questions during inquiry teaching. That is, are student questions the focal

point of the investigation, does the teacher need to choose the scientific

question to be investigated, or is it something in between? Some authors

feel that the defining attribute of inquiry teaching is that students are asking

the questions (Yager, 2007), while others do not (Brown et al., 2006;

Eastwell, 2007; Kowalczyk, 2003). The National Science Board of America

(2007, p. 83) defines inquiry teaching as a “process in which students

investigate, work-through, and solve problems.” It is interesting that the

focus is on problems and not on students asking and answering their own

questions. This focus is contrasted with the definition in Justice et al. (2009,

p. 843) that “inquiry refers to instructional practices designed to promote the

development of high order intellectual and academic skills through student-

driven and instructor-guided investigations of student generated questions.”

Harwood, Hansen and Lotter (2006) include students asking questions as an

attribute of general education and not just inquiry, however, students

formulating questions to investigate is given as being appropriate for science

education. Windschitl (2003) argues:

28

For a science student, developing one’s own question and the

means to resolve the question suggests an inquiry experience

that is profoundly different from the far more common tasks of

science schooling which consist of answering questions

prescribed in the curriculum using methods also preordained in

the curriculum or by the classroom teacher. (p. 114)

This quote suggests a gap between conceptions of inquiry teaching in

the literature and the actual conceptions of most practicing teachers,

discussed further in Chapter 5. Further, while it may seem fundamental, this

section illustrates that the role of student questions during inquiry teaching is

unresolved in the literature. The NRC (2000) definition provides one solution

by permitting student questions during only some forms of inquiry teaching,

specifically Level 1 and not Level 4. This is supported by Sandoval (2005),

who provides another definition of both scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching

as:

Inquiry generally refers to a process of asking questions,

generating and pursuing strategies to investigate those

questions by generating data, analysing and interpreting those

data, drawing conclusions from them, communicating those

conclusions, applying conclusions back to the original question,

and perhaps following up on new questions that arise… As an

instructional method, inquiry can occur along a continuum of

more to less structure. (p. 636-637)

This definition clearly supports the use of student questions, but allows

for more or less structure from teachers scaffolding students in developing

their inquiry skills. Thus the exact role of student questions is still debated in

the literature in general, but that students’ questions should play some role

during inquiry teaching is without dispute.

Likewise unclear is the role of teacher generated problems for

students to answer. Hackling (2005) clearly supported the use of problems as

essential to distinguishing open investigations, a form of inquiry. DeBoer

(2004, p. 20) gives a general definition of inquiry as “…a broad array of

approaches that has as its most general characteristic a problem to be

solved or a question to be answered.” That problems form a part of inquiry is

29

clear, but whether those are student or teacher generated problems is

unclear. The literature also seems to assume that questions and problems

are synonymous, so while the NRC (2000) is speaking of students selecting

from among questions it appears the teacher has selected the problem to be

pursued, and student are selecting the exact question to be answered within

that context.

Another quality of inquiry teaching whose status in education remains

unclear is that of student selection of the topic. Fleer and Hardy (2001)

advocate student selection of topic as a potential aspect of the interactive

method, which shares many similarities with an inquiry approach. However,

Wilson and Wing Jan (2003) clearly discouraged student selection of topics,

while encouraging student selection of questions, for pedagogical reasons

such as teacher familiarity with school requirements and student learning

needs and abilities.

One final issue regards the students’ role in interpreting data and

making conclusion from the results of their experiments. Eastwell (2008)

provides the following definition: “An inquiry activity is one that requires

students to answer a scientific question by analysing raw, empirical data

themselves” (p.31). The strength of this definition is that it relates to specific

instructional activities. Although it seems most definitions make use of

students’ analysis of data, even the NRC allows for a form of inquiry that

instructs students on analysing data, which Eastwell would see as no longer

an inquiry activity. On the other hand, to stipulate that inquiry requires raw

data may be a standard most other theoretical models do not apply. In

contrast to the NRC of America (2000), the Australian National curriculum

framing documents clearly advocate interpreting evidence as part of essential

science inquiry skills for students at all levels of inquiry (National Curriculum

Board, 2009), as does Hackling (2005). In short, some models and definitions

of inquiry teaching require that students conclude on data as a necessary

feature of inquiry teaching (Eastwell 2008, Hacking 2005), while others do

not (NRC 2000). Again, this is a confusing situation for teachers and teacher

educators.

30

To summarise, it appears that the defining quality of inquiry teaching is

that it is related in some way to questions, though whether those are

questions of the teachers, the students, or both depends on the definition.

Secondly, inquiry teaching is in some way related to inquiry as it is practiced

by scientists in the community (Section 2.2), but again, there is no strict

definition on how this comes about. These issues are highlighted for

discussion, rather than coming to a strict definition of inquiry teaching for

comparison in this study. Given the multitude of definitions of inquiry and

inquiry teaching in the teacher education literature revealed by this brief

overview, it is perhaps little wonder that teachers themselves are faced with

“confusion over the meaning of inquiry in the classroom” (Welch et al., 1981,

p. 40).

This section highlighted issues with defining inquiry teaching for

teachers. This study, however, has not been performed to compare teachers

to theoretical standards, but to source from teachers their actual conceptions

that inform their thinking about inquiry teaching. Thus, while further qualities

such as the role of the teacher, assessment, and even school wide policies

no doubt inform teacher thinking regarding this important aspect of teacher

knowledge, they are not further pursued here.

This section has highlighted some of the issues with defining inquiry

teaching. The literature also contains examples of attempts to scaffold

teacher understanding of inquiry teaching in order to facilitate implementation

in their classroom, as presented in the next section.

2.3.4 Theoretical models of inquiry teaching

Many attempts have been made in the literature to develop models to

scaffold inquiry teaching so as to help teachers implement it in their

classroom. Two popular models are presented here as general examples,

drawn from the work of Martin-Hansen (2002) and Bybee (2001).

The first model to be discussed is that of Martin-Hansen (2002). To

begin with, Martin-Hansen discusses several theoretical constructions of

inquiry teaching, given in Table 2.2, and attempts to generate instructional

strategies based on her understanding of inquiry teaching. This table is given

31

as an example of the many attempts based to varying degrees on NRC to

structure inquiry teaching on a continuum from more to less student

ownership, more being full and less being structured (see also: Bell,

Smetana, & Binns, 2005; Colburn, 1997; Crawford, 2007).

Table 2.2

Forms of inquiry teaching by Martin-Hansen (2002)

Type of inquiry teaching

Definition

Open or Full … a student centred approach that begins with student questions, followed by the student (or groups of students) designing and conducting an investigation or experiment and communicating results.

Coupled … combines a guided-inquiry investigation with an open-inquiry investigation.

Guided … teacher helps students develop inquiry investigations in the classroom. Usually, the teacher chooses the question for investigation. Students … may then assist the teacher in deciding how to proceed with the investigation.

Structured … sometimes referred to as directed inquiry, is a guided inquiry mainly directed by the teacher. Typically, this results in a cookbook lesson in which students follow teacher directions to come up with a specific end point or product.

Some parallels may be drawn between the Martin-Hansen (2002)

types and the NRC definition given in Table 2.1 (pg. 31). Indeed, Table 2.2

may be seen as an attempt to label the columns of Table 2.1 from left to right

in that they represent less to more teacher direction. Both tables are

organised in terms of the teacher/student – centred dichotomy. However,

while the NRC definition of inquiry teaching is designed to focus on the

definition of inquiry, Martin-Hansen (2002) focuses on various teacher

approaches to inquiry teaching.

Other authors differ in their acceptance of the Martin-Hansen system.

Eastwell (2007), based on his definition given previously, strongly advocated

that students are either answering scientific questions by analysing raw data

for themselves, or they are not doing inquiry. Thus, whether the experience

counts as an inquiry or not had nothing to do with it being open, guided or

structured. However, the degree of teacher guidance may be termed

structured, guided, or open. This kind of thinking is supported by Settlage

(2007) who suggested teacher educators stop using terms such as open

inquiry altogether. However his position is not supported by others who argue

32

against Settlage’s position (Johnston, 2008). For this study the debate is left

open, yet it is highlighted here in order to give greater context to the results

section, and to illustrate the confusing situation for teachers regarding the

nature and role of inquiry teaching in schools.

5E’s model of inquiry instruction

The second popular model of inquiry teaching is the 5E’s Model

(Bybee, 2001), presented in Table 2.3. Unlike the two previous models,

inquiry teaching is not constructed along a continuum of more or less teacher

direction but is presented as an instructional sequence for teachers to follow

in order to make a teaching experience inquiry teaching. As such, it is not a

theory of inquiry teaching, but an example of an approach to inquiry teaching.

The 5E’s instructional model is based on the work of learning cycles

(Lawson, 2002), dating back to Atkin and Karplus (1962). The Learning cycle

was a three phase teaching strategy that began with students freely exploring

science content and materials, being exposed to new ideas during concept

introduction, and finally testing and consolidating their understanding during

concept application. Various other models of the learning cycles have

developed over time, with different phase names and various added phases

(Lindgren & Bleicher, 2005). The learning model presented here uses the

5E’s teaching strategy proposed by Bybee (2001) and others through their

work at the US Biological Science Curriculum Study authority.

Many contemporary teaching strategies and programs are based on or

inspired by the 5E’s model (Withee & Lindell, 2006), such as the Primary

Connections professional development program which is becoming more

prevalent and is flagged to be heavily influential in the Australian National

curriculum (Hackling, Peers, & Prain, 2007). The 5E’s model has the benefit

of pointing out the importance of the role of the teacher in exposing students

to the ideas and theories of the scientific community, which Lunetta, Hofstein

and Clough (2007) felt was not explicitly described in many studies.

However, the 5E’s model is not to be confused with inquiry itself. Eastwell

(2007) points out that only the explore, explain and elaborate phases can be

considered as inquiry.

33

Table 2.3

The 5E’s instructional model by Bybee, 2001.

Stage Description Engage In the stage Engage, the students first encounter and identify the

instructional task. Here they make connections between past and present learning experiences, lay the organizational ground work for the activities ahead and stimulate their involvement in the anticipation of these activities.

Explore In the Exploration stage the students have the opportunity to get directly involved with phenomena and materials. Involving themselves in these activities they develop a grounding of experience with the phenomenon. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and guiding the students' focus. The students' inquiry process drives the instruction during an exploration.

Explain The third stage, Explain, is the point at which the learner begins to put the abstract experience through which she/he has gone/into a communicable form. Language provides motivation for sequencing events into a logical format. … Explanations from the facilitator can provide names that correspond to historical and standard language, for student findings and events. Created works such as writing, drawing, video, or tape recordings are communications that provide recorded evidence of the learner's development, progress and growth.

Elaborate In stage four, Elaborate, the students expand on the concepts they have learned, make connections to other related concepts, and apply their understandings to the world around them. … These connections often lead to further inquiry and new understandings.

Evaluate Evaluate, the fifth "E", is an on-going diagnostic process that allows the teacher to determine if the learner has attained understanding of concepts and knowledge. Evaluation and assessment can occur at all points along the continuum of the instructional process. … if a teacher perceives clear evidence of misconception, then he/she can revisit the concept to enhance clearer understanding. If the students show profound interest in a branching direction of inquiry, the teacher can consider refocusing the investigation to take advantage of this high level of interest.

In conclusion, the theoretical models of inquiry teaching given as

examples here play an important role in education by attempting to scaffold

teachers’ understandings of a complex and at times novel addition to the

science curriculum. Both Bybee (2001) and Martin-Hansen (2002) advocated

the importance of student questions as being part of what it means to pursue

inquiry in the classroom, and place the teacher in a facilitator role rather than

transmitter of knowledge. Still, to others such attempts to define inquiry

teaching are unnecessarily complicated. For example, Yager (2007) argued

for simplifying the definition of inquiry teaching by stating that inquiry is

“…‘questioning in order to get information.’ I prefer to leave it at that!” (p.108).

34

This section has briefly overviewed a few of the most significant

publications with regards to theoretical models of inquiry teaching, which will

be revisited during the discussion section of this thesis. In order to situate

inquiry teaching within the area of contemporary models of education, the

issues that teachers and other stakeholders experience using inquiry

teaching in the primary science education classroom are now considered.

2.3.5 Contemporary issues regarding inquiry teaching

Reports of teacher difficulties regarding the implementation of inquiry

teaching, as distinct from understanding inquiry teaching, are abundant in the

literature. A brief review of the literature by Brown et al. (2006, p. 786)

reported “logistical constraints, lack of administrative support, teacher

knowledge, and teacher perception of students” as some of the difficulties

teachers face. Other teacher concerns also include that student questions

will not be related to the curriculum (Fleer & Hardy, 2001), and that teachers

are uncomfortable with prioritising student questions (Oliveira, 2010; Pierce,

2001). Teachers also report concerns over losing control of their classes

during the more open ended investigations of inquiry learning (Asay & Orgill,

2010; Windschitl, 2004), confusion over how to deal with not giving students

the answers (Furtak, 2006), the return to transmissive approaches for

beginning teachers (Gilbert, 2009), and that inquiry teaching experiences are

too time consuming to allow for content coverage (Wallace & Kang, 2004).

Researchers also note that few teachers have had actual personal

experience doing inquiry based learning themselves, and may be falling back

on familiar teaching techniques such as the transmissive approach (Colburn,

1997; National Research Council of America, 1996). This may result in

reluctance on the part of teachers to implement inquiry teaching.

Furthermore, it may also indicate a measure of teacher misunderstanding of

the complex and diverse nature of inquiry teaching.

Although these difficulties persist, and many studies have been

undertaken to address each difficulty, this study seeks not to correct but to

understand. The focus herein is on understanding teacher conceptions of

inquiry teaching, not the challenges of implementation.

35

2.3.6 Studies to support inquiry teaching effectiveness

In spite of the challenges of inquiry teaching, it is promoted as having

several quality outcomes for students and teachers. These include: (a)

improving preservice teachers’ views regarding how science is taught and

learned that are more in line with constructivist ideals (Sanger, 2007); (b)

helping students develop accurate scientific knowledge and skills (Fleer &

Hardy, 2001; Skamp, 2004; Wynne et al., 2003); (c) increasing student

understanding of science (Hakkarainen, 2003); (d) developing content

knowledge in students (Sandoval, 2005); (e) developing student

understanding of the nature of science (Bianchini & Colburn, 2000; Schwartz

& Crawford, 2004); and (f) providing valuable hands-on learning experiences

and contextualised language experiences in the context of ESL (English as a

second language) learners, (Lee et al., 2004). Inquiry has also been found to

have emotive benefits, such as improving students’ attitudes towards science

(Brown, 2000; Cavallo & Laubach, 2001), improving students’ motivation

(Windschitl, 2004), and attracting and maintaining students’ interest (Justice

et al., 2009).

Perhaps most importantly, according to a range of researchers, inquiry

teaching has much to contribute to the development of scientifically literate

citizens for the modern knowledge economy (Goodrum et al., 2001; Harwood

et al., 2006; Seroussi, 2005). In many ways, the advantages in the previous

paragraph can be summarised as the means to the end in helping students

to develop scientific literacy. Governments worldwide have recognised

scientific literacy as a high priority for their citizens. Science education today

aspires to do more than train the next generation of scientists; it aims to

prepare all citizens of the community to participate fully in a knowledge driven

society (Fensham & Harlen, 1999). Goodrum et al. (2001) argue for the

importance of scientific literacy as follows:

The purpose of science education is to develop scientific

literacy which is a high priority for all citizens, helping them to

be interested in, and understand the world around them, to

engage in the discourses of and about science, to be sceptical

and questioning of claims made by others about scientific

matters, to be able to identify questions and draw evidence-

36

based conclusions, and to make informed decisions about the

environment and their own health and well-being. (p.ix)

These goals associated with the development of scientific literacy are

considered priorities for many educational institutions internationally (O'Niell

& Pollman, 2004). This also supports the importance of the current study as a

contributor to our understanding of teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching,

and thus, the students’ experience of science in the classroom.

Although inquiry teaching has a long and often problematic history in

science education, these outcomes clearly indicate that inquiry teaching still

holds great promise which is yet to be fully realised. Describing teachers’

ways of experiencing inquiry teaching will help inform educational theory and

policy, which may be used to help teacher education programs deliver

greater outcomes in terms of inquiry teaching, scientific literacy, and student

understanding of the nature of science.

2.4 Ways of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education

Having explored the problematic definition of inquiry teaching in

previous sections, this section now explores the literature regarding teachers’

conceptions, or ways of experiencing, inquiry teaching in science education.

First, in order to interrogate the phenomenon of teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching specifically, it is necessary to consider conceptions of

teaching in general. Conceptions of teaching in general are addressed in

Section 2.4.1 as a background to understanding conceptions of inquiry

teaching specifically (Section 2.4.2). Finally, the relationship between

conceptions and practice is clarified (2.4.3) in order to provide a final

justification for the use of phenomenography in this study.

It is important to note that this thesis considers the literature on beliefs

of teaching as separate but related to literature on conceptions of teaching.

Conceptions are seen as a way of experiencing a phenomenon (Marton &

Booth, 1997), while beliefs are attitudes which guide behaviour (Beck,

Czerniak, & Lumpe, 2000). Conceptions can change even for the same

individual in different circumstances as they perceive variation in the ways of

experiencing a phenomenon (Åkerlind, Bowden, & Green, 2005). Beliefs, on

the other hand, are known to be resistant to change (Entwistle et al., 2000).

37

Beliefs hold a more emotive weighting whereas conceptions are more

cognitive in orientation (Entwistle et al., 2000). Finally, beliefs tend to be of a

highly individualistic nature in that there can be as many beliefs about a

phenomenon as there are individuals who perceive it – while

phenomenography strives to find grouped, not individual, descriptions

(Åkerlind, 2005a). In essence, the term conception as used in this thesis is

being interpreted from the standpoint of phenomenography. Thus, the data

gathering and analysis of this study focuses on teacher conceptions of

inquiry teaching as viewed through a phenomenographic lens.

No phenomenographic studies of primary teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching have been found. Indeed, while there has been a great deal

of research investigating teachers’ conception of teaching (Boulton-Lewis et

al., 2001; Kember, 1998; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992), and teacher

conceptions of science teaching (Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Skamp & Mueller,

2001; Tsai, 2002), the literature regarding teachers’ conceptions of teaching

science through inquiry is scant (Crawford, 2007; Harwood et al., 2006;

Withee & Lindell, 2006), and in the context of primary teaching, entirely

absent. A rigorous search of the literature failed to locate any articles

regarding primary school teachers’ conceptions or ways of experiencing

inquiry teaching in science education. This study addresses this gap,

especially given the current importance of inquiry learning in science

education.

2.4.1 Conceptions of teaching in general

Conceptions of teaching in general are expected to inform teacher

thinking with regards to their experiences and implementation of the specific

teaching approach known as inquiry teaching. This thesis begins with the

literature review provided by Kember in the late 90s (Kember, 1998), and

provides a very brief overview of some related literature regarding

conceptions of teaching in general in order to help situate the study in the

contemporary field and provide a framework for the later interpretation of

results.

This review is necessarily brief because this study focuses on a

specific approach to teaching, namely inquiry teaching, and not on teachers’

38

conceptions of teaching in general, both of which have been the focus of

several studies in recent years (Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008). Also,

the majority of the studies here presented, even those with a

phenomenographic methodology, were published pre Learning and

awareness (Marton & Booth, 1997). In these studies the word conception

may be taken to mean belief as the words have been defined in this study

(see introduction to Section 2.4).

One of the earliest attempts to consolidate research on teacher

conceptions of teaching is the literature review by Kember (1998). He

reviewed 14 studies into conceptions (or rather, beliefs) of teaching held by

tertiary educators. These studies were performed between 1983 and 1996,

predominantly between 1992 and 1994, with approximately half making use

of phenomenography as a research approach.

The Kember (1998) study derived five categories, called conceptions,

of teaching ranging from teacher-centred to student-centred. These were

imparting information, transmitting structured knowledge, student-teacher

interaction, facilitating understanding and conceptual change/intellectual

development. The conceptions also varied according to the degree to which

teaching encourages learners to be actively engaged in the process of

constructing knowledge as opposed to teaching that focuses on the delivery

of content. In a sense, the Kember study paralleled the contrast between

transmissive approaches to teaching and approaches to teaching based on

social constructivist learning theory described in Section 2.1.

The five conceptions were then presented under a two level category

scheme. The first two conceptions were presented under teacher-

centred/content-oriented conceptions and the last two under student-

centred/learning-oriented conceptions, with the student-teacher

interaction/apprenticeship conception appearing mid way between the two

groups. Kember (1998) also speculated that his categorisation scheme

represented a developmental hierarchy, and that teachers could progress

from more teacher-centred approaches to more student-centred ones.

The Kember (1998) study serves as an effective foundation from

which to discuss and compare later studies of teacher conceptions of

teaching. The following Table 9 compares 11 studies and their categorisation

39

schemes. None of the studies here cited are set in primary schools. Also,

most studies were completed in the previous decade, indicating that research

has moved on to more specific areas, such as implementation of the teaching

approaches based on previous research or justifying various approaches in

specific content areas, such as medicine (Pratt et al., 2001).

As can be seen from Table 2.4, the studies here cited can be grouped

into five general categories which structure the far left column: (a)

transmission of content from teacher to student; (b) student centred

transmission, or transmitting content in a way that makes it easy to “catch”;

(c) facilitating learning, or designing learning experiences around helping

students to make personal meaning of content; (d) conceptual change, or

helping students to change their own understanding through conceptual

change approaches; and (e) student transformation, or helping students to

become better people through constructing their own understandings. These

five categories develop from being entirely teacher and content focussed (a),

to having a more broad and holistic conception of education as being student

focused and having the potential to benefit society as a whole (e). The first

two categories are seen as teacher-centred and the remaining three are

more student-centred.

However, as mentioned previously, the current study concern

conceptions of inquiry teaching specifically, and not on conceptions of

teaching in general. Also, one of the potential limitations of many of the

earlier studies is the lack of any serious reflection on the qualities that define

the variation between the categories, apart from the student/teacher-centred

dichotomy. Such a lack of clarity makes it difficult at times to see the richness

in qualitative differences between categories. The next section will give more

detailed and contemporary analysis of the dimensions of variation that make

up the differences between conceptions of learning in general.

40

Table 2.4

Researcher generated comparison of teacher conceptions of teaching studies.

Fox, 1983

Martin and Balla, 1991

Duffy, 1992

Samuel-owicz and Bain, 1992

Gow and Kember, 1993

Prosser et al, 1994

Murray and MacDonald, 1997

Kember, 1998

Brownlee, 2001

Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001

Åkerlind, 2004

Category Sub cate-gories

Transmission Trans-mission

Teacher initiated learning with focus on content

Presenting info (not concerned with prior learning)

Direct instruct-ion

Imparting information

Knowledge trans-mission.

Category a and b : based on concepts in the syllabus or based on teachers’ own knowledge structures

Impart knowledge

Imparting information

Presenting information

Trans-mission of content/skills,

Organ-ised trans-mission

Organised content for student access.

Trans-mitting structured knowledge

Trans-mitting information from teacher to student

Teacher trans-mission focused experience

41

Fox, 1983


Duffy, 1992



Prosser et al, 1994


Kember, 1998

Brownlee, 2001


Åkerlind, 2004

Category Sub cate-gories

Student centred transmission

Stud-ent teacher relation-ship

Teacher initiated learning with focus on student change

Teacher–student relations focused experience

Apprentice-ship

Trans-mitting knowledge (develop competence)

Student/teacher interaction

Illustrating the application of theory to practice

Focus on students achieving the teacher’s level of skill and under-standing.

Motiv-ate

Enthuse, encourage, motivate students

Student engage-ment focused experience’

Facilitating learning

Facili-tate learn-ing

Encourage active learning

Facilitating under-standing by teacher efforts

Learning facilitation

Categories c and d : Student acquisition of the above

Facilitate student learning

Facilitating understanding

42

Fox, 1983


Duffy, 1992



Prosser et al, 1994


Kember, 1998

Brownlee, 2001


Åkerlind, 2004

Category Sub-categry

Conceptual change

Conce-ptual change

Student initiated learning with focus on content

Changing students conceptions of the world (not just gaining knowledge)

Category e: Teacher helps students develop their own con-ceptions

Conceptual change

Developing concepts and principles through interaction with students

Teacher & student working together to construct personal meaning.

Developing the capacity in students to be experts,

Exploring [with students] ways of understanding from particular perspective

43

Fox, 1983


Duffy, 1992



Prosser et al, 1994


Kember, 1998

Brownlee, 2001


Åkerlind, 2004

Category Sub catery

Student Transform-ation

Auton-omous student learner

Student initiated – learning with student change

Supporting student learning – conceptual change, student is autonomous and responsible

Category f: Helping student develop world views.

Support students

Bringing about conceptual change in students

Teacher organising the situation to provide the stimulus and then apparently fading into the back-ground

Student learning focused experience

Change the student/change the world

Transformative

Holistic

Reference:

(Fox, 1983)

(Martin & Balla, 1991)

(Duffy, 1992)

(Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992)

(Gow & Kember, 1993)

(Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994)

(Murray & MacDonald, 1997)

(Kember, 1998)

(Brownlee, 2001)

(Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001)

(Åkerlind, 2004)

44

Conception studies that explore dimensions of variation

The dimensions of variation refer to the qualities or attributes of the

categories that differ between each, helping to delimit each category from the

others. For example, one such dimension might include the role of the

teacher; are they the provider of knowledge or a facilitator of learning.

Kember (1997) provided the following five, which are noticeably similar to

many dimensions of variation found in the current study (see Section 5.1).

They were (a) teacher (role of the teacher as presenter of information or

facilitator of learning); (b) teaching (the act of teaching, from transfer of

information to development of persons and conceptions); (c) student (role of

the student from passive recipient to lecturer responsible for student

development); (d) content (from being defined by the curriculum to

constructed by students); (e) knowledge (source of knowledge, from being

possessed by lecturer to socially constructed). Some of the other dimensions

that may be discernable across the five Kember (1998) categories of

description could have included; role of the student/teacher relationship, role

of materials, purpose of assessment, and the impact teaching has on

students’ lives and society similar to breadth of impact aspect discussed in

Åkerlind (2004).

Other studies into teacher conceptions of teaching have also

attempted to explicitly describe the qualities that make up variation between

categories in their categorisation schemes. These qualities are called

dimensions of variation in most phenomenographic studies published after

the book Learning and Awareness by Marton and Booth (1997).

Åkerlind (2004), in a phenomenographic study of 20 research-

oriented university lecturers, derived four conceptions of teaching from four

dimensions of variation. The four conceptions of ways of experiencing being

a teacher were: (a) teacher transmission focused experience; (b) teacher–

student relations focused experience; (c) student engagement focused

experience; and (d) student learning focused experience. As a study, the

research went to great lengths to define the dimensions of variation and to

elaborate on how each dimension contributed to each conception. The four

dimensions were role of student, benefit to the student, benefits teachers’

45

find in teaching, and the breadth of benefit to the community at large. The

first two dimensions of variation were the role of the student, such as being a

passive or active learner, and the benefit to the student in the teaching-

learning process. The study made use of two dimensions of variation not

previously considered in the teaching literature (Åkerlind, 2004), the benefits

teachers find in teaching, and the breadth of benefit. The breadth of benefit

referred to the benefits as perceived by teachers from inquiry teaching,

running from students benefiting in the short term, to both student and

teacher benefiting, to society as a whole eventually benefiting from the

instruction. Benefits teachers find in teaching referred to the personal

benefits teachers found in teaching, such as personal growth or content

knowledge understanding. Interestingly, unlike the majority of other studies

into teacher conceptions of teaching, the role of the teacher is not explicitly

considered as a quality of variation, indicating it may not be necessary, or

perhaps that such an aspect is too broad to be useful and is better employed

broken down into more specific teacher behaviours such as benefit to

teacher and breadth of benefit.

Although Kember (1998) suggested that the high degree of consensus

among studies of teachers’ conceptions indicated the futility of further

research in this area, Åkerlind (2004) cited the derivation of two entirely new

dimensions of variation in her study as indicating further research is indeed

warranted. This conclusion supports the decision within this study to use

phenomenographic analysis to study the variation among teacher

experiences, as a study based on conceptions of inquiry teaching will serve

to highlight previously unilluminated dimensions of variation in teacher

conceptions. Also, the derivation of any further dimensions of variation which

will be used to expand our theoretical understanding of teachers’ conceptions

of teaching, would indicate that more research is warranted in this area (see

Section 5.5.2).

Another study into teacher conceptions which made use of dimensions

of variation was Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) who qualitatively derived five

conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. They were: (a) Imparting

information; (b) Transmitting knowledge, or the development of competence

in students; (c) Facilitating student understanding through teacher efforts; (d)

46

Changing students conceptions of the world as opposed to simply gaining

knowledge; and (e) Supporting student learning through conceptual change

where the student becomes autonomous and responsible. This

categorisation scheme was not constructed as hierarchical, but ordered. This

means that the higher level conceptions are not inclusive of the lower level

conceptions of transmitting information. This conclusion is to be contrasted

with other studies (Åkerlind, 2004; Bruce & Gerber, 1995; Porlán & Pozo,

2004) which reported hierarchical conceptions of teaching.

Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) derived their conceptions from five

dimensions of variation which they deemed could be either student- or

teacher-centred. The qualities which helped define variation among

categories were (a) teachers’ and students’ roles, (b) theory of learning, (c)

students current understanding and the role of assessing such, (d) ownership

of knowledge, such as who has a right to own and dispense knowledge, and

(e) the relationship between theory and practice in helping students see that

relationship. They suggested that putting theory into practice, while often

seen as a student-centred act, may actually be part of a teacher-centred

transmission conception of teacher and student roles (quality a).

In other research, Prosser et al. (1994), derived a matrix of six

conceptions of teaching, where the role of the teacher may be seen as

moving from less informed to more informed approaches that employed

teaching approaches based on constructivist learning theory. The first four

conceptions were: (a) transmitting concepts of the syllabus; (b) transmitting

the teachers’ knowledge; (c) helping students acquire concepts of the

syllabus; and (d) teaching as helping students acquire the teachers’

knowledge. Teachers holding these four initial conceptions were seen as

having a teacher-centred transmitting information conception. The final two

conceptions were seen as being student-centred. These were: (e) helping

students develop conceptions; and (f) helping students change conceptions.

Making use of phenomenographic language, Prosser et al. (1994)

defined their dimensions of variation in terms of what they labelled structural

and referential components. Their four structural components which were

used to build up and define the categories of descriptions were; information

transmission, helping students acquire concepts, helping students develop

47

conceptions, and helping students change conceptions. Their referential

components depend on the source or focus of knowledge; whether it is the

syllabus, the teacher, or the student. However, it appears that the authors

were using a nonstandard definition of structural and referential components

in light of contemporary views of variation theory (Section 3.1.4). What they

might have more accurately been referring to were dimensions of variation

(role of the teacher and source of course content knowledge), each with four

and three levels respectively, and the referential component referring to the

global meaning of each of the six categories of description.

It may be noted that there is a lack of consensus among formal

attempt to organise the dimensions of variation that make up teacher

conceptions. The dimensions of variation are the main way that the

differences between the categories are expressed. Samuelowicz and Bain

(1992) felt that what they termed the aspects of variation may be more lasting

than the various categorisation schemes derived from them– a comment

which seems reasonable considering the prevalence of the role of teacher as

defining the categories in most if not all studies (e.g., Åkerlind, 2004; Fox,

1983; Kember, 1998; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). However, two difficulties

exist. First, unfortunately many past studies neither explicitly detail the

dimensions of variation that they use to derive their categories. Second, a

literature review has yet to be attempted that compares the dimensions of

variation that make up the teacher conceptions of teaching literature. In terms

of the first difficulty, this study will contribute to the literature by explicitly

dealing with the qualities that define the categories, as do many modern

studies of teacher conceptions.

A brief comparison of several dimensions of variation as they appear

across the studies mentioned herein will now be undertaken. Table 2.5

summarises the dimensions of variation as found in the four main studies

cited in this section.

As is illustrated in Table 2.5, several dimensions of variation appear

more commonly in the literature; for example, the role of the teacher is fairly

ubiquitous, and while some studies may talk about the role of the student

(e.g., Åkerlind, 2004), it seems to be a role the teacher has assigned them.

The role of the teacher is commonly measured against a teacher/student-

48

centred continuum, with greater status given to student-centred approaches.

Another important dimension of variation regards the source of knowledge,

that is, whether accurate knowledge is given by the teacher, the syllabus, or

must be created by the student for themselves (Prosser et al., 1994;

Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). In some apprenticeship categories, the source

of knowledge is to emulate the teacher themselves (Kember, 1998). Again,

the influence of the student/teacher continuum can be seen here from

teacher-centred transmission of knowledge to a constructivist informed

student generation of understanding. In various studies the source of

knowledge may be referred to as the ownership of knowledge (Samuelowicz

& Bain, 1992), source of knowledge (Prosser et al., 1994), or role of

knowledge (Kember, 1998).

Table 2.5

Summary of dimensions of variation in studies cited.

Dimension of variation

Kember (1997)

Samuelowicz and Bain (1992)

Prosser et al. (1994) - edited

Åkerlind (2004)

Teacher role (a) Teacher role

(a) teachers’ and students’ roles,

Role of the teacher

Benefits teachers’ find in teaching.

Student role (c) Student role

Role of student

Role of learning

(b) theory of learning,

Role of teaching

(b) Act of teaching

(e) The relationship between theory and practice.

Benefit to the student Breadth of benefit

Role of content

(d) Content (c) students understanding

Source of knowledge

(e) role of knowledge

(d) ownership of knowledge

Source of curriculum content

Other potential dimensions of variation are mentioned, such as the

role of students’ prior learning, the role of assessment, role of materials, role

of the real world (such as is used to define apprenticeship categories), and

the role of learning. The benefit to teachers is mentioned in several studies,

49

at times explicitly (Åkerlind, 2004), as well as the benefit to students

(Åkerlind, 2004). No one quality is explicitly mentioned in all studies, though

the role of the teacher is commonly included. Also, it does not appear that

any one quality is given equal weighting, or equivalent definition, in studies

that discuss the same dimension. The situation is further confused when

there is no attempt made to distinguish between quality of variation and

levels of those qualities of variation. For example, Prosser et al. (1994) speak

of four structural components when they appear to be referring to one quality

of variation – the teachers’ role.

There is generally a lack of research which rigorously defines the

dimensions of variation that make up conceptions of teaching. Also, Åkerlind

(2004) indicated that more research is required in this area since more

dimensions of variation might yet remain to be uncovered. This thesis will

contribute to the understanding of the dimensions of variation that make up

teachers’ conceptions of teaching, in the specific context of teaching science

through inquiry in primary schools.

2.4.2 Conceptions of inquiry teaching in science education

There has been no research with primary school teachers which has

used a phenomenographic approach to investigate teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching. Three studies are cited in this section as being closely

related to this topic, however, the gap still remains in the literature.

One study briefly discussed high school teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching in science education, though it was not phenomenographic

in nature. Withee and Lindell (2006) in a preliminary study of high school

teacher educators at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, compared

five participant responses to 14 online questions regarding inquiry based

learning, the 5E’s method of instruction, and conceptual change teaching. In

terms of preservice teacher educators’ conceptions of inquiry teaching two

categories were developed: (a) inquiry as discovery, which included the

discovery of concepts in place of being told; and (b) inquiry as

accommodation which discussed the role of conceptual change teaching in

inquiry teaching. In terms of the summary of the literature into teachers

conceptions of teaching (see Table 2.4), the first category might relate to

50

student-centred transmission, and the second category to conceptual change

conceptions of teaching. It is interesting to note that this means that no

matter how the Withee and Lindell (2006) results map on to the present

study, they successfully relate to the teacher/student-centred continuum in

that the first category appears teacher-centred, and the second category

student-centred. The categories are discussed in little more detail than that

which is reported here, although it is to be noted that their study was

preliminary and no further research has been reported from these early

findings.

Another high school study was conducted by Crawford (2007),

however, it focused on beliefs and not conceptions (see introduction to

Section 2.4). This study examined the knowledge, beliefs and efforts of five

prospective teachers as they attempted to use inquiry teaching during a one-

year high school fieldwork experience. Data sources included interviews, field

notes, and student work collected while the prospective teachers engaged in

learning how to teach science. Again, it was found that teaching strategies

ranged the full spectrum of teacher/student-centred approaches. In support

of the current study, the Crawford study concluded that the most critical

factor in determining teacher intention and ability to use inquiry teaching was

their complex set of personal understandings of teaching and of science

itself. As with many other studies on teacher beliefs, Crawford (2007) did not

try to group understandings against anything other than the teacher/student-

centred dichotomy, again developing as many categories as there were

participants. The study of conceptions in a phenomenographic sense allows

the data to be grouped into categories, which is provided as one of the

justifications for this study.

Finally, the Harwood et al. study (2006) developed a blended

qualitative/quantitative instrument (a card sorting activity) for measuring

teacher beliefs of inquiry instruction. This instrument is called the Inquiry

Teaching Beliefs (ITB) instrument, which was developed from researcher

generated statements of what was or wasn’t inquiry based instruction. While

this is a suitable measure for inquiry beliefs against the theoretical

perspective of the researchers, it was not able to generate an understanding

of the teachers’ beliefs from the teachers’ perspective, let alone describe the

51

variation in teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, while this study

claimed to be based on a phenomenographic theoretical foundation, it does

not make use of phenomenographic artefacts such as an outcome space,

variation theory, or structure of awareness (see Chapter 3).

Conclusion to section 2.4.2

The lack of phenomenographic studies on primary school teachers’

conceptions of inquiry teaching clearly indicates the importance of the current

study addressing this gap in the literature. This literature review has reported

a lack of research which investigates primary school teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching, as conceptions can influence approaches to teaching, and

thus, student outcomes. This review now investigates this relation between

teacher conceptions and their influence on teacher practice, which also

includes a justification for the focus on teacher conceptions as integral to

addressing the research problem.

2.4.3 Relationship between conceptions and practice

This section will now review literature regarding the influence of

teacher conceptions on teacher practice in order to provide a justification for

the use of conceptions in this study. Although a substantial body of research

argues that teacher conceptions of teaching have a clear and important

influence on teaching practices, other studies have cast doubt on the nature

and quality of this relationship. This issue will be reviewed and the extent or

limitations of these arguments explored. This section draws on many studies

from outside the phenomenographic literature, and thus makes use of the

term teachers’ conceptions in the broadest sense as informing behaviour as

well as a way of experiencing the world.

Many studies indicate that teacher practice is influenced by teacher

conceptions of teaching (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2001; Buelens, Clement, &

Clarebout, 2002; Ho, 2001; Koballa, Glynn, Upson, & Coleman, 2005; Porlán

& Pozo, 2004; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Watkins, Dahlin, & Ekholm, 2005).

For example, Trigwell and Prosser (1996) interviewed 24 physics and

chemistry lecturers in Australia. They found a clear relation between what

they called a conceptual change intention teaching conception and the

teachers’ enactment of student-focused strategies in the classroom. In

52

referring to conceptual change teaching, the authors were referring to a

teaching practice which focuses on “…their students’ world views or

conceptions of the subject matter rather than their own [teachers’]

conceptions or the texts’ concepts. They see their role as helping their

students develop their conceptions in terms of further elaboration and

extension” (Prosser et al., 1994, p. 224). Alternatively, an information transfer

intention was related to teacher-focused teaching strategies. The article

concluded that professional development programs that focus on teaching

strategies without regard to the conceptions underlying the strategies they

promote (and their relationship to teacher conceptions of teaching) were

unlikely to be successful.

At least two other studies also indicate that teachers’ conceptions of

teaching are influential in teacher practice and provide evidence to support

this claim. For example, Porlán and Pozo (2004) claimed that teaching

practices were influenced by teacher conceptions of teaching. Their study

was performed with over 260 teachers in Spain in an effort to describe their

conceptions about teaching and learning science, and found that most

teachers held to a transmissive/reception of knowledge view. Also, Watkins,

Dahlin, and Ekholm (2005), in their phenomenographic study into the effect

of changing student assessment on student learning practices, indicated that

changes in conceptions of teaching preceded changes in approaches to

teaching.

However, other researchers have found what they term a puzzling

dissonance between teachers’ espoused conceptions and actual practice.

Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) spoke of this dissonance as one of the

“mysteries of higher education” (p. 110). Murray and MacDonald (1997)

interviewed 39 lecturers from a business school in a new university in

England where the staff were predominantly engaged in teaching. The three

main areas assessed in the study were teaching attitudes, teaching and

assessment strategies, and teaching methods used (teaching aids used and

assessment methods employed). These researchers developed a survey

based on a qualitative analysis of responses of 13 staff members to a series

of questions about teaching. After preliminary trialling of the survey they

surveyed some 80 staff in the university. They derived four categories of

53

what they termed teacher conceptions of teaching: (a) imparting knowledge;

(b) enthusing, encouraging, and motivating students; (c) facilitating student

learning; and (d) supporting students. Rather than considering their

categories as discrete, the authors noted overlap, especially between

categories 2 and 3. The interesting finding of this study was that in comparing

conceptions of teaching with reports of actual lecture and tutorial use, the

only responses consistent with practice were from teachers who held what

were termed lower approaches to teaching; the four individuals who held the

enthusing, encouraging, and motivating students conceptions and all eight of

the individuals who held transmissive or imparting knowledge conceptions.

Murray and MacDonald (1997) speculated that this dissonance could

be explained by three assumptions. First, influence of context, in particular

the influence of large student numbers in tertiary courses might have

constrained lecturers to adopt transmissive approaches (Pratt et al., 2001)

even if they held student-centred conceptions of teaching. Second, drawing

on the work of Argyris and Schön (1974), they explain the results in terms of

“espoused theories” which are the public presentation of theories or beliefs,

and “theories-in-use” as undeclared values or strategies which influence

practice. In this analysis they meant that teachers drew upon one set of

beliefs in the practice of teaching, and another different set when responding

to questions about their practice. Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) spoke of a

similar concept when they talked about working and ideal conceptions of

teaching. Third, the cause of the dissonance may not be so much a

misunderstanding of teachers’ own practice, but related to teacher inability to

verbalise and operationalise their role. They concluded that more staff

development was needed to help teachers explain and describe their

practice.

More recent studies continue to find a dissonance between teacher

conceptions and teacher practice. For instance, Eley (2006) interviewed 29

university academics from the same institution in an explicit attempt to

identify issues teachers consider during planning. In essence he sought to

explore the influence of conceptions of teaching on teaching practice

regarding lesson preparation; however, he did not make use of

phenomenography as a research methodology. The study generated six

54

categories which are important to understand not as conceptions of teaching,

but as considerations teachers use regarding planning. These categories

were labelled category events rather than categories of description to

represent this important distinction. However, the study does contribute to

understanding the issue at hand– that of the relationship between teacher

conceptions and teacher practice. The study found that only five of the 29

teachers explicitly made use of some form of conception of teaching in their

preparation, and support the Murray and MacDonald (1997) speculation that

the cause of dissonance is that teachers draw on one set of beliefs to explain

their practice and another to engage in it. The study concluded that

“conceptions of teaching might not be directly and functionally involved in the

day-to-day detail of planning for teaching” (Eley, 2006, p. 207).

A study which used the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI)

(Prosser & Trigwell, 1999) reinforced the findings of Eley’s (2006) study.

Twenty-five of the 29 participants in the interview process responded to the

written survey designed to explore teaching intents and strategies relating to

a single unit of work. However, no results were found to be significant at the

p = .05 level, leading the authors to conclude once again that conceptions of

teaching might not “directly and functionally” be related to daily planning

events (Eley, 2006, p. 207). As this following quote emphasises (Argyris &

Schön, 1974):

… no matter how well crystallised or articulated a conception of

teaching might be, there need be no necessity that teachers

might yet evoke such conceptions during subsequent detailed

planning. Those later planning activities might still rely on

enacting specific teaching practices used in previous teaching

contexts seen to be similar. (p. 209)

This quotation reinforces the contention that conceptions of teaching

might not have a direct or even highly predictive influence on teacher

behaviour. It is therefore important to ask what role teacher conceptions play

in teacher practice in light of two contrasting bodies of literature. Richardson

(2005) argues for an integrated model, which sees approaches to teaching

as being drawn from two sources; conceptions of teaching (which are drawn

from disciplinary characteristics – the subject area for example), and

55

perceptions of the teaching environment which are again drawn from

situational factors. This model is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. Influences on teacher approaches to teaching (Richardson 2005).

The Richardson (2005) model indicates that actual teacher practice as

expressed as approaches to teaching is informed by two factors –

conceptions of teaching and perceptions of the teaching environment. The

first factor, conceptions of teaching, is constructed by the teacher from

personal experiences such as preservice training and represents, in part, the

verbalised expression of what it means for them to teach. The second factor

takes into account issues of context; the day-to-day exigencies of the

classroom such as class size, whole school curriculum pressures, as well as

other social factors such as the student-teacher relationship.

This influence of context has been noted by several studies as

important in this area (Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes,

2005; Richardson, 2005; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Context also refers to

variables such as the discipline context, that is, whether it is a maths or

science class. For example, Norton et al. (2005) found that conceptions of

teaching varied across disciplines, but that teachers from the same discipline

at different institutions had very similar conceptions of teaching. Issues of

context can also refer to the nature and quantity of the students’ level of

schooling. Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) found their most sophisticated

conception support student learning was only present at the postgraduate

level. Richardson (2005) summarised the literature in regards to the influence

of context and concluded that differences in conceptions of teaching due to

56

context are related to teachers’ underlying beliefs about the nature of the

subject discipline in which they work.

In the current study, the influence of subject discipline context is

considered to be relatively minor. Participants are all primary school

teachers, discussing their impressions of teaching in the discipline context of

science, and that through inquiry teaching as well. In this way, the context is

relatively narrow, being a single context for all participants compared to

studies which explore the influence of multiple contexts. Thus, a narrow

context may have actually benefited this current study; for example, Ajzen

(2005) in summarising literature on attitudes found that attitudes more closely

aligned to behaviours when the context was specific rather than general.

While the context of this study may be narrow, variation among participants

was deliberately broad in terms of such variables as years of teaching,

teacher gender, or past experience with science (see Section 3.2.1 for a full

explanation of participants’ background) in order to maximise variation in

teacher conceptions.

It may be inferred from this section that although teacher conceptions

of teaching have an influence on teacher practice, this practice is also

influenced in varying degrees by such things as the “working conceptions” of

teachers (see Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992, p. 110), the habits of practice that

have been invoked in the past (Richardson, 2005), and the exigencies of the

day to day classroom and learning environment (Keys & Bryan, 2001).

Therefore, the literature supports the argument that teacher conceptions

have an influence on teacher practice, but that they are not the only

influence.

Also, Eley (2006) argued that conceptions of teaching, as represented

in past studies, were reflections on experience derived from the open-ended

questions of the research studies which investigate the phenomenon.

Conceptions of teaching are not “… cognitive tools in the minds of teachers”

(p. 194) which have a detailed day-to-day influence on teacher planning and

actions. In this manner, conceptions of teaching may be considered as

reflections on experience, not schematas used in planning and teaching. In

this regard, conceptions of teaching can be seen as indicators of teacher

practice and not as the cause of teacher practice. This supports the Ericsson

57

and Simon’s (1980) caution that responses to the question What is teaching?

might not serve as direct recounts of teacher thinking, but rather the

outcomes of thinking and reasoning about teaching.

Finally, Porlán and Pozo (2004) demonstrated that teacher

conceptions of teaching which are not congruent with new methods and

practices may hinder the successful adoption of these new methods. This

argument supports Kember’s (1998) belief that conceptions of teaching have

an influence on the impact of professional development programs in that the

practices of professional development programs were not likely to be

adopted if they represented a conception of teaching that differed from the

teacher’s own conception. For example, the adoption of new teaching

approaches such as inquiry teaching may be filtered against the espoused

theories that teachers hold (Kember, 1998). Also, Prosser et al. (1994) found

that professional development programs that focused on teaching strategies

without regard to the conceptions’ underlying the strategies were unlikely to

be successful. Thus teacher conceptions serve as important indicators of the

practices teachers are likely to take up in professional development and

inservice programs.

Synthesis of literature

It is now possible to synthesise the two contrasting bodies of literature;

those which find dissonance in teacher conceptions and behaviour, and

those that find a clear influence for teacher conceptions. Conceptions of

teaching are seen as reflections on experience which are indicators of

teacher practice (Eley, 2006) at times closely aligned (e.g., Ho, 2001), and

other times not (e.g., Murray & MacDonald, 1997). However, the more

specific the context of the conception (i.e., teaching science through inquiry

rather than teaching science, or even teaching) the more they are closely

aligned to actual behaviour (Ajzen, 2005; Norton et al., 2005). Conceptions of

teaching serve important functions in that they: (a) serve as indicators of

teacher practice (Ericsson & Simon, 1980), and (b) moderate the uptake of

new and more effective teaching behaviours (Kember, 1998; Porlán & Pozo,

2004; Prosser et al., 1994).

58

Therefore, conceptions of teaching as a way of experiencing a

phenomenon are considered important but not perfect indicators of the

teaching practices teachers are currently undertaking, and powerful

indicators of the kinds of practices likely to be taken up and supported by the

teachers. These two indicators have important implications for teacher

education.

This section has explored the differences between conceptions and

belief studies, and found that belief studies, while having much to contribute,

are lacking in that they do not generate a parsimonious categorisation

scheme of participants’ conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, in reviewing the

literature on teachers’ conceptions of teaching, this study found that most if

not all studies contrast teacher conceptions on a teacher/student centred

continuum, reporting student–centred conceptions as more inclusive and

desirable. Finally, this study indicates that conceptions of teaching are

important influences in education, particularly as indicators of teacher

practice and moderators of the uptake of new practices.

2.5 Conclusion

Inquiry teaching has a long and challenging history in education.

However, there are no phenomenographic studies which investigate

practicing primary school teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching in

science, in spite of the contributions of a large body of literature dealing with

teacher conceptions of teaching, and teacher beliefs about inquiry teaching.

This study addresses this gap in the literature, and contributes to our

theoretical understanding of inquiry teaching in science through the

development of a parsimonious categorisation scheme highlighting the

qualitatively different ways in which primary school teacher’s experience

inquiry teaching.

It is possible that this study may have many other benefits, such as

adding to the literature regarding teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and

more specifically to teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Also, since

conceptions of inquiry teaching assist as indicators of teacher practice, this

study may be used to explore the impact of local and international initiatives

59

to promote inquiry learning in science education. Finally, by mapping teacher

conceptions this study is expected to provide an indication of which ideas are

likely to be more readily accepted by teachers during preservice, inservice

and professional development programs.

60

61

Chapter 3 Methodology and Research design

Inquiry teaching has much to contribute to the modern primary science

educators’ goals, yet its inclusion in the primary school curriculum is

problematic at best. One reason sought to explain the problematic

implementation of inquiry teaching is a failure on the part of teacher

educators and curriculum developers in understanding the conceptions, or

experiences, of primary science teachers engaged in inquiry teaching.

Phenomenography allows us to look at the problem though a different

methodological lens. This study contributes to our theoretical understanding

of inquiry teaching in primary science through describing the limited number

of qualitatively different ways in which primary school teachers’

conceptualise, or experience, inquiry teaching.

The previous chapter discussed the theoretical background to the

study. The following chapter describes and justifies the selection of

phenomenography as the appropriate research approach for this study

(overviewed in Section 3.1). This section begins with a discussion of some of

the most salient ontological and epistemological assumptions of the research

methodology (3.1.1), and situates the current phenomenographic research

within the paradigm of qualitative research (3.1.2). Variation in approaches to

phenomenography is dealt with in Section 3.1.3 in order to contextualise the

current research in the contemporary field of phenomenography. The

structure of awareness, a theoretical foundation for the data analysis, is

explicated in Section 3.1.4. This theoretical foundation for data analysis is

further expanded (3.1.5) with the definition and usage of conceptions,

categories of description, and the outcome space which are used to present

the results of the research. To complete this section, a necessary discussion

of the theoretical model of the nature of learning by Marton and Booth (1997)

is adapted to this study of conceptions of teaching (3.1.6).

The research design and methods used for the study are then

examined in Section 3.2 in order to establish the approach this particular

study must take. Participant data and selection procedures are discussed in

Section 3.2.1, followed by the detailed description of data collection

procedures as part of the demonstrative procedure to help establish the

62

validity and reliability of the study (3.2.2). Section 3.2.3 contains a record of

data analysis procedures, and issues of ethics are dealt with in detail in

Section 3.2.4. Research rigour, including the validity and reliability of the

study, are discussed in Section 3.2.5.

The chapter on methodology is concluded in Section 3.3, summarising

major methodological considerations for the research. An overview of

phenomenography now follows.

3.1 Overview of phenomenography

Phenomenography is a methodology developed by a research group

at the University of Goteborg in Sweden in the 1970s (Pang, 2003).

Phenomenography was described by Marton (1994) as:

… the empirical study of the limited number of qualitatively

different ways in which various phenomena in, and aspects of,

the world around us are experienced, conceptualized,

understood, perceived and apprehended. (p. 4424)

Phenomenography attempts to explore the different ways in which a

phenomenon is understood by a group of individuals. A phenomenographic

approach is credited with being able to assist in the description and

clarification of complex ideas without simplifying those ideas, and has the

potential to uncover new understandings of a phenomenon (Dean, 1994).

Thus phenomenography provides another strategy to develop theoretical

perspectives. Reports of any attempt to understand primary school teachers’

experiences of inquiry teaching in science education through a

phenomenographic lens are missing from the literature, and hence this study

has the potential to respond to this gap (Section 2.4). Thus findings from this

study will contribute to our theoretical understanding in this area and that

may inform teacher education programs.

3.1.1 Ontological and epistemological perspectives

This section discusses the ontological and epistemological framework

in which phenomenography, and thus this study, is placed. Svensson (1997)

argued that since phenomenography is a research tradition, it may be

underpinned by a range of epistemological and ontological beliefs. However,

63

it is considered important to articulate the researcher’s understandings and

beliefs for the purpose of substantiating the quality of the findings of the

study. Ontological assumptions are taken to refer to the nature of being

(Miles, 1999), whereas epistemology is given to refer to beliefs about

knowledge (Searle, 1995).

Marton (2000) believes that phenomenography rests on a non-

dualistic ontological perspective in which the aspect of reality under

consideration exists as a relationship between the person (the knower) and

an object (the phenomenon). Marton and Booth (1997) explained:

There is not a real world ‘out there’ and a subjective world ‘in

here’. The world is not constructed by the learner, nor is it

imposed upon her; it is constituted as an internal relation

between them. (p. 13)

From this perspective, phenomenography assumes that whether or

not the world has an existence in and of itself, it is only perceivable through

the lens of the knower. The object of study in phenomenography therefore is

the participants’ ways of experiencing the world, and not the world in and of

itself. Thus non-dualism is taken as the ontological perspective in this study.

In terms of epistemology a distinction is also made in this study

between first and second order perspectives (Marton & Booth, 1997). First

order perspectives are those with which the researcher has had direct

experience and of which he or she may make personally informed comment.

Second order perspectives are where the researcher reports on the

experiences of others who have had the experience. Phenomenography is a

second order perspective, in that it comments on participants’ experiences of

a phenomenon, not on the researcher’s personal experience of the

phenomenon itself. To illustrate, a first order perspective might entail

researcher perspectives on the quality of inquiry teaching in primary schools,

while in this research a second order perspective will report on the

researcher generated categories of teachers’ experiences. A second order

perspective is advantageous in addressing the research problem as the aim

of the study is to document conceptions as a way of resolving the broader

problems relating to the implementation of inquiry teaching in schools.

64

3.1.2 Phenomenography and the paradigm of qualitative research

In order to situate phenomenography in the broader context of

qualitative research methodologies in general, comparisons are now made,

drawing in particular on the work of Åkerlind (2005a), who proposed six

qualities that help to compare phenomenography with other qualitative

research methodologies.

1) Related, not independent meanings. The different categories that

emerge from phenomenographic research are generated with relation to

each other and are not independent ways of experiencing (Åkerlind, 2005a).

Thus each category is presented along with other categories, and not

individually. This is opposed to, for example, a case study analysis in which

each conception is viewed as a separate way of experiencing, tied to a

specific individual. Participants’ conceptions are also connected (or related)

through the phenomenon experienced (Marton & Booth, 1997). This

relatedness is also important especially in light of the justification for this

study that a limited number of qualitatively different categories can be

generated from the data.

2) Awareness, not beliefs. Phenomenography is not a study of

peoples’ beliefs, but of their recollections of their awareness of a

phenomenon. What aspects of a phenomenon participants are aware of can

change as participants move towards more complete or complex

understandings (Åkerlind et al., 2005), while beliefs are considered resistant

to change (Pajares, 1992).

3) Context-sensitive awareness, not stable constructs.

Phenomenography also assumes that one individual might experience the

same phenomenon differently, given a different context, such as when

moving from the classroom to the research lab. This capacity to hold different

experiences contrasts with other concepts such as learning styles and

personality, which are expected to be stable across contexts.

4) Interpretive, not explanatory focus. Phenomenography is also a

descriptive, rather than explanatory methodology. Thus it is similar to other

forms of qualitative research such as those used in belief studies, as

opposed to experimental studies that often use quantitative methodologies in

an attempt to explain and predict (Kadriye & Wolff-Michael, 2006). The goal

65

in phenomenography is to document or interpret participants’ experiences,

rather than predict or explain the origins of their experiences through

developing an understanding of cause and effect, as might be the case in

many ethnographic studies.

5) Collective, not individual experience. Also a given in

phenomenography is that the categories are representative of the collective,

and not the individual experience (Åkerlind, 2005a). For example, during data

analysis, the interview transcripts can be treated as a whole, and not as

discrete individuals in attempting to probe participants’ awareness (Leveson,

2004). The aim of this thesis to document the group experiences of the

phenomenon. This can also be contrasted with qualitative methodologies

where the aim is to describe an individual’s experience such as participant

observation and some action research.

6) Stripped, not rich descriptions. Phenomenography strives to

describe the ways of experiencing a phenomenon in terms of their core or

most salient features (Åkerlind, 2005a). Thus the descriptions in Chapter 4

will focus on the qualitative variation amongst categories, while qualities that

remain the same among categories are not highlighted. Phenomenography

strives to describe the variation and to represent this in an outcome space

(see Section 3.1.5) using the most stripped, or parsimonious description

reasonable, as opposed to most other qualitative methodologies that seek for

rich, detailed descriptions.

Conclusion to section 3.1.2

This section has briefly outlined some of the salient differences

between phenomenography and qualitative research in general, which helps

to provide a justification for the use of phenomenography as the research

approach as opposed to other qualitative methodologies in answering the

research question. Differences in ways of approaching the

phenomenographic research practice itself will now be discussed.

3.1.3 Variation in approaches to phenomenography

It is worth noting that a large range of approaches to

phenomenographic research exist. This section overviews this diversity and

situates this thesis within the field of contemporary phenomenography.

66

Changes in phenomenography as a research approach may be

presented as two distinct generations (Pang, 2003). In the first generation,

phenomenography was concerned mainly with methodological issues of how

to research and document different ways of conceptualising a phenomenon.

Later, phenomenographic studies focused on how to document and describe

variation within those conceptions. This change may be seen as a difference

between “What is a way of experiencing something?” to “What is the actual

difference between two ways of experiencing the same thing?” (Pang, 2003,

p. 147). This thesis reports a study that is considered to be a second

generation phenomenographic study, in that it focuses on the underlying

qualities of participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon, and strives to

explore and express variation that is experienced by participants.

Although historically phenomenography itself has experienced

changes in approaches over time, diversity is also evident within the more

recent examples of phenomenographic research (Bowden & Green, 2000).

Bowden (2000) described two main forms of phenomenographic research.

These were pure phenomenography, which strives to explore the nature and

quality of the qualitatively different conceptions that exist in everyday life, and

that what Bowden called developmental phenomenography which seeks to

use the outcomes to help affect change, specifically in the areas of learning

and teaching. This study is considered a developmental phenomenographic

study as it seeks to understand teachers’ conceptions in order to inform the

field of teacher education.

Phenomenography can also be further differentiated into five modes

which differ from one another in terms of the way data are produced and the

reasons data are produced (1997). First, experimental phenomenography

explicitly sets out to evaluate the outcomes of a pre-directed exercise. The

Marton (1975) study of approaches to learning is given as one example.

Second, discursive phenomenography explores participants’ conceptions as

opposed to evaluating the outcomes of a pre-directed exercise or tests.

Third, naturalistic phenomenography gathers data from authentic situations

and is similar in its data gathering procedures to ethnographic research, as

opposed to interview data such as are used in the current thesis. Fourth,

hermeneutic phenomenography focuses on exegesis, which is: “…to

67

understand things in their own context and on their own terms, however

difficult it may appear” (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997, p. 198). Studying texts

not originally intended for phenomenographic analysis is an example of how

hermeneutic phenomenography is set apart from other forms. Finally,

phenomenological phenomenography focuses on understanding the essence

of the phenomenon as it appears to the individual, in a sense, finding out

what is going on inside the participants’ mind. However, unlike

phenomenology, phenomenological phenomenography attempts to

categorise this understanding across many individuals (Hasselgren & Beach,

1997). This study draws from a discursive phenomenographic tradition, in

that it seeks to understand participants’ conceptions of a phenomenon

without assessing them through pre-directed activities such as participant

responses to written material or observations of teachers in the act of

teaching.

Another important kind of variation in phenomenography exists in

terms of the analysis of data. One form of variation relates to contextualised

and decontextualised approaches to data analysis (Åkerlind, 2005c).

Contextualised approaches to analysis use each transcript of an individual

interview independently when analysing the data. Decontextualised

approaches “abandon the barriers between individuals” and treat the entire

data as a whole during analysis (Åkerlind, 2005c, p. 327). In support of the

decontextualised approach, Åkerlind (2005c, p. 327) stated “the meaning a

phenomenon holds for an individual may vary during the course of an

interview.” Thus, a decontextualised approach, which allows for multiple

conceptions within a single individual, was considered the most appropriate

approach for this study as it was found that individuals did indeed hold

different conceptions of inquiry teaching at different points in the interviews.

Another way in which data analysis varies in phenomenography

relates to whether the researcher acts alone or in a group with other

researchers. Åkerlind (2005c) and Bowden and Green (2000) clearly

supported the group effort as being able to generate more desirable

outcomes. However, as with most doctoral studies involving

phenomenography (Bowden & Green, 2000), the analysis in this study has

been the primary responsibility of the researcher, supported and challenged

68

by the contributions of the supervisory team. To strengthen the analysis

further, the emerging categories of description have also been scrutinised by

the University research community in a series of workshops, thus providing

group assistance with aspects of the data analysis as well as establishing an

element of validity to the findings (see Section 3.2.4).

This section has situated this thesis within the contemporary field of

phenomenography, and will now turn to a discussion of the theoretical

framework for the methodology itself in terms of variation theory and the

structure of awareness, which are key characteristics of phenomenography

distinguishing it from other methodological approaches in qualitative

research.

3.1.4 Variation and the structure of awareness

It is necessary at this point to turn to a more in depth discussion of the

participants’ understanding of phenomena using the phenomenographic

concept of variation theory. As explained by Pang (2003), experiencing a

phenomenon is dependant upon the participant’s ability to discern qualities in

that phenomenon, and that the act of discernment involves discerning

variation within and between said qualities. Marton and Pong explain that

“meaning always presupposes discernment and discernment always

presupposes variation” (Marton & Pong, 2005, p. 336), and give the example

of a noisy air conditioner going unnoticed until once switched off; the

observer then perceiving the variation between the noise, which until then

had gone unnoticed, and the following silence. Variation in discernment of

phenomena also influences both researcher and participants, since

participants can only perceive the experience of inquiry teaching as it varies

from other experiences of teaching. Also, the researcher is able to discern

potential ways of experiencing from one another as, again, each way varies

from other experiences of inquiry teaching.

Many factors influence participants’ ways of experiencing variation.

For example, it is assumed that different people experience the world in

different ways. Also, the same person might display multiple ways of

experiencing the same phenomenon, even captured in the same study

(Åkerlind et al., 2005; Marton & Pong, 2005), and, since both phenomenon

69

and participants may change over time, individual’s conceptions may also

change over time.

Variations in qualities that participants perceive make up their

awareness of a phenomenon. The totality of that experience is described in

phenomenography through the use of the structure of awareness (Marton,

2000). Marton and Booth (1997) made use of referential and structural

aspects of the structure of awareness to describe the grouped experience of

participants clearly.

The referential aspect refers to the overall meaning given to the

experience, which may differ among participants or even for the same

participant over time (Pang, 2003). Marton and Booth (1997) give the

following example; if an observer comes across a deer in the woods this

phenomenon would hold a certain meaning for them. Perhaps it is an

unwelcome experience as deer are considered frightening and dangerous?

Or perhaps it is a neutral experience as deer are often viewed in this wood

and are considered very harmless and easily startled creatures? This overall

meaning is considered the referential aspect of the experience.

Structural aspects represent those discernable qualities that make up

the phenomenon itself. The structural aspects are of two kinds; the internal

and external horizons.

The internal horizon comprises the parts that are discernable as

making up the whole; a deer has certain parts that make it recognisable as

such; four legs, a head, antlers and a tail. As Marton (2000) explained, the

internal horizon represents how the object of study and its parts “are

delimited from and related to each other and to the whole” (p. 113). As will be

seen in Chapter 4, the teaching of science through ways which foster student

inquiry can be seen to be composed of certain ideas about what can and

cannot be taught (such as life cycles or process skills), different opinions

regarding how it is taught appropriately, and diverse reasons teachers give

regarding why they use these methods.

The objects of the internal horizon may be further understood using

Booth’s (1997) description of the structure of awareness as consisting of the

theme – the object in the focus of the awareness, such as force in a physical

sciences question regarding the forces acting on a cyclist, which is

70

surrounded by a thematic field of related concepts and ideas that are directly

related to the theme such as gravity, mass or weight. The border between

theme and field is not one of rigid exclusion, but ideas within the field may

become the theme and vice versa depending on the shifting awareness of

the individual. Further, the objects within the thematic field are not isolated,

but joined logically to one another through “unity of context or unity of

relevance” (Booth, 1997, p. 141). As one moves between conceptions it can

be seen that different aspects will move from the focus (theme) to field of

awareness (thematic field), and vice versa (Cope, 2004).

The external horizon includes those features that help discern a

phenomenon from its context (Marton, 2000), for example, a deer differs from

a cat, a tree, or a person. It also extends to all other contexts (Marton &

Booth, 1997) in which deer have been observed; in parks or on postage

stamps for example. As will be seen in Chapter 4 the method of instruction

employed during inquiry will differ from other forms of possible instruction, or

which content material is considered appropriate differs during other ways of

approaching the teaching of science.

Another way to understand the external horizon is through Booth’s

(1997) description of the margin of awareness. The individual is aware of

many things that do not bear relevance to the task at hand, things that “are

unrelated to the theme but coexist with it in space and time” (Marton, 2000, p.

113). Some of those things can be used to help delimit the phenomenon from

its environment. In a science question relating to the forces on a cyclist, the

related but unnecessary science concepts of energy, matter and

wave/particle duality, which are not called on in experiencing the

phenomenon and therefore give context to the awareness, may be

considered as constituting the margin of awareness. Again, objects in the

margin are not affixed there permanently, but may have been part of the

thematic field or even theme at different times.

These qualities taken together: the referential and structural aspect,

which is again comprised of internal and external horizons, make up the

structure of awareness which will be used to explore the variation between

and within categories of descriptions of teaching science through inquiry

learning in this study. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

71

Figure 3.1. Referential and structural ways of experiencing (Marton and

Booth, 1997, p. 88).

Booths’ (1997) structure of awareness will also be employed in this

study to help clarify understanding of the external and internal horizons. The

theme of the category is that which is central in awareness in teachers’

conceptions of inquiry teaching. The thematic field embraces those ideas that

relate to the theme and are called upon during teachers’ discussion of their

conceptions. Finally, the margin is made up of those ideas that are not called

upon in teacher thinking and therefore delimit the border of the experience.

The theme, thematic field and margin are seen as belonging to the structural

aspect as described above. The theme and thematic field are seen as

belonging to the internal horizon, and the margin explains the external

horizon. Objects within the theme, thematic field and margin are discerned by

their variation to other objects and potential objects in these areas, as

described by variation theory. This model of the structure of awareness is

presented schematically in Figure 3.2.

As noted, the structural and referential aspects of a phenomenon are

discerned by their variation by participants (Pang, 2003). Discerning variation

in the participants’ experience of the phenomenon is a fundamental part of

phenomenographic data analysis (Marton & Pong, 2005). Participants’

experiences in this study will use referential and structural aspects to

The Experience

(Is described in terms of …)

Structural aspects

(Are made up of…)

Referential aspects

(The global meaning)

Internal horizon (Parts and their

relationships) Theme and thematic field

External horizon (How the object is discerned from its context) – margin of

awareness

72

describe variation among them. The structural aspect is made up of the

internal horizon (theme and thematic field) and external horizon (including the

margin of awareness). This structure of awareness as used in this study is

discussed in further detail in the next section.

Figure 3.2. A schematic presentation of The structure of awareness (Booth,

1997)

3.1.5 Conceptions, categories of description, and outcome space

An individual’s way of experiencing a phenomenon is referred to as a

conception (Marton, 2000). However, Bowden (2005) asserts that the

researcher-developed categorisations of those conceptions are known as

categories of description. He argues that a single category of description thus

expresses one possible way in which many participants, or the same

participant at different times, might experience a phenomenon (Marton &

Pong, 2005). Although conceptions represent the experiences of the

participants, categories of description are the creation of the researcher in

relation to the data. Variation among the categories of description in this

study will be described using the referential and structural (internal and

external horizons) aspects of the structures of awareness, which include the

theme, thematic field and margin of awareness.

Theme: central in

awareness

Thematic field: associated with awareness but not focal

Margin : that which gives context to the experience

73

Dimensions of variation will also be used in this study to highlight the

qualitative differences between categories (2004). Dimensions of variation

are those qualities that vary among categories helping to delimit them. These

dimensions may include the role of the teacher or his/her epistemological

beliefs. In some cases, a dimension of variation may be present in each

category of description yet the dimension expands as it moves from lower to

higher levels. Thus a higher category will include the qualities of the

categories below it. For example, a dimension of variation among categories

might be the breadth of benefit from the teaching learning process (Åkerlind,

2004). At a lower category teachers may see their work as benefitting

primarily themselves, whereas in later categories the breadth of benefit

includes themselves but also extends to society as a whole. In this case, the

dimension of variation is known as a theme of expanding awareness

(Åkerlind et al., 2005).

The categories of description, including structural and referential

aspects, and the relationships between them are known as the outcome

space. Marton and Booth (1997) explained “[The] categories of description

depict the different ways in which a certain phenomenon is experienced and

the logical relationships between [sic] them constitute the outcome space for

that phenomenon” (p. 136). In order to facilitate clear comprehension, the

tabulated presentation used by Cope (2004) will be adapted to this study. An

example of this tabulated presentation of the outcome space is presented in

Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Outcome space as presented in this study

Structural aspects Category Referential aspect (meaning)

Internal horizon (theme and thematic field)

External horizon (context or margin)

Category 1 Meaning 1 Theme and thematic field Context (Limited) Category 2 Meaning 2 Theme and thematic field Context Category 3 Meaning 3 Theme and thematic field Context (broadest)

Certain rigour must be adhered to in developing an outcome space.

As explained by Åkerlind (2005c), “Ideally, the outcomes represent the full

range of possible ways of experiencing the phenomenon in question, at this

74

particular point in time, for the population represented by the sample group

collectively” (p. 323). Marton and Booth (1997) presented three criteria for

judging the quality of the outcome space:

• that each category in the outcome space reveals something

distinctive about a way of understanding the phenomenon;

• that the categories are logically related, typically as a

hierarchy of structurally inclusive relationships; and

• that the outcomes are parsimonious – that the critical

variation in experience observed in the data be represented

by a set of as few categories as possible.

Richardson (1999) claimed that the categories of the outcome space

in phenomenographic analysis should be seen as constructions of the

researcher, and not as externally existing entities. Viewing the outcome

space as a researcher-developed construction was supported by Svensson

who argued that the “description developed will be dependent on the

perspective of the researcher and the empirical and theoretical context of the

research” (Svensson, 1997, p. 168). In support of the non-dualistic ontology

of phenomenography, the outcome space and categories of description are

not there waiting to be discovered by the researcher, but must be constructed

by the researcher from the evidence presented in the data (Walsh, 2000).

As noted, no studies have yet attempted to define the dimensions of

variation, or have made use of an outcome space, to describe the

relationships between primary school teachers’ conceptions of teaching

science through inquiry teaching (Section 2.4). This study intends to address

this gap in the literature.

3.1.6 The experience of teaching

The phenomenon under investigation in this study is teachers’

reflection on their experience of inquiry teaching. This study now draws on

the literature of phenomenography engaged in analysing the experience of

learning (Marton & Booth, 1997). Thus parallels are drawn between the

experience of learning and the experience of teaching. Marton and Booth

argued that the experience of learning can be described in three aspects,

75

and that variation (as explained in 3.1.4) can be found in each of these, as

Figure 3.3 shows.

Figure 3.3. An analysis of the experience of learning (Marton & Booth, 1997,

p.85)

Learning is seen to be composed of the how and what. The what of

learning includes the content material to be covered, such as information on

volcano formation or the life cycle of silk worms. This content is known as the

direct object of learning. How this learning takes place can be seen to be

comprised of two distinct qualities – the act of learning which includes

activities such as copying notes or performing experiments, and the indirect

object which is seen as the “type of capabilities the learning is trying to

master” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 84.) For example, attitudes towards

content material and teacher goals related to managing student behaviour.

However, this study is about the experience of teaching, rather than

the experience of learning. Parallels are now drawn for further use in this

study. Every experience of teaching is argued to be composed of the same

three primary aspects (McKenzie, 2003), which parallel the model frequently

employed in studies of learning – the act of teaching (the act), the indirect

object of teaching (I.O.), and the direct object of teaching (D.O.). Variation is

expected among conceptions regarding the act, I.O. and D.O. Figure 3.4

presents the experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study.

Learning

How What

The indirect object of learning

The act of learning

The direct object of learning

76

Figure 3.4. The experience of teaching as conceptualised in this study.

These three qualities, the act, indirect and direct objects will be used

in this study to elucidate the experiencing of teaching for teachers in this

study. This section has reviewed the methodology for this study,

phenomenography, and will now describe the specific research design that

was used to answer the research question: What are the qualitatively

different ways in which primary school teachers’ experience inquiry teaching

in science education?

3.2 Methods

The following section addresses the phenomenographic research

methods adopted including; selection of participants, data collection,

interview setting, contextualising statement, interview protocol, and

bracketing. Issues of data analysis, ethical clearance, and research rigour

are also dealt with.

In line with the recommendations of Giorgi (1998) for strengthening

the reliability of the research through a demonstrative procedure (see section

3.2.5) some personal characteristics of the researcher are presented here.

These revelations help to unpack the perspective of the researcher and

theoretical context of the research (Svensson, 1997). During work as a

supply teacher in primary schools, and having worked as a secondary

science teacher, I completed a Masters degree in science education with an

D.O. The direct object of teaching (content covered

and other curriculum objectives)

I.O. The indirect object of teaching (goals teachers

give for teaching in this manner)

Act The act of teaching (what teachers do)

How

What

Teaching

77

independent project on inquiry learning in science. This led to a curiosity

about what other practicing teachers thought of the teaching of science in

ways which fostered inquiry based learning in science. This question led to

the current research into categorising teachers conceptions of inquiry

teaching in science.

The research followed three main phases. Phase one was a pilot

study involving two participants. Phase two began the main study and

included ten participants. Phase three involved actively seeking individuals to

round out variation in the sample and included eight participants. Full details

of the transitions between phases are included in Section 3.2.3.

3.2.1 Participants

The goal of a phenomenographic study is to describe the variation in

ways of experiencing a phenomenon. Therefore, rather than seeking a

homogenous sample of participants, the participants were purposefully

selected to represent diversity within their experiences of the phenomenon

(Åkerlind et al., 2005; Bowden, 2005). Twenty practicing primary school

teachers participated in this study. Traditionally phenomenographic studies

use between 20 and 30 participants (Åkerlind et al., 2005), as fewer may fail

to express the variation in the data and many more may make the data set

difficult to manage (Bowden, 2005).

The acronym T# stands for a participant in the study (such as teacher

1, teacher 17 and so forth.) And the acronym “J” stands for myself as

researcher. As a phenomenographic study where the lines between

participants are drawn down and data are treated as a whole (Leveson,

2004), participant details such as gender or year level are not included with

quotes, however, full details of the participants are presented in Appendix A.

During phase one, pilot study, two participants were sought for the

study by accessing the social networks of the researcher. Both participants

(T1 and T2) were asked if they would like to participate in an interview based

on a recent science inquiry teaching experience, and both were practicing

primary school teachers.

During phase two the researcher asked several school principals in

the local area to invite their teachers to participate in the study, but also

78

approached teachers who had recently participated in professional

development initiatives on inquiry learning. Ten teachers responded

(participants three through ten, as well as participants T14 and T16) which

represented five schools in total. This approach managed to source a wide

variety of participants across several variables including years teaching, age,

gender, and the schools in which they taught. Teachers varied greatly in

qualities such as years teaching (2 to 28) and classes taught (preparatory

through primary school Year 7).

During phase three, at a meeting with the supervisory team, it was

decided that the data might be skewed towards those who were actively

using an inquiry approach. It was therefore felt that it would be beneficial to

the study to seek out and enlist those less inclined to use inquiry teaching.

Thus a second round of volunteers was sought in order to provide greater

variation. The researcher then sought out a local school and offered a free

educational science show in exchange for the chance to interview teachers

about their experience of inquiry teaching. Seven participants, T11, T12, T13,

T15, T17, T18, and T19 were from this second intake. Again, teachers varied

greatly in qualities such as years teaching (6 to 28) and classes taught

(preparatory to year 7).

Finally, to round out the analysis, it was decided that the research

lacked the perspective of a young, male teacher of upper primary school

students who was relatively new to teaching. A teacher explicitly fitting this

criterion, and one willing to participate in the research, was accessed from

the broader social networks of the researcher and enlisted into the study

(T20).

Of the participants, 25% were male, which is approximately

representative of the broader teaching population (Australian Bureau of

statistics, 2003; Cushman, 2007). Eight participants were under 35 years of

age and the remaining 12 were over 35 years of age. Although teachers had

been teaching for, on average, 12.2 years, the sample ranged from 2 to 30

years experience. Teachers taught in every primary year from the

preparatory year to grade seven.

79

3.2.2 Data collection

Data were collected via fairly typical data collection techniques for

phenomenography (Åkerlind, 2005b). This study made use of a semi

structured interview as the data collection tool. Interviews were audio

recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to analysis.

Interview setting

The interview setting was nominated by the participants in order to

maximise their sense of comfort during the research interview. In all cases

this meant the teacher’s classroom, usually after the students had left for the

day. Three of the interviews were conducted before school started (T12, T15,

T17) and one during a lunch break (T2). Participants were interviewed in situ

in order to assist them in recalling their teaching practices and experiences,

and in an attempt to empower them in the place of their familiar work space

to position the teacher as knower and the researcher as learner (Åkerlind et

al., 2005). The full interview schema is available in Appendix B.

Contextualising statement

After meeting the teacher, often for the first time, and engaging in

general conversation the interview would commence. The interview formally

began with a contextualising statement which explained the title and purpose

of the research, ethical issues and expectations, data handling issues as

expected by NHMRC, and gave the participant time to ask any questions

they may have had and the right to withdraw if they had changed their minds.

This contextualising statement was:

There is a lot of discussion in education and curriculum

documents about inquiry learning. I am doing a study to find out

about what perceptions teachers have of teaching in ways that

foster inquiry based learning in science. There are no wrong

answers here. I am predominantly interested in exploring your

ideas and experiences. I want you to feel that I am the learner

here and you the expert regarding your own practice, I will try to

be like a blank slate. I want you to do all the talking and I’ll do

the listening. I just want you to tell me about your experiences

with inquiry, and dig down into your understanding and practice

of the what and why of inquiry in your classroom! OK?

80

Do have any questions?

Interview

In order to get an open discussion started, the interview usually began

with gathering general information, predominantly as a form of icebreaker to

help relax the participant and make the data gathering environment more

natural:

Well, can you tell me a bit about yourself as a teacher? (Who do

you teach, how long have you been teaching, what experiences

led you to teaching, have you any past experience with science

as a profession?)

A fundamental aspect of the phenomenographic interview is that it

makes use of concrete examples embedded in the actual practice of

participants to expose variations in teachers’ conceptions of the

phenomenon. Conceptions of inquiry teaching are abstract considerations

that may prove difficult for many participants to immediately talk about. It was

therefore important that the discussion remained grounded in illustrative

examples of practice (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Other techniques used to help

participants explore their conceptions of the phenomenon included the use of

why questions, for example, “Why did you do it that way?” (Åkerlind et al.,

2005, p. 79). The phenomenographic data gathering began with the question:

Can you tell me about a recent teaching experience you have

had in which you feel you taught science through inquiry

particularly well?

The interview outline (see below) included advised prompts for

probing further into the practices and pedagogical reasoning of teachers.

However, the prompts were not necessarily given as exact or explicit

statements during the interview. As Åkerlind (2005a, p.113) pointed out, “any

resulting suggestion that as many questions as possible should be phrased

in precisely the same way comes from an objectivist paradigm, where one

can assume that if interviewees are presented with the same stimulus they

will then be responding to the same object or phenomenon.”

The following five areas were used as prompts to probe more deeply

into the rich expanse of teacher experience:

81

• Teacher role. How did you go about teaching? Where and

how did this take place?

• Student role. How did the students go about learning during

the teaching experience you just described?

• Assessment. How did you know that the students had learnt

something? What was the role of assessment in your

program?

• Goals. What were you trying to teach? What did you want

students to learn? Why did you choose to do it that way?

• Outcomes. How do you know if your approach is working?

What do you feel were the results of this approach? What did

inquiry offer?

The study also sought to explore some of the practical difficulties of

implementation by asking such questions as “What is easy about inquiry

science, what is difficult, what challenges you in implementing an inquiry

science program?”

Finally, three questions were used to help contextualise teacher

experiences. The first was used to contextualise the teacher experience of

inquiry teaching: “When did you first hear about teaching science through

inquiry?” The second question “Can you think of a time when you thought

differently about what it means to teach science through inquiry?” was used

to enable a better understanding of their current conception. Finally, in order

to clarify teacher understanding of the related concept of inquiry learning, and

to derive a single sentence through which to compare teacher

understandings of inquiry teaching and learning, each interview ended with

the phrase “Complete this sentence ‘Inquiry learning is…’?“.

Interview environment

The nature of the interviewer’s relationship with the interviewee is

considered a very important influence on the quality of the data gathered.

Establishing effective rapport was done carefully so that researcher’s ideas

did not contaminate the study (Candy, 1989). This included listening politely,

validating participant concerns, and making sure participants were aware of

their ethical rights (Section 3.2.4). Rather than presenting as a dispassionate

82

researcher, the interviewer attempted to present an attitude of gentle

enthusiasm (Ireland, Tambyah, Neofa, & Harding, 2008), which involved

active listening and open body language, to help participants feel safe to

discuss private concerns regarding the phenomenon. That participants felt

that they could explore their awareness in an environment of safe

professional acceptance was of vital importance to the research environment.

Ashworth and Lucas (2000, p. 303) explained that “thoughts such as

‘why doesn’t the student answer the question?’, ‘how can I prompt this

student on to a more relevant line of thought?’ or feelings of impatience

should be noted and taken as potential warning signals that standards of

empathy are not being met”. Marton (1986) explained “let the subjects

choose the aspects of the question they want to answer. The aspects they

choose are an important source of data because they reveal an aspect of the

individual’s relevance structure” (p. 42). Often clarifications of participant

comments were desired, whether due to a sense of misunderstanding on the

part of the researcher or as part of the perpetual search for understanding

between researcher and participant. Clarifications were sought using

comments such as “You said earlier…, would you like to elaborate on that?”

(2000, p. 65), “Can you explain what you mean by that” (Dall’Alba, 2000, p.

89) and finally ”Is there anything else you’d like to add?” (Bowden, Dall'Alba,

Laurillard, Marton, Masters, Ramsden et al., 1992, p. 263).

Bracketing

Another important attribute of the phenomenographic interview

involves setting aside the beliefs and preconceptions of the researcher in

order to focus on what the experience means to the participant. This process

is known as bracketing (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Bowden, 2005). However,

the researcher is not required to bracket all their preconceptions or they may

have nothing to talk about, as Ashworth and Lucas (2000) point out “It seems

that we cannot suspend our commitment to certain guiding notions. But we

must hold these tentatively lest they subvert the very aim of entering the life

world” (p.299). The aim was to bracket any presuppositions which might

inaccurately colour the researcher’s perceptions of the participants’

experience of the phenomenon. To, in a sense, get out of the way of the

83

participant’s attempts to express their relationship with the phenomenon.

Following the advice of Ashworth and Lucas (2000) a conscious attempt was

made to bracket the following during the interview: (a) mentioning the current

research findings, rather than allowing each participant to discuss their

experience personally and without comparison; (b) assuming pre-given

theoretical structures or particular interpretations, allowing participants the

chance to explain such themselves; (c) presupposing the participants’

personal knowledge and beliefs rather than seeking clarification of such; (d)

the researcher’s notions of what constitutes cause and effect in a situation,

rather than uncovering participants’ perceptions

Another aspect of bracketing was the need to bracket the inclination to

categorise different conceptions during the interviews rather than trying to

understand the individual participant’s conception. Although categorisation

was the objective of the research, it could have led to imposing responses

upon participants rather than allowing them to openly explore their

experiences in the phenomenographic interview.

One particular notion that the researcher was keen to bracket was the

inclination to see teacher-centred approaches as faulty in some way,

especially given the trends in curricular documents towards student-centred

and constructivist approaches. Terms such as constructivism, teacher- or

student-centred were not brought up until they were used by participants.

Likewise, it was considered important not to direct the interview by

mentioning aspects of the phenomenon participants did not mention, outside

the specific themes mentioned in the interview schema. Åkerlind (2005b)

suggested exploring further the terms and phrases that seem most significant

or meaning laden for participants by asking them to discuss those issues

further. In a sense the researcher tried to keep within the vocabulary of the

participant.

Bracketing also included suspending the expectations and

presuppositions of the researcher, including considerations of what

constitutes fact or truth. Indeed, it was taken as a given that the researcher’s

conception of inquiry teaching may have little or no meaning to the practicing

teacher. The goal of the research was, as much as possible, to understand

the particular and unique experience of the participant, to look for variation

84

between and among participants’ descriptions, and to construct categories of

description from that and not from the interviewer’s perception of the

experience.

3.2.3 Data analysis

The previous section dealt with issues of the phenomenographic

interview. This section will now explore how the data were analysed via a

phenomenographic approach in four sections: the pilot study, initial data

analysis, finalising data analysis, and ending with a focus on the derivation of

the structure of awareness and the How and What as the data analysis was

completed.

Pilot study

Initially a pilot study was undertaken to test the interview protocol and

hone the skills of the interviewer as recommended by Bowden (2005). Two

participants were recruited from the social networks of the researcher. In

general, the interview protocol followed the protocol of the main study with

some minor editorial changes in the latter. The same general topics were

covered, and most questions and the contextualising statement remained the

same in both.

During the pilot study, however, some difference occurred in the

phrasing of the questions of the interview schema. The pilot study organised

questions around three topics: “What concepts were you trying to teach?”;

“How did you and your students act during the inquiry activity?” and; “Why

did you choose to do it that way?” During the main study, questions were

organised around general themes instead, which provided the same data but

were more easily managed by the interviewer. They were teacher role,

student role, purpose of assessment, teacher goals, and teacher expected

outcomes for inquiry teaching.

The pilot study clearly indicated the efficacy of the questions in

eliciting qualitative variation among participants, revealing two distinctly

unique conceptions of inquiry, which were labelled developing children’s life

experiences and student ownership respectively. After the pilot study was

completed, the supervisory team and researcher agreed that the interviews

85

were of sufficient quality, and discussed the phenomenon sufficiently, to

include in the rest of the study becoming interviews one and two.

Initial data analysis

Interviews one, three to seven, and 17 to 20 were transcribed by the

researcher. Interviews two, as well as eight to 16, were transcribed by a

professional transcription service. The following transcription protocols were

used; while interviews were transcribed verbatim, cursory or tangential

comments (such as “umm” and “like”) were deleted if they did not contribute

meaning when cited in the final thesis. Words and phrases that were

emphasised by participants were highlighted in italics in the transcription.

Finally, all transcriptions were checked for accuracy against the audio

recording by the researcher.

During transcription the researcher developed a personal profile for

each transcript, similar to the participant summary used by Lupton (2008).

Åkerlind (2005b) recommended that understanding each participant’s

perspectives must precede any attempts at arranging or structuring

perspectives within the study. At this point of data analysis the individual’s

conception was focused on so that it could be deeply understood, and the

question was asked “What is this person trying to tell me?” This reflective

question was used to in order to help develop an understanding of how the

individual participant understood inquiry teaching. Thus, the researcher drew

up individual profiles for each participant to help maintain fidelity to

participants’ experiences and comments (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). This

fidelity was particularly important as the research drew toward the process of

categorisation where the lines between individuals were drawn down and the

diverse categories of descriptions were created. Individual profiles also

helped maintain the internal validity (or credibility) of the study by, as

accurately as possible, preserving the meaning intended behind all quotes in

the context of their own interview. Profiles also assisted the researcher to

remain familiar with all participant conceptions during data analysis. An

example of a personal profile is available in appendix D for participant 3, an

experienced female teacher of early childhood (preparatory year), illustrating

major themes of the interview through actual participant quotes.

86

As data were being gathered and interviews transcribed, the

researcher attempted as far as possible to prevent inadvertently imposing

any emerging categorisation scheme on future interviews with participants

(Bowden, 2005; Walsh, 2000). Åkerlind (2005c) emphasised the requirement

for maintaining an open mind during the data analysis stage to allow the

categories of description to emerge as much as possible from the data,

making further use of the bracketing procedures discussed above.

After interview nine was completed, the researcher presented an

unpublished conceptual paper at a science education research conference

entitled “‘Inquiry learning is… difficult to define!’: Primary school teachers’

conceptions of teaching science through inquiry learning.” (Ireland, 2008).

The preparation of this paper involved a very general analysis of the data

obtained up to that point, based primarily on an intuitive familiarity with the

data obtained thus far. Three categories were presented: inquiry as

“Experiencing it themselves” (experience centred conception), inquiry as

“Don’t give the answer” (process centred conception) and inquiry as “What

do you want to know” (life skills centred conception). As will be seen, the first

category shares the same general title as the first category in the eventual

outcome space; however, the remaining two categories are far more

rigorously defined. Also, the categories were described only in terms of the

referential dimensions rather than the structural aspects. Even so, this

presentation provided valuable general feedback regarding the emerging

categories and reinforced the ability of phenomenography to develop a

parsimonious yet representative categorisation scheme of participants’

diverse experiences.

Finalising the data analysis

The researcher then returned to interviewing and transcribing, setting

aside the tentative categorisation scheme of the initial data analysis. After the

final interview was transcribed data gathering was complete, and the

researcher began to focus on the development of the phenomenographic

outcome space. This analysis developed through a search for the essential

aspects of the experience as revealed from the transcripts, and the

87

categorising of the limited number of qualitatively different experiences

initially in terms of their referential components.

In order to assist data analysis the computer program NVIVO was

initially used, though in the final analysis, NVIVO was not needed as either a

data analysis or data organising tool. Participant’s responses on a similar

topic were grouped together into nodes of meaning, which were initially

intended to be worked together into a few categories of meaning. This,

however, was unsuccessful as the analysis rose to over 100 nodes of

individual meanings derived from the interview transcripts, and data became

quite unworkable.

In response, an Excel spread sheet was created with the basic

qualitative data of the participants. An holistic approach to the generation of

the referential component (or global meaning) of the categories was then

initiated, looking specifically for variation in participants experiences of inquiry

teaching. Data were specifically examined for variation among the

dimensions of variation of student’s role, teacher’s role, the role of

assessment and teacher goals for inquiry teaching. Two items of data were

particularly important in keeping each participant’s interview in working

memory; the topics teachers discussed, and their answer to the question

“inquiry learning is…”. Personal profiles were referred to regularly, and whole

interview transcripts when necessary. The researcher attempted to

categorise each individual’s conception or conceptions numerically, that is,

when a unique conception of inquiry teaching appeared to be expressed it

was given a unique number. This was achieved by searching primarily for

qualitative differences in the referential aspect of teachers’ conceptions,

reading and rereading profiles and transcripts while comparing quotes for

accuracy in supporting an emerging categorisation scheme. The initial

categorisation scheme ran to 12 potential categories, but repeated iterations

with the data revealed that the categorisation schemes were not

parsimonious in terms of representing the data.

For example, an early preliminary categorisation scheme had three

tentative categories. In this categorisation scheme the referential component

of participants’ conceptions was compared. Participants talked about inquiry

teaching as meaning: (1) giving students’ experiences of content; (2) giving

88

student’s confidence through solving problems and (3) allowing student

ownership of content or topic. However, reviewing the personal profiles of

participants created some difficulties. For example, participant 3, while taking

about student ownership and students leading the class, was still enacting a

curriculum focused on the personal experiences of students rather than

student creation of knowledge, and on students understanding teacher driven

content. Thus this categorisation scheme was abandoned.

As another example, as data analysis progressed it was noted that in

any categorisation scheme that focused on teacher presentation of problems

(later becoming category 2), there were two distinct forms. One made use of

general knowledge and materials, for example teacher 14 using a box and

plank to create a lever. The other form made use of specific scientific

knowledge and materials, such as teacher 7 using stop watches, marbles

and various liquids to discover viscosity. It was hypothesised that there may

be four, not three ways of experiencing inquiry teaching. Repeated iterations

of reading the data then began to reveal that student led investigations could

also potentially be divided into scientific and general investigations, which

lead to further complexity in the emerging categorisation scheme. At length it

was determined that in either event; scientific or general, the teachers focus

was on the role of problems in learning or the role of student led

investigations, thus the four categories were merged into two which became

category 2 and 3 in later analysis.

At least five unsuccessful categorisations followed, failing to express

parsimoniously the variation in the data. Returning to the analysis, the main

researcher then encountered a “eureka!” moment (11:56am on 29th January

2009) primarily from trying to understand the qualitative differences in the act

of teaching. This understanding was that no matter what topic the teachers

were discussing, or how they talked about inquiry and inquiry teaching,

participants’ conceptions could be successfully and succinctly categorised

into one of three ways of experiencing: (a) giving students interesting sensory

experiences; (b) providing students with challenging problems or; (c) helping

students to ask and answer their own questions. These three general

guidelines directed the data analysis from that point on.

89

The categorisation at that time was as follows: Student-centred

experiences (SCE), Teacher-generated problems (TGP), and Class-

negotiated questions (CNQ). During this attempt, it was apparent that sub

categories might exist within each main category. These three main

categories contained six sub categories of inquiry teaching, which were

called Free inquiry, Illustrated inquiry, Solution inquiry, Process inquiry,

Topical inquiry and Guided inquiry. However, the sub categories tended to

describe only an act and indirect object of teaching, which closely describe a

teacher’s “approach to teaching” (McKenzie, 2003, p. 42 emphasis added),

and not actual teacher conceptions, and thus sub categories were excluded

from the analysis from that point on.

Analysis of the structure of awareness and the How and What

Data analysis then continued to establish the final outcome space.

The following report is somewhat artificial in that at all times during data

analysis the researcher needed to be conscious of the developing outcome

space, but for ease of comprehension it is presented in a linear fashion. At all

times an iterative process was employed, checking and rechecking

quotations with the outcome space. Also, justifications for quotations

belonging to certain categories included deliberate attempts to find counter

examples which might break down the categorisation scheme. In the end,

quotations that best described the categories were drawn from the data and

used to represent the various categories and dimensions of variation.

In terms of the development of the structure of awareness, as from the

recommendations of Ashworth and Lucas (2000), derivation of the referential

component preceded derivation of the structural component. The referential

components were the most immediately obvious qualities of the outcome

space to identify. Naming of categories evolved continually during data

analysis, almost to final printing, until the conceptualisations were clearly

defined. It was determined that the name of the category that was most

appropriate was what teachers were focused on during their experience of

inquiry teaching, and that what teachers were focused on could also be taken

90

as the global meaning (or referential component) of the experience for the

teacher.

In terms of the structural components, initially the dimensions of

variation were included as part of the internal horizon, as has been done in

some phenomenographic studies (for example, see Cope, 2004). However, it

was felt that the internal horizon should be parsimonious in terms of detail,

and represent only that which moved into and out of focus in the categories.

The internal horizon was then determined to be the focus and thematic field

of the current category.

The margin, or external horizon, helped define the context of the

category. Again, this was determined through repeated iterations with the

data and discussions with research supervisors. For a large part of the data

analysis teacher generated problems were considered outside the

awareness of teachers experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1.

However, further insight was gained answering questions at a second

science education conference (Ireland, 2010), where the main researcher

realised that teachers did use problems to focus student attention in

Category 1. The research team in discussion realised, however, that the

quality of teacher generated problems did differ between categories 1 and 2

in a manner discussed in detail in the results section (4.2.2). Thus, teacher

generated problems were removed from the margin of awareness and placed

in the thematic field of Category 1.

The dimensions of variation were determined through repeated

iterations with the data to uncover the qualities that differed between

categories, helping to define and clarify the kinds of things teachers were

talking about as they experienced inquiry teaching in a particular way. That

is, the question was specifically asked: “In what specific ways does each

category vary from the others?” Several dimensions of variation were

considered but eventually rejected as not varying sufficiently or at times at all

between categories. For example, breadth of benefit, issues of assessment,

and general beliefs of the nature of science are excluded from reporting,

though teachers did discuss them during their interviews. After final analysis

the suggestion was made that the level of student knowledge increases

between categories, that is, that students require a deeper level of

91

understanding to tackle a teacher’s use of Category 3. However, again it was

felt that this was not the case; indeed, the most frequent application of

Category 3 was in early childhood settings.

The What and How of teaching were developed at the same time

through repeated attempts to clarify variation in the teachers’ experience for

each category, returning to the transcripts to find supportive quotations. The

act of teaching was immediately apparent by comparing the referential

component with the kinds of teacher strategies necessary to bring it about.

Teachers were assigned a category in terms of their prevailing conception

and appropriate examples of their teaching drawn from the transcripts. These

were then compared and assessed to develop the general understanding

that is presented in the how and what.

An understanding of the direct object, or the learning outcomes

teachers were striving for, developed during this time as the examples of

teacher practice were compared for the kinds of outcomes teachers were

aiming to achieve. Teachers, it was discovered, talked about three kinds of

learning outcomes (skills, attitudes, concepts), but each outcome was in

focus at a different category. This discovery was tested by returning to the

transcripts with a deliberate attempt to find quotes that conflicted with this

understanding. However, it was found that teachers clearly focused on a

different kind of learning outcome in each category.

The indirect object, or the goal teachers were attempting to achieve

during the experience of each category, was uncovered in a similar way.

Greater difficulty was experienced in that the indirect objects are quite similar

in this study (see Section 4.5.1), but subtle qualitative differences are noted.

This understanding was uncovered through researcher familiarity with the

data set, and by reading and re-reading quotes related to the topic of what

teachers were trying to achieve though using inquiry in their classroom. This

information on teacher goals was predominantly gathered by the teacher

profiles, but also through supporting documentation in the interview

transcripts.

In order to maintain the integrity of the research process a conscious

process was adopted in order to search out disagreements and conflicts with

traditional approaches to organising conceptions of inquiry teaching, as

92

recommended by Ashworth and Lucas (2000), in particular the

teacher/student- centred continuum. Findings were also presented at

workshops for staff and postgraduate students at Queensland University of

Technology, including a group of postgraduate researchers, and numerous

meetings with doctoral supervisors. Analysis was also presented at two

science education conferences (mentioned above). These processes were

employed to assist in the establishment of communicative validity of the

study (Kvale, 1996) as detailed in Section 3.2.5 on research rigour.

The outcome space was again thoroughly re-assessed during write-up

for its appropriateness in describing the complete set of data. Once the

outcome space was developed and validated, the data analysis phase was

complete.

3.2.4 Ethics

The primary concern with regards to ethics is the disclosure of

personal information during the research process. As per university

guidelines, participants were free to withdraw at any time, and interview

transcripts for all participants were strictly confidential. Numerical assignment

(in order of interview conducted) was used in this final report, and there is no

reasonable way individual teachers may be traced back to their quotes used

in this study.

Human ethics level 1 clearance was obtained from QUT ethics

committee prior to beginning phase two of the study (# 0700000841). In

accordance with official University and National guidelines (Australian

Government, 1999; Queensland University of Technology, n.d.), voluntary

and informed participant consent was gained via a written consent form.

Participants had access to all information regarding the project from the time

they elected to participate. Level 1 (low risk) ethical review was permitted as

the study involved interview data taken at participants’ place of work, and as

the answers to Section 2 of the guidelines are all negative (no use of human

tissue, no participation of minors). All research fully complied with the

publication “A national statement on ethical conduct in researching involving

humans” (Australian Government, 1999) in terms of protecting participants

rights and managing any risk in relation to the study.

93

3.2.5 Research rigour

This section discusses issues of research rigour, including the validity

and reliability of the research results.

In qualitative research many arguments have been made that the

concepts of validity and reliably do not apply as they belong to a positivist

(and dualist) mindset, which is incompatible with qualitative research, and

that terms such as credibility and trustworthiness are more appropriate

(Åkerlind, 2005c; Lincoln & Guba, 1991). However, recent calls have been

made to return to such terms as representing a high standing of scientific

knowledge creation, and not just a positivist world view (Kuzel & Engel, 2001;

Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). The argument is given that

validity and reliability are still important standards for even qualitative

scientists to apply (Cope, 2004). This study responds to such calls by dealing

with the validity and reliability of the study as follows.

Validity

Validity refers to the ability of the study to actually investigate what it

sets out to investigate (Giorgi, 1988). As a phenomenographic study, that is,

a study into the diverse ways of conceptualising an object by the participants,

issues of validity are expressed as an attempt by the researcher to reflect

and communicate actively as accurately as possible the thoughts of

participants. Furthermore the non-dualistic ontological position of

phenomenography expects that an objective reality is unknowable outside

the human experience of it. Therefore, positivist notions of a knowable and

describable reality outside our experience of it are rejected. However,

although validity is a term originally derived from a quantitative research

paradigm, it is just as much an important issue in the qualitative

phenomenographic approach employed in this study. A phenomenographic

study is considered valid in as much as it sufficiently “corresponds to the

human experience of the phenomenon” (Åkerlind, 2005c, p. 330). Issues of

validity are dealt with through three main processes: Communicative,

pragmatic and face validity.

Communicative validity is defined as providing a defensible

interpretation of the data as opposed to a right interpretation to the

94

appropriate community of interested readers (Kvale, 1996). Various

communities included in the research include supervisors, the participants,

and interested colleagues at various workshops and the science education

conferences. Each of these communities was given the opportunity to

respond to the outcome space during the data analysis stage, and this

strengthened the communicative validity of the study. For example, the

supervisors worked closely together to provide several perspectives on the

data analysis. Supervisors also played the role of provocateurs to challenge

the researcher’s interpretations and conclusions. Also, the developing

outcome space was presented on more than one occasion to staff and

educational research colleagues at QUT at various workshops, which

included several practicing teachers and teacher educators.

Pragmatic validity is used to refer to a measure of validity in terms of

the eventual usefulness of the research to the academic community (Kvale,

1996) and in the current context the meaningfulness of the outcome space to

the practicing teacher and teacher education. Again, this has been

established by direct questioning to peers and colleagues as outlined

previously, in particular the interest shown in the presentation at the

Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference (Ireland,

2008) as well as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in

Education Conference (Ireland, 2010), and in general the interest show in

inquiry teaching nationally and internationally.

Face validity is the ability of a study to describe what it intends to

describe. After careful consultation with the research supervisory team, it was

concluded that the research met this criteria. A major contribution to the face

validity of the study was granted due to the pilot study, where the interview

based on the interview schema managed to reveal two distinctly different

conceptions of inquiry teaching. Also, the phrase inquiry teaching was

eventually adopted in the thesis title over the more syntactically precise

teaching in ways that foster inquiry learning in students in that the former was

sufficient in describing the phenomenon it represented. Finally, in order to

clarify teachers’ understanding of inquiry teaching, inquiry learning is also

discussed during the interviews. However, this thesis focuses on the

95

phenomenon of inquiry teaching and does not comment directly on the

separate yet related phenomenon of inquiry learning.

Reliability

Reliability is defined in this study as the use of thorough and

appropriate research methods to strengthen the interpretation of the data

(Cope, 2004). Two processes are generally used.

Coder reliability check is where, essentially, two researchers

independently analyse the data and then compare categorisations (Kvale,

1996). Since inter-rater reliability is not considered appropriate

philosophically (Sandburg, 1997), as the categories are at least in part

created, not discovered (Walsh, 2000), the study has not made use of a

coder reliability check. Coder reliability differs from the peer assessed

workshops (see Section 3.2.3) in that during the workshops educated

colleagues had the opportunity to critically respond to the categorisation

scheme of the researcher, rather than independently analysing the data for

themes from the beginning.

Dialogic reliability check occurs where separate researchers

categorise the data and discuss, alter and review their categorisations until

agreement is reached (Sandburg, 1997). Although many different

perspectives are sought for this study, dialogic reliability checks have not

played a major role in this research. However, since the final outcome space

has been discussed with peers and supervisors it does have a measure of

dialogic reliability.

Marton (1986), however, argued that reliability in phenomenography

may be measured by having researchers ask themselves the following

question after data analysis: Would different researchers allocate

conceptions to the categories of description in the same way as the original

researcher? It is expected that once the categories are established by the

researcher, other researchers would allocate the quotations to the categories

in a relatively reliable manner. The peer assessed workshops have played an

important role in helping determine the reliability of this research as quotes

representing the categories were presented on two occasions and tentative

agreement reached that they were indeed reliably representative of the

96

categories, though a full review of all 20 transcripts was only undertaken by

the researcher and supervisors.

Most importantly in terms of reliability, however, a demonstrative

procedure has been employed in this study to make the research method

transparent (Giorgi, 1988) in order to improve the reliability and validity of the

research study (Cope, 2004; Leveson, 2004). Demonstrative procedures are

further discussed by Åkerlind (2005c) as the researcher makes their

interpretive analysis methods clear through fully detailing the stages of the

research and presenting examples that illustrate them. Demonstrative

procedures also include a self reflective or critical stance towards their own

perspectives, and attempts to counteract or deal meaningfully with their

particular perspective on the research outcome. The values of demonstrative

procedure have been adhered to in this research, for example, through the

personal discloser of the researcher in Section 3.2 and the detail given in the

data analysis Section (3.2.3).

3.3 Conclusion

This chapter has argued the appropriateness of the

phenomenographic methodology to study variation in primary school

teachers’ ways of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education. With a

diverse sample of participants, adherence to strict ethical procedure, and

sensitivity to phenomenographic procedures and theoretical framework, a

thesis has resulted which makes a beneficial contribution to our

understanding of this important aspect of teacher knowledge in science

education.

.

97

Chapter 4 Results

The purpose of this study was to explore primary school teachers’

experiences of inquiry teaching in science education. Prior to this study

phenomenography as a research methodology had not yet been applied to

this problem, and was chosen to address this issue as it generated a limited

number of qualitatively different categories of experiences. This chapter will

now describe the results of this phenomenographic study into teachers’

conceptions. The outcome space comprises the three qualitatively different

categories arranged in terms of what was focal in teachers thinking during

their experience: Student Centred Experiences (Category 1); Teacher

Generated Problems (Category 2); and Student Generated Questions

(Category 3). However, it was noted that teachers did not make mention of

educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically with regards to

there being levels of inquiry (National Research Council of America, 2000) or

terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002).

An overview of the results is dealt with in Section 4.1. Sections 4.2

through 4.4 contain detailed descriptions of the main categories, including an

examination of the how and what of teaching (see Section 3.1.6), a

demographic comparison of category frequency among teachers, the

structures of awareness of the phenomenon, and a comparison of the

dimensions of variation. Section 4.5 contains a summary of the categories

and rich description of the outcome space. Section 4.6 then concludes the

chapter highlighting major research findings.

4.1 Overview of the Results

This section overviews the outcome space and dimensions of

variation.

4.1.1 The outcome space: an overview

As is customary in phenomenography, logical relationships within

categories are represented by an outcome space (Cope, 2004), see Table

4.1.

98

Table 4.1

Outcome space for the phenomenon of inquiry teaching.

The outcome space was created from the researchers’ analysis of the

data and not an analysis of the literature. The outcome space is presented as

an overview here, and will be fully explicated in Section 4.5. As a hierarchy,

Category 1 and 2 are seen as subsumed within Category 3. This means, for

instance, that teachers who based their teaching around helping students to

ask and answer questions would also occasionally make use of student

centred experiences and teacher generated problems within that context. In

contrast to the literature which typically aligns categories from teacher- to

student- centred, each of the categories in this study was found to take a

student-centred approach. Category 3 was the most student- centred and

Category 1 the least. Category 3 was used the least by teachers in this study,

while Category 1 was used at some time by every teacher.

Finally, it was noted that teachers themselves did not discuss different

levels of inquiry, or use terms such as open or guided in their description of

their conceptions of inquiry. As one teacher explained regarding their

Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning) Internal horizon

(Theme and thematic field)


Category 1-Student Centred Experiences

Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students

Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field-Student generated questions, Teacher generated problems

“Chalk and Talk” (transmissive approaches to teaching)

Category 2-Teacher Generated Problems

Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems for students

Theme-Teacher generated problems Thematic field-Student centred experiences, Student generated questions

It’s not inquiry if it’s just “wow, look at that” experiences. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context through providing a challenging problem.

Category 3-Student Generated Questions

Meaning 3: Inquiry teaching is experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions

Theme-Student generated questions Thematic field-Student centred experiences, Teacher generated problems

Most inclusive definition, thus also saw “chalk and talk” as belonging outside inquiry teaching.

99

experience with learning about inquiry teaching and how it can apply in their

curriculum:

T8 I’ve seen the nice little piece of paper that says “This is inquiry

and you’ve got this and you’ve got that and then you do this and

you do that.” But to me that just seems like a lot of jargon and it

didn’t mean a lot.

Category 1 summary: Student Centred Experiences

Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Centred Experiences

(Category 1) when teachers structure their teaching around a concern for

students’ personal experiences during learning with a focus on sensory

events. That is, there is an expectation that the students will see, hear, feel

and do interesting things that will focus their attention, have them asking

science questions, and improve their engagement in learning. The teacher

sets up opportunities for students to capitalise on their curiosity and to ask

questions about their experiences.

Category 2 summary: Teacher Generated Problems

Inquiry teaching is experienced as Teacher Generated Problems

(Category 2) when teachers structure their teaching around a given problem

they have designed and that the students are required to solve. The problem

is central to the teaching experience as teachers feel it helps students

engage with the topic at hand and produce productive work. In this category,

teachers expect students will have greater ownership over the content

material covered than other teaching methods through resolving the problem

themselves.

Category 3 summary: Student Generated Questions

Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Generated Questions

(Category 3) when teachers structure their teaching around helping students

to ask and answer their own questions about phenomena. The students’

questions are central to the teaching experience as teachers see students as

being more motivated and engaged with science content and materials when

they are seeking to answer their own questions than with traditional teaching

methods.

100

4.1.2 Dimensions of variation

Six dimensions of variation were found to delimit the qualitative

variation among categories. They were: (a) the role of the teacher; (b) the

role of the student; (c) the purpose of student centred experiences; (d) the

purpose of teacher generated problems; (e) the purpose of student

generated questions; and (f) teacher epistemological beliefs with regards to

the source of knowledge. These dimensions will be discussed in detail during

each section following (4.2 through 4.4).

Several dimensions of variation, some of which were noted in other

studies, were not found to vary between categories and thus are excluded

from this results section even though teachers did discuss them. They

included the benefit teachers find in teaching and breath of benefit to the

community at large (Åkerlind, 2004), epistemological beliefs of the general

nature of science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), role of assessment, year level of

student, and level of student knowledge required to engage in inquiry.

4.1.3 The how and what

As a developmental phenomenography study, this research made use

of the concept of the how and what of learning as applied to the study of

teaching (see Section 3.1.6). An overview of the how and what of inquiry

teaching as expressed by teachers in this study is presented here in Figure

4.1, elaborated in further detail during each category, and compared as a

whole in Section 4.5.1.

101

Figure 4.1. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.

4.1.4 Conclusion

This section has overviewed the outcome space including the three

main categories of teachers’ experiences of inquiry teaching as well as

related dimensions of variation. A detailed exploration of the categories now

follows, including the justification and evidence supporting the construction of

these categories.

4.2 The Student Centred Experiences Category

This section will describe category 1, as teachers’ experience inquiry

teaching as Student Centred Experiences. First, a general summary of the

category is presented. Next, the detail of the category is explored in terms of

the how and what of the phenomenon, structure of awareness, and

D.O. Attitudes, Skills (concepts)

I.O. To encourage students

Act Provide problems

Teacher Generated Problems category

how

what

D.O. Concepts, Attitudes (skills)

I.O. To engage students

Act Provide experiences

Student Centred Experiences category

how

what

D.O. Skills (attitudes, concepts)

I.O. To empower students

Act Provide guidance

Student Generated Questions category

how

what

102

dimensions of variation. Last, the section is concluded summarising the

evidence supporting the category.

4.2.1 Summary

Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Centred Experiences

(Category 1) when teachers structure their teaching around a concern for

students’ personal experiences during learning with a focus on sensory

events. That is, there is an expectation that the students will see, hear, feel

and do interesting things that will focus their attention, have them asking

science questions, and improve their engagement in learning. This

expectation is illustrated in the following quote which exemplifies the nature

of this category, demonstrating that teachers expect the learning to be more

valuable as students are “experiencing it themselves”:

T19 …they’re finding things out for themselves and it’s more

meaningful to them, I think. Like if we try and tell them

something they may not remember it. But if they have done it

themselves that learning is more valuable. (Italics added).

The focus of this category is educating and engaging students through

their physical interaction with science in the classroom. In particular, students

are engaging with materials in some way that produces useful learning in

science. Examples presented by teachers included growing tomato plants in

various conditions to observe what qualities made them flourish (T1), playing

with live worms after reading about them (T5), and watching videos about

volcanoes to highlight science content material (T20). Examples of this

category also included allowing students unstructured play with equipment

during a science lesson (T3, T4, T5), as free choice activities during students’

free time (T16), or when teachers teach students how to perform an activity

and allow them to re-perform it before school (T6, T9). Scientific proofs, that

is, science content demonstrations by teachers or students making use of

experimental procedures to obtain expected results, also belonged to this

category (T6, T12).

In this category teachers expressed the opinion that the benefit of

inquiry to students was that students were “experiencing” science for

103

themselves. Thus they were more engaged in their learning; enjoying

themselves playing with materials and seeing the relevance of science to

their own lives more readily than with traditional transmissive approaches.

Students would thus be more engaged and interested in doing science at

home and during school, and would gain a deeper understanding of

educational learning outcomes teachers may have generated. This includes

the concepts, attitudes and skills teachers were trying to develop in students.

The Student Centred Experiences category was seen as inquiry in that

students were encouraged to ask questions about the experiences they were

having, however, student questions did not guide the teaching experience. In

essence the first conception of inquiry teaching follows a very inductive

process. Students were exposed to the environment as a stimulus to

generate interest and knowledge. This perspective seems to assume

scientific ideas are developed through direct experiences.

This category was seen by participating teachers as a predominantly

student -centred way of teaching, since teachers were focused on how

students learnt and not on how teachers taught, although of the three

categories it was the least student - centred. Some teachers described this

as their predominant way of experiencing inquiry teaching (T1, T5, T10, T16,

T20), while others used it as one activity among many during a science unit

(T2, T4, T7). One teacher in the early childhood curriculum mentioned that

this was how she taught “all the time” (T3).

4.2.2 Detail of the Student Centred Experiences category

The how and what, structure of awareness, and dimensions of

variation for this category will now be discussed.

The how and what

The details of the how and what (from Section 3.1.6) of teachers’

experience of teaching science as Student Centred Experiences are

represented in figure 4.2, which illustrates the relationships between the act

of teaching, the indirect object (the goals of teaching), and the direct object

(learning outcomes) that teachers strived for as they were experiencing

inquiry teaching as Category 1.

104

Figure 4.2. Category 1: Student Centred Experiences category how and what

The act of teaching occurred as teachers provided engaging sensory

experiences in which students participated. This action may have involved

bringing in materials for students to experience such as worms or tomato

plants, or purely visual stimulus such as showing videos or interesting

science demonstrations. Teachers may have allowed students to play with

equipment freely (T3, T4, T5), or provided a structured experience around

students observing certain facts (T3, T20). Students were encouraged to

explore, discuss, and ask questions arising from their engagement with the

materials. In one way or another, teachers saw students as learning through

inquiry because they were experiencing something. As teacher 1 explained,

students were able to better recall content material because they had

experienced it during a unit on growing plants:

T1 … I feel that they learn by seeing and doing more than they do

by me standing up at the blackboard telling them that this plant

is going to die because it's got no water, etcetera. Ask them the

next day and they've forgotten about it. Do it this way and they

remember “oh, yeah, that was the plants that we put in the

cupboard! Or, “but that's the plant that we didn't give any water

to!” They can identify the particular scenario by what we did or

didn't do.

The indirect object of teaching was predominantly to engage students;

to help them enjoy science through having interesting science related

experiences. This was evident from teacher 1 later explaining that during

inquiry “you have to… engage with their scientific minds … and be fun.” In a

sense, teachers provided students with experiences in order to promote their





How

What

105

future ability to engage with and enjoy experiencing science. This in turn

helped students learn science content better because they found science

interesting and were better able to see the relevance to their own lives. That

such experiences made science more engaging and “real” is illustrated in this

quote from teacher 20:

T20 … And I think, for me, that was a good way of trying to make

things like earthquakes and volcanoes a bit more real. Because

it’s not like we’ve got a volcano down the road that we can go

and visit, or that we see every day. Particularly for this age

group, you know, probably haven’t travelled a lot. … the

multimedia stuff is good way of actually engaging them and

getting them interested and thinking “wow, the power of that

thing” or “that’s destructive” or whatever it might be. (Emphasis

added)

The educational learning outcomes aimed for (direct object, or the

what), covered three areas: concepts, attitudes and skills. The main objective

of Category 1 was the teacher selected science concepts the teacher

intended be learnt, such as life cycles or tectonic plate theory. These

concepts were experienced through students’ personal engagement with

materials, for example, seeing the tomatoes rather than just learning about

them. To a lesser extent, but also quite important, inquiry teaching was used

to teach science skills such as listening, recording and measuring. Finally,

inquiry teaching also had an important role in teaching attitudes towards

science, such as that it is “fun” (T3), and that students should become “the

scientists in the room” (T5) by overcoming their squeamishness over

touching worms. The following quote from the practice of teacher 5 illustrates

this desire to develop positive attitudes towards science as students were

“completely engaged”, and “switched on”:

T5 … English was my focus but I used science to bring it in, OK.

And I was doing an information report. So what I did was I just

got earthworms, and we discovered earthworms. We sat there

and we studied them in all sorts of ways, under microscopes,

we did things to these poor earth worms that um, you know, the

kids were completely engaged. We got over the initial “ooh

yuck! Touchy touchy worms!” with “we are scientists in this

106

room, and we are looking at the worms from a scientific

viewpoint. We want to see what they do, how they move, how

they react to noise, how they react to light, that sort of stuff.” …I

gave them that parameter of “we are scientists” [sits up straight,

places hand thoughtfully on chin] straight from the word go, and

they were fantastic with it. They were so engaged and switched

on, and their information report was magnificent. (emphasis

added)

This section has discussed the how and what of inquiry teaching, and

will now explore the awareness structure for teachers’ conceptions as they

experience inquiry teaching as Student Centred Experiences.

Structure of awareness

The structure of awareness for the Student Centred Experiences

category is illustrated in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Structure of awareness for Category 1

The referential aspect describes the overall meaning of the experience

for participants (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, in Category 1 inquiry teaching

is experienced as providing stimulating experiences for students. As per

Cope (2004), the structure of this awareness is made up of the internal and

external horizons.

The internal horizon comprises the theme and thematic field of

awareness. The theme relates to that which is focal in teacher’s awareness




Category 1-Student centred experiences


Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field-Student generated questions, Teacher generated problems

“Chalk and Talk”

107

as they are experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1. During this category

teachers focused on providing engaging learning experiences for students.

Teachers assume inquiry teaching is structured around physical experiences

for students such as handling material objects, watching videos, or talking to

guest speakers. Having students experience is what drives the teaching

experience for teachers during this category.

The thematic field includes that which is present in awareness, but not

the focus of it (see Section 3.1.4). In this category, student generated

questions are in the thematic field of teacher awareness. Teachers are aware

of the role student generated questions can play, but they are not focal in

teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching. That is, teachers used student

generated questions to engage students in learning and to assess student

understanding, but answering such questions were not the basis of educative

programs in teacher thinking; giving students the experiences teachers had

planned for them was the basis. For example, this quotation from teacher 14

illustrates how she used questions to direct and guide student attention and

assist in the assimilation of experiences, helping them to “explore” by

scaffolding them with the kinds of questions she hopes they will ask:

T14 I see the students’ role as being an exploratory one; one where

they are the ones to do the exploring. I guess me as a teacher,

my role in that is to guide them and help guide their thinking. If

they’re struggling and way off track, maybe bringing in a

question to help bring them in but … my idea was just to ask

questions and get them to do the thinking “Well, is this going to

work? How is it going to work? If it’s not going to work, why

isn’t it going to work? What can we do to fix it?”

Teacher generated problems are also part of the thematic field of

teachers awareness in this category. Teachers do use problems to help

focus student attention and engage them in the learning. However, the kinds

of problems posed by teachers are simpler in comparison to Category 2, as

discussed in greater detail in dimensions of variation in the next section.

The external horizon is the context which delimits the phenomenon

from its environment (Marton & Booth, 1997). In this category, teachers

contrasted inquiry teaching with transmissive approaches to science

108

teaching, usually referred to as “chalk and talk” (T1). Inquiry teaching is

claimed to be more engaging for students as it involves direct experiences

with materials rather than just hearing about them. Teachers felt students

could “work it out for themselves” (T18) as it were, “through their own

experiences” (T1) rather than teachers “just feeding them information” (T20).

Teachers were answering student questions and illustrating desired learning

outcomes by direct reference to student experience. Inquiry was very much a

“learning by doing” (T1) process, which also meant the passive act of simply

“reading stuff … is not inquiry” (T4). As teacher 16 explained, “Inquiry based

learning is learning through … doing, not just writing.”

Dimensions of variation

The section will now discuss the dimensions of variation that make up

this category of description. As a parsimonious description that focuses on

the qualitative variation between categories, this results section does not deal

with the similarities between categories, but their qualitative differences.

Dimensions of variation that did not vary between categories are not included

(see Section 4.1.2).

Role of the teacher: The teacher saw their role as providing

experiences for students. Teachers sought to draw out student

understanding rather than give students the answers where possible, usually

by referring students to their own experiences rather than interpreting a

situation for students. For example, teacher 1 showed the children the

withered tomato plant that had been left in the cupboard for a week and

compared it with the healthy garden ones, asking students to explain this

situation as opposed to immediately using it to illustrate desired concept

outcomes. This practice of referring students to their own experiences rather

than giving them the answer is referred to as being a knower, but not a teller

in this study. Students do learn science content, but the teacher’s aim is to

have them experience it, rather than just hear about it, which would constitute

a transmissive “chalk and talk” (T1) approach by teachers.

In the interviews teachers consistently claimed their role to be

facilitators, yet Category 1 had many qualities of a teacher directed

approach. Teachers chose the topic to be studied, how it was studied, and

109

the student experiences that were intended to lead students to acquire the

content understandings they intended. Teacher 19, from the early childhood

context, explained that her role was as a “guide”, however, it was a very

teacher focused guidance; making sure students were working to plan and

finding out what she intended them to find:

J And what’s the teacher’s role during inquiry lessons?

T19 [whispers] Control behaviour [laughter]. And really, I just think to

guide. To guide what they're doing: make sure they’re on track

and make sure that it is working to plan, that they are going to

find out what you had hoped them to find out I suppose. Yeah, I

think it’s just more to facilitate that everyone’s on track and that

they are learning what you had hoped for them to learn I

suppose.

Although teachers fulfilled this same role as facilitator in all three

categories, it will be seen that they relinquish partial authority over some

aspects of the teacher role in the latter categories, thus allowing for greater

levels of student autonomy in terms of the direction of learning in Category 2,

and noticeably more during Category 3.

Role of the student: Students had the lowest level of input into

planning during inquiry teaching in the Student Centred Experiences

category. Students did not choose content or activities. However, even within

these teacher directed activities students were often highly active; being

encouraged to see what happens, try out their ideas, and decide for

themselves as long as they decided what the teacher intended. The following

quote from teacher 5 illustrates the role of the teacher in choosing the

activities, the role of the student as being active learners seeking to

experience content, and the indirect object of the inquiry as having students

engaged through active experience:

T5 But when you’re reading through and saying “ok, well these

worms lay eggs and they look like this” and then the children

find them and say “yeah, that’s an egg”… that sort of stuff.

J So they saw it in the book.

T5 Yeah, and then they found it in the dirt. And [student] said “oh

look, look, this is an egg, and this is whatever”. And you know,

110

they saw the way the muscles move by the way they move. So

they were reading about this information, but then they were

actually looking at it happening in front of them. Which was,

yeah, really good and they were, they were very engaged.

Purpose of student experiences: Student experiences were focal in

teachers’ awareness during the Student Centred Experiences category as a

means of engaging students in learning and encouraging their interest in

science. This quotation from teacher 20 illustrates that “experiments” (or

teacher demonstrations) are a means to engage and educate students:

T20 I love getting the kids [to do] hands on stuff. Experiments, you

know, maybe start at that point and through those experiences

see what they can interpret from what they’ve experienced.

Rather than saying “here it is, this is how it works, this is why it’s

happening, write it in your books.” … that’s how I interpret

inquiry.

Purpose of teacher generated problems: In Category 1, the kinds of

problems teachers proposed were simple, and used mainly to help students

observe and thus experience content more closely. For example, teacher 3

would often ask students “why do you think…?” in order to challenge her

students into a more active engagement with science and scientific materials.

The kinds of teacher generated problem differed qualitatively between

categories 1 and 2. In Category 1, students were encouraged to notice

events or features of a system and express explanations, store up

experiences, propose causal links, show interest and so forth. In Category 2

a clearly defined question was posed by the teacher which students would

explore by applying some strategy. Category 2 required a definable, feasible

and researchable question emerging from some observation of a natural

phenomenon, while Category 1 problems simply focused student attention

and heightened their ability to experience.

Purpose of student generated questions: While student questions

were not the focus of Category 1, they did guide student and teacher

behaviour. For example, in the practice of teacher 5 a student asked

regarding worms:

111

T5 “well why is it doing this?” and then I went “well, lets have a look

why, what’s going on here.” … so it was, you know, questions

would crop up and then we’d stop the class, and we’d look at

that, as see if we could find out why these things were

happening.

This quotation from teacher 5 illustrates that student questions had a

role to play during the Student Centred Experiences category. Student

questions were not the focus of the teaching, however, teachers would allow

certain student questions in order to improve and maintain student

engagement in the experience. Teachers also used student questions to help

assess student understanding. The purpose of student questions develops in

Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2), and evolves further during

Student Generated Questions inquiry (Category 3).

Teacher epistemological beliefs: The source of knowledge in

Category 1 was the teacher themselves, who had gained their knowledge

from books, internet, and other authoritative sources. While teachers overtly

described student personal experiences as the ultimate source of knowledge,

students and teachers were still looking to teachers to provide accurate

interpretations of events, as illustrated in the practice of teacher 9:

T9 …there was a few results that didn’t really quite go the way that

we should according to our knowledge about moulds so we

thought why that might have been the case? If there were

errors or---?

J For example?

T9 There was one where [students] had different liquids. They had

milk, cordial and water and control and so you’d think that the

cordial would grow the most with the sugar to supply the mould

and energy but it didn’t. The milk actually grew the most and we

thought “Well maybe the cordial was undiluted so maybe the

problem there was that there’s too much sugar and sugar acts

as a preservative so that should stop the mould from growing

because the milk provided some nutrients as well the moisture.”

Yeah, but that took a while to work out.

J Did you think that one up?

112

T9 Yeah.

J What did the class conclude on the matter?

T9 I’m not quite sure.

4.2.3 Conclusion

This section has explored the teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching

in science as Student Centred Experiences. Whether placing a bunch of

worms on the table for children to play with, bringing in a volcano video for

children to watch, or doing exciting science demonstrations with bottles and

balloons, teachers use inquiry teaching to help students engage with science

through enjoyable sensory experiences with science materials. This study

will now explore Category 2 experience of inquiry teaching as Teacher

Generated Problems.

4.3 The Teacher Generated Problems Category

This section will examine teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching as

Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2). First a general summary of the


the how and what of the phenomenon, structure of awareness, and

dimensions of variation. Last, the section is concluded summarising the

evidence supporting the category.

To clarify, the kind of problem referred to in this category is an

investigatory problem that the students engage in, solving the problem

though some inquiry or manipulative process to find the solution. The

problem involves the use materials and of scientific concepts such as force

and energy.

4.3.1 Summary

Inquiry teaching is experienced as Teacher Generated Problems

(Category 2) when teachers structure their teaching around a given problem

they have designed and that the students are required to solve. The problem

is central to the teaching experience as teachers feel it helps students

engage with the topic at hand and produce productive work. In this category,

teachers expect students will have greater ownership over the content

113

material covered than other teaching methods through resolving the problem,

as is illustrated in the following quotation.

T17 … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and

there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then

we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this

problem. So it might be through acting it out, it might be making

a model, it might be drawing diagrams, whatever we’re going to

do and then we go about doing it. … So that’s how I see

inquiry-based learning is beginning with some sort of question

or story so that that’s the stimulus to move on and helping them

to find ways of “Well what are you going to do about it?”

Examples include: working out how to lift a heavy box using only a

cylinder and plank (T14); responding to an imaginary letter from an

underwater theme park world for information on how to set up a new exhibit

(T18); building a tower using paper and sticky tape that would support a

tennis ball (T10); setting students the task to find out about natural disasters

(T17) from the internet or library. Examples may also include designing,

building and testing energy efficient shoebox houses (T4); testing water

absorption into the atmosphere (T15); developing tests to compare towel

absorbency (T16); measuring viscosity, the co-efficient of bouncing, or the

hardness of rocks (T7).

As with Category 1, some teachers made use of teacher generated

problems as part of a broader curriculum (for example, T4, T16), while others

considered the Teacher Generated Problems category as what it meant to

teach science though inquiry all the time (for example, T10, T17). In contrast

to Category 1 and 3, no teacher spoke of inquiry teaching as what they do in

all areas of education.

In this category teachers expressed the opinion that the benefit to

students was that because students were focused on solving a problem, they

were more committed to the learning and could more readily see its

relevance than with other teaching methods. This would also help students

develop confidence and competence in problem solving through successfully

meeting the challenge, and this would benefit students in other curriculum

areas and life in general. By giving students problems to solve, teachers

114

aimed at giving students a deeper understanding of science, more so than

just experiences of science as was the case with Category 1. As teacher 16

explained, the experience of science “experiments” alone is not enough to

educate students through inquiry:

T16 And so you go out to the supermarket and you get all the things

and you grab the random science book and you find

experiments that you know you’re going to be able to do at

school. I find that, yes, while the kids enjoy it-it lacks content. It

lacks the depth of learning because each different experiment

will cover a different facet of science so it doesn’t really get into

the hows and whys. It’s a bit Professor Sumner Millar. You

know it’s like “The glass and a half” and they go “Wow” and

then that’s about it. (Emphasis added).

Category 1 and 2 are hierarchical in that during the Teacher

Generated Problems category teachers would occasionally use student

centred experiences to help students solve problems, while in Category 1,

the kinds of problems teachers proposed to help students experience inquiry

were relatively simple.

4.3.2 Detail of the Teacher Generated Problems category



The how and what

The details of the how and what of teachers’ experience of teaching

science as the Teacher Generated Problems category are represented in

Figure 4.3 within a phenomenographic framework.

Figure 4.3. Category 2: Teacher Generated Problems category how and what





How

What

115

Figure 4.3 illustrates the relationships between the act of teaching, the

indirect object (the goals of teaching), and the direct object (learning

outcomes) that teachers strived for as they were experiencing inquiry

teaching.

The act of teaching occurs as teachers present students with a

problem to be solved. Teachers usually give students specific materials to

help experience solving the problem. This action of giving materials is similar

to what the teacher does in Student Centred Experiences, however student

experiences are structured as a means to an end (solving the problem) rather

than as a means in themselves as was the case in Category 1 (engaging

students and illustrating concepts). This is demonstrated in the following

quote by teacher 4 where a teacher challenge is the focus of the teaching,

not simply having the students experience circuit work:

T4 We did some [activities] on some circuit stuff, so I gave them a

battery, a couple of bits of wire and said, and a little bulb, “make

the bulb light up”.

J You just left it to them?

T4 Yep, just left them, just let them go. So some of them got very

frustrated … But I wanted them to figure that out. I wanted them

to think about what they had, think about their knowledge of

how batteries work. So I sort of went to those groups and

started talking to them about “well, do you have toys with

batteries, and how do you think it works?” And that type of

thing, and then, just gave them a little bit to think about. … So

they eventually, all of them got this little light bulb to light up and

they were just thrilled about that.

The goal of teaching, that is the indirect object in a phenomenographic

sense, is to encourage students. Teachers encouraged students to develop

perceptions of high self efficacy through meeting and overcoming a challenge

in the form of a teacher generated problem. By successfully solving a

problem, students were not only taught how to solve problems, but teachers

explained that this improved students’ confidence and self image that they

are able to solve problems (see quote from teacher 10 below). This

encouragement would then flow into other learning areas where students

116

could build on the previous successes in problem focused inquiries to tackle

new challenges, even in different curriculum areas. This transfer is illustrated

by teacher 10 who instructed the children to build the paper towers. Some

time later, students faced a new challenge in another subject area and

teacher 10 reports:

T10 … when I gave them this topic which was “Make something the

early settlers might have used, it can be a diorama, a bar cart.”

You know they thought and I said to them “You know you didn’t

think you could do the first one. You didn’t think you could do

the towers. Okay now you know with a bit of thought, a little bit

of guidance, maybe a bit of help from Dad, you’re going to

come up with something good.” And they said “Yeah, I think I

might.” And so there was that confidence.

This quote from teacher 10 illustrates how the indirect object is

achieved in inquiry teaching as teachers use the students’ success at

previous inquiry lessons to encourage students to attempt new challenges in

other curriculum areas.

As with the preceding category, the direct object involved three

learning outcomes; skills, attitudes and concepts. The development of

student attitudes was a primary goal and effective problem solving skills

secondary. Scientific concepts, depicted in brackets in Figure 4.3, were a

tertiary goal. For example, teachers aimed to develop student attitudes so

they begin to feel like capable problem solvers, that school science is

enjoyable, and something that they are capable of doing. The quote from

teacher 18 illustrates this focus on attitudes, as the teacher strives to help

students develop confidence and independence:

T18 … teachers and parents aren’t going to be standing there every

time they want to find something out. So it’s being able to

realise, and I know in the work force your boss doesn’t want you

running to him every five minutes of the day “how do I do this?

How do I do this? How do I do this?” He wants you to be a self

sufficient person that can say “OK, this is what I have to do,

how am I going to get to my objective?” You know, the end

result.

117

However, learning outcomes related to skills were also valued by

teachers. These included generic skills such as group work and problem

solving skills. Science process skills such as testing, writing reports, and

observation abilities were also often important. As teacher 12 explained: “I

don’t think knowledge is the important thing. It’s all those skills of how to go

about working in a team.” In this category teachers occasionally required but

did not teach directly the experimental method, for example; defining and

controlling variables, use of control groups, repeated trials. If required, these

skills were taught using a transmission approach during non-inquiry science

lessons, as illustrated again in the practice of teacher 12:

T12 At the moment I’m still teaching kids about fair testing. They’re

not really understanding all the concepts of fair testing so until

we get there then an open-ended investigation [i.e. inquiry] one-

on-one won’t work. (Parenthesis added).

The following quotation by teacher 10 again illustrates how the

development of student attitudes is the primary direct object of this category

as they develop an attitude of confidence first, and skills at lateral thinking

second:

T10: The student’s role? … hopefully is to develop a bit of

confidence in themselves; to think outside the square.

Finally, science concepts were less important as a learning outcome

(see quote below), but were still apparent. In particular, the content related to

the problem under investigation was considered important. For example; the

problem of lifting a heavy box was used to introduce concepts regarding

simple machines, and writing a letter to an underwater theme park was used

to motivate students to explore the needs of saltwater fish. The Teacher

Generated Problems category usually aimed at teaching content by having

students experience it, as in the Student Centred Experiences category, but

also strived to give them some ownership over this understanding by placing

content within the context of a given problem. However, the science concepts

were usually taught using a transmission approach previously, and the

problem was used to motivate and encourage students.

These three learning outcomes (attitudes, skills and concepts) are

illustrated in the following quote regarding the strengths of the Teacher

118

Generated Problems category by teacher 9. Inquiry is “engaging” (attitudes),

and gaining skills such as group work and problem solving are very

important. However, the “pressure is off the teacher” to be the “holder of

knowledge” (content):

T9 Strengths? … It is engaging. You really are putting it into the

hands of the students and acting as facilitator so it takes the

pressure – well, no. It takes the pressure off the teacher being

the holder of knowledge but there is quite a skill in being a good

facilitator. So it’s a different skill. Strengths; I think it also

teaches a lot of real life skills where they need to be able to

problem solve, figure out where to get information so sort of

some researcher skills there. The way that we teach inquiry,

they also have to learn how to work in a team which I think is

very valuable. … Often that might be some sort of sharing or –

yeah sharing and thinking about what they’ve learnt. But also

going a little bit further so how it does apply to the real world

can be very difficult to get the time to do that.


The structure of awareness for the Teacher Generated Problems

category is illustrated in Table 4.3

Table 4.3


The referential aspect describes the meaning of the experience for

teachers (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, in Category 2 inquiry teaching is

Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning)

Internal horizon (Theme and thematic field)


Category 2-Teacher generated problems


Theme-Teacher generated problems Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Student generated questions

Its not inquiry if it’s just ”wow, look at that” experiences. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context through providing a challenging problem.

119

experienced as providing challenging problems to students. The internal

horizon is made up of the theme and thematic field of awareness. Thematic

in teacher awareness is that inquiry teaching is generating problems for

students to solve. Teachers assume inquiry learning is structured around a

challenge such as a critical event, a problem, or puzzle.

In this category, student generated questions are in the thematic field

of teacher awareness. That is, teachers used student generated questions to

engage students in learning and to assess student understanding, but

student questions were not focal in the inquiry teaching experience. Thus, in

contrast to Category 3 but similar to Category 1, student generated questions

play a supportive but not focal role in the teaching experience.

Student experiences are also seen as belonging to the thematic field.

That is, student experiences were valued as supportive in helping students

solve the problem at hand, but were not used to direct the teaching

experience. Student experiences are no longer the focus as with Category 1,

but instead must now play a supportive role in helping teachers to structure

an environment where students can meet appropriate challenges.

The external horizon is the context which delimits the phenomenon

from its environment (Marton & Booth, 1997). Compared with Category 1,

teacher generated problems have moved from the margin of awareness into

the focus of it. Also, in direct contrast to Category 1, student centred

experiences are seen as external to inquiry if they are not in the service of

solving a problem the teacher has given. This is demonstrated by the quote

from teacher 16, cited previously, where the experience of science

“experiments” alone is not enough to educate students through inquiry:

T16 And so you go out to the supermarket and you get all the things

and you grab the random science book and you find

experiments that you know you’re going to be able to do at

school. I find that, yes, while the kids enjoy it-it lacks content. It

lacks the depth of learning because each different experiment

will cover a different facet of science so it doesn’t really get into

the hows and whys. It’s a bit Professor Sumner Millar. You

know it’s like “The glass and a half” and they go “Wow” and

then that’s about it. (Emphasis added).

120

Finally, as a hierarchical structure of awareness, transmissive

approaches such as “chalk and talk” are considered external to inquiry

teaching. This section has now explored the structure of awareness for

Category 2 of teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching. The next section will

discuss the dimensions of variation that make up this category.


Role of the teacher: The role of the teacher experiencing inquiry

teaching as Category 2 was to provide students with problems to solve, and

then to scaffold them in solving and reporting the solution. Much like

Category 1, Category 2 had many qualities of a teacher directed approach.

However, teacher practice adapted more of the qualities of a student centred

approach. For example, in Category 1 teachers would occasionally not

answer student questions, referring students to their own experiences from

which to draw conclusions. In the present category teachers expanded this

role of being a knower, but not a teller, by actively feigning ignorance in order

to force the students into more active mental engagement with the problem at

hand. That is, teachers not only refused to answer student inquiries directly,

but now would also actively claim to not know the answer, thus encouraging

students to confront the problem alone. The quote from teacher 4 above

illustrates the practice of feigning ignorance by not knowing how to light the

light, or teacher 14 who was feigning ignorance regarding how to lift the

heavy box.

The next quote from teacher 7 can be used to demonstrate that

Teacher Generated Problems category has some qualities of being teacher

directed. Furthermore, it supports the hierarchical structure of the categories

by demonstrating how focusing on student questions (Category 3) to guide

the learning can be seen as existing outside teacher curriculum objectives.

The example was later given of students wanting to repeat the vinegar and

sodium bicarbonate volcano activity with the variables of hot and cold water,

which the teacher did not see as fitting into her curriculum goals and thus did

not continue as part of the regular classroom teaching:

T7 My role is more to facilitate their learning. To throw the ideas

out, see where it will take us – because that’s one of the things

121

with inquiry based learning – sometimes children have, you

know, children being children, they go off on tangents. And

trying to see whether the tangent they’ve taken, or the tact

they’ve taken actually fits into the learning experiences that you

want them to have – will it be worthwhile to use that as an extra

activity that perhaps we hadn’t considered with our planning. Or

whether it’s actually not going to add value to the outcome, the

essential learning that we are covering and therefore it won’t tie

in. But see in those sorts of cases we have a science activity

corner. So if they’ve got something like that that doesn’t really fit

in, they can use the equipment, and use it before school at 8:30

when they come in of a morning, or if they finish work tasks in

class early they can go over and they can have a go at it then.

So it’s just the kids who are interested in it will go and have a go

rather than all of them.

Role of the student: In this category the students’ role has developed

from the role they played during the Student Centred Experiences category.

In Category 1 students were active learners, now they are considered

engaged learners working on resolving a problem. Students are given more

agency to determine the course of their learning. That is, not only are they

paying attention and participating, they now are proposing and testing

solutions to a problem that the teacher has given them. As teacher 10

discussed:

T10: An ideal inquiry lesson? I suppose by definition it would be

dividing them up into groups and giving them a task to discuss

and have some very open ended question with a science

element to it. I suppose it would be something like “Well, this

group you go away and perhaps discuss why you think the sky

is blue”, something like that. Or “Why does the grass go so well

there and not over here?” Those sort of things and just see

what they come up with.

As further examples, teacher 4 had students trying to turn on a light,

teacher 10 had students building towers out of paper, and teacher 9

challenged students to find out which liquid was more viscous. In this way,

teachers appear to be attempting to move students beyond being active

122

explorers of their own experiences, to helping students develop skills in

creating and testing their own ideas through the resolution of teacher driven

problems. Students therefore experienced a greater level of student

autonomy in Category 2 than Category 1.

However, some teachers believed that general research did not mean

inquiry, as the quote from teacher 17 below indicates. While students were

facing the challenge of finding information at the library (what this study

would consider a teacher generated problem), they were not given a

“problem to solve” and thus it was not really considered inquiry teaching:

T17 The most recent science that we’ve done here in our class has

not really been inquiry based so much in that it was based

around weather and natural disasters. That was last term and

the children were encouraged to go out and find out recent

things from the newspapers. So I guess they were doing some

inquiring there but they weren’t given a particular problem to go

out and see if they could solve in that way.

Purpose of student experiences: The purpose of student experiences

can be seen to build on the role students’ experiences played in the Student

Centred Experiences category (Category 1). That is, teachers arranged

various sensory experiences for students, as with Category 1, however now

these experiences served the aim of helping students to solve the problem

(Category 2).

Purpose of teacher generated problems: In this category problems are

the focus of teachers’ awareness. Teachers structure the learning around set

problems that they have given to the students to solve. This contrasts with

Category 1 where the teacher does not use problems to direct their teaching,

though they did pose occasional problems to students in order to help them

engage in their learning. The role of teacher generated problems is perhaps

best illustrated in the following quote from teacher 17 that was used to

illustrate this category.

T17 … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and

there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then

we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this

problem. So it might be through acting it out, it might be making

123

a model, it might be drawing diagrams, whatever we’re going to

do and then we go about doing it. … So that’s how I see

inquiry-based learning is beginning with some sort of question

or story so that that’s the stimulus to move on and helping them

to find ways of “Well what are you going to do about it?”

Purpose of student questions: The purpose of student questions was

similar to the Student Centred Experiences category, playing a supportive but

not focal role in teachers’ awareness during inquiry teaching. The purpose of

student questions is here illustrated in the long narrative of the lever and the

heavy box as provided by teacher 14. Although teacher questions are used

to set up the problem to be solved, student questions also assist to focus

student attention and learning:

T14 And I made up this story that I was in the desert and then I was

on this plane by myself. And I couldn’t lift [the box] up by myself

but I had to raise it up high enough to get it into the plane so I

could take off. There was no-one else around and so I’m asking

all these questions going “Okay. So how am I going to do it?

And I went for this walk and I found this cylinder, and I went for

this walk and I found this plank and then I had all these things,

how am I going to get this to work? And so I asked the kids that

and they put it a certain way and we tried that. And it was going

to topple over and do all sorts of things and so I asked the kids,

“Is that going to work?” No. So we needed to find another

solution to the problem.

J Yeah.

T14 And so we did that and it was funny. One boy had this great

idea and he toppled it over and the cylinder landed on its side...

And I looked at it and they looked at it and they went “Stop,

stop!! Let’s try that! Let’s try that!” And so we tried that

because it landed perfectly and the plank was on top of the

cylinder and everything/

J When it all fell over.

T14 When it all fell over. So it fell into perfect position and then the

kids went “Stop!” and I said “What?” and they explained what

they were thinking. They explained that they thought that that

124

was [a] different way that could work and then we tried it out. It

worked well. Everyone went “Hooray…!”

Teachers’ epistemological beliefs: In this category teachers explicitly

attempted to ensure that the source of knowledge was the students’

interpretation of their results. However, just as with Category 1, teachers

expected students to find the answers the teacher thought were correct. The

primary example of this was in their feigning ignorance technique – teachers

expected students to find an answer similar or exactly like the one they were

pretending to not know. As an example of teacher epistemological beliefs, in

relation to writing up a conclusion regarding a class inquiry, teacher 7 was

assessing:

T7 … how they did it, and what the results show. What their

observations were, and what the results proved. Did they prove

or disprove the initial statement that they had made at the

beginning.

This quotation illustrates that teacher 7 still expected science to prove

rather than support or provide evidence for student claims, as well as to

disprove rather than fail to provide support for knowledge claims. In terms of

epistemological beliefs it is apparent that not withstanding any claims to the

contrary, teachers expected the source of knowledge in science education to

be themselves, rather than student interpretations of the results.

4.3.3 Conclusion

This section has discussed the teachers’ experience of inquiry

teaching as Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2). Whether challenging

students to design a tower of straws that will hold a tennis ball, confronting

students with the problem of lifting a heavy box, or organising students to find

out about something specific at the library, teachers use inquiry teaching to

help students develop self efficacy, skills, and understanding by confronting

and solving problems. I will now explore the Student Generated Questions

category.

125

4.4 The Student Generated Questions Category

This section describes teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching as

Student Generated Questions (Category 3). First a general summary of the


the how and what, structure of awareness, and dimensions of variation. Last,

the section is concluded summarising the evidence supporting the category.

4.4.1 Summary

Inquiry teaching is experienced as Student Generated Questions

(Category 3) when teachers structure their teaching around helping students

to ask and answer their own questions. The students’ questions are central to

the teaching experience as teachers see students as being more motivated

and engaged with science content and materials when they are seeking to

answer their own questions than with traditional teaching methods. This is

illustrated in the following quote which illustrates the nature of this category,

showing that the focus of teacher thinking is on helping students to find out

what they, the students, want to know:

T18 I mean to me inquiry learning is giving children the opportunities

to find out new things, and to ask the right questions to learn

about new things in a collaborative way, and to be able to not

just be given the knowledge and stand out the front. I think

that’s the traditional approach, is that the teachers stand there

and give the children the knowledge that they’re expected to

know. Whereas inquiry is taking it to that other side, where the

children find out what it is that they want to know, and we give

them the tools to be able to do that.

Examples of this category include negotiating a topic with students,

such as under the sea (T6, T18) or micro-beasts (T8), then organising

students to generate questions and research their answers within that topic.

This category also includes scientific investigations where the teacher selects

the topic, but helps students to generate and answer their own questions in

relation to that topic, such as developing a way of testing advertising claims

for superior products (T4), or exploring the qualities of successful balloon

126

rockets (T2). The focus is on helping students to ask and answer their own

questions.

In this category teachers expressed the opinion that the benefit to

students was that students are better motivated because they are answering

their own questions and learning about what it was that they wanted to know

than with traditional approaches. As illustrated in the practice of teacher 2:

T2 … When I think of inquiry based learning, that is where the

children are posing questions, and formulating ways to answer

that question. In science, testing hypotheses or what have you,

going through the scientific process testing their own questions

that they have posed and finding conclusions to their own

questions. In my mind, that’s what inquiry based learning is for

me.

As part of a hierarchy, teacher generated problems were sometimes

used by teachers as part of helping students to answer their own questions.

This may cause some confusion regarding the qualitative difference between

categories 2 and 3. As mentioned, the categories are delimited by what the

teacher was focused on as part of their experience of teaching. In Category

2, the teacher generated problem defined what activities were appropriate

and when the teaching had drawn to a close. With Category 3, it was the

student generated questions that defined what teaching activities were

appropriate and when the activity was appropriate to close. What the teacher

focused on defined the qualitatively different experiences of each category.

As with Category 1 some teachers saw inquiry as the way they teach

“all the time”, again exclusively in an early childhood setting (T6, T8). Other

teachers reported that inquiry was only one way among many ways of

teaching (T4, T2). I will now discuss the details of what it means to

experience inquiry teaching as the Student Generated Questions category.

4.4.2 Detail of the Student Generated Questions category



127

The how and what

The details of the how and what of teachers’ experience of teaching

science as the Student Generated Questions category are represented in

figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4. Category 3: Student Generated Questions category how and

what

Figure 4.4 illustrates the relationships between the act of teaching, the

indirect object (the goals of teaching), and the direct object (learning

outcomes) that teachers strived for as they were experiencing inquiry

teaching.

The act of teaching occurs as teachers structure their teaching around

helping students to ask and answer student generated questions. For

example, a teacher may either choose or negotiate a topic with students to

explore. Teachers then assist students in expressing and selecting questions

to work on. Students would find answers to those questions through a broad

range of activities including library and internet searches, watching

demonstrations, solving teacher generated problems, talking to visiting

experts, and occasionally concluding from their own experiments as

illustrated from this quote by teacher 8:

J So what does it mean to teach science through inquiry then?

T8 … inquiry you’d have focused questions and then you would

explore that way. So I just think everything you do is trying to

answer their questions. So with the insects they were like, "Why

are those bugs there? Why do they want to be in that garden?"

And then we research, recording and trying to find the answer.

So I just think if you’re doing an inquiry they’re inquiring into

things and posing questions and trying to answer questions that

How





What

128

it would be more meaningful for them. And they can see how

science is in their everyday life that it’s not a separate thing at

all. It’s just part of everything that we do.

Occasionally teachers focused on using what they considered as the

scientific method as a means of answering questions; however, this method

was in all cases taught previously as a non-inquiry lesson. This is illustrated

from the practice of teacher 4:

T4 Ok, we did a design a fair test. So they had to design a test to

test basically that things that were advertised on TV were

actually doing what they said they were doing. So some of the

children – we talked about advertising and how it can be

perceived as being not honest sometimes and that type of

thing. So, um, they had to design a fair test to test a product, a

popular product or whatever. … one child did nappies – like

Huggies verses Snugglers. They did three different paper

towels – so Viva verses whatever. Bubble gum, brands of

bubble gum, which ones made the biggest bubble. … and they

had to come up with the conclusions and that sort of thing. Start

off with the hypothesis, so they had to say which one they

thought would be the best. And then they tested it, and then

they came up with their conclusions and then they had to

present it to the class as a PowerPoint and a demonstration.

The goal (indirect object) was to empower students by building their

skills in asking questions, and then helping them to develop the competence

and confidence to answer those questions. This was different to Category 2

where the goal was primarily to develop confidence, and skills were seen as

a secondary objective. Also, the focus in Category 2 was on solving teacher

generated problems and not answering the students’ own questions.

Empowering students appears to have been a goal for education in general,

and inquiry learning was seen as a part of this objective; specifically through

empowering students with skills in asking and answering their own questions

and then being more successful at life in general. The following quote by

teacher 6 also illustrates many of the perceived benefits of the Student

Generated Questions category to teachers and especially students, in

129

particular, engaging students with topics they enjoyed, and empowering

students with skills for life:

J So what do you think worked differently during the approach

you took during the sea creatures unit?

T6 Um, I think to start with it was negotiated context. So right at the

beginning they were into it. And then I think that they were

learning just so much, and beyond their ability. Like I had one

boy that could read chapter books but the rest of the kids were

reading you know, level 4, level 5 sort of stuff. So the fact that

they could read non fiction books and research through it, and

get on Google and Google images and research, and they had

the skills that transferred into all different facets of education it

was just amazing, and I think that they could feel that they were

being empowered because it was more the skills that they were

getting from it, if you know what I mean. Like, they had the

physical things of the model sea animal that they had made.

But really it was the fact that they could research, and they’re

still able to do it. It’s a skill that was transferable. That’s the

other way that I knew that they learnt as well. (emphasis added)

As with previous categories the direct object involved three learning

outcomes. Primarily, inquiry learning was used to teach and practice skills

such as asking good questions, and finding ways to answer those questions

such as library and internet search skills. This contrasts with the Teacher

Generated Problems category where attitudes were more the focus rather

than skills, and the Student Centred Experiences category where concepts

are given greater emphasis, and skills and attitudes a secondary focus. The

following quote by teacher 6 illustrates the focus on skills a Student

Generated Questions category:

T6 ... I think that’s inquiry and if I can spark that in kids, in being

able to give them the skills to always be able to find the

answers to things, whether the answers be hugely complex or

just simple then I think that’s pretty much the inquiry approach.

It’s pretty much about the skills they can use forever.

During Student Generated Questions inquiry content outcomes also

involved, to a lesser extent, developing positive attitudes about self and

130

science such as science is fun and I can answer my own questions. Finally,

inquiry learning helped develop an understanding of certain science concepts

such as learning about life cycles of insects or undersea creatures. As

teacher 12 explained, content outcomes are seen as secondary to

developing life skills with inquiry teaching:

T12: I don’t think knowledge is the important thing. It’s all those

skills of how to go about working in a team. Yeah. (emphasis in

original)


The structure of awareness for the Student Generated Questions

category is illustrated in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4


The referential aspect describes the global meaning of the experience

for teachers (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, in Category 1 inquiry teaching is

experienced as assisting students to ask and answer their own questions. As

per Cope (2004), the structure of teacher awareness comprises the internal

and external horizons.

The internal horizon, is made up of the theme and thematic field of

awareness. Thematic in teacher awareness is that inquiry teaching is helping

students to ask and answer their own questions. Teachers assume inquiry

teaching is structured around the students’ questions, be those questions

highly structured or of a more general nature.




Category 3-Student generated questions


Focus-Student generated questions Thematic field - Student centred experiences -Teacher generated problems

Most inclusive definition. Also, students must be asking the questions to be answered, though teachers may direct them.

131

In this category, teacher generated problems were in the thematic field

of teacher awareness. That is, teachers used teacher generated problems to

help students to both ask and answer their own questions, but teacher

generated problems were not focal in teacher awareness. Student

experiences are also seen as belonging to the thematic field awareness. That

is, student experiences were valued as supportive in helping students ask

and answer their own questions, but were not used to direct the teaching

experience.

The external horizon defines the context that helps delimit the

phenomenon from its environment (Marton & Booth, 1997). In this category,

inquiry teaching is at its broadest and most inclusive definition. Inquiry

teaching was seen as helping students to ask and answer their own

questions, and while teachers could scaffold students in which questions to

ask, or choose the topic from which students developed questions, it was

student and not teacher generated questions that were the focus of the

teaching. When asked to define the related concept of inquiry learning,

teacher 16 explained “being allowed to explore at your level to answer your

own questions,” which may be taken to exclude exploring at your own level to

answer the teacher’s questions. It can be assumed, therefore, that a

curriculum based on teacher generated questions would be considered as

outside inquiry teaching or at best, a Student Centred Experiences

experience.

This section has now explored the structure of awareness for

Category 3 of teachers’ experience of inquiry teaching. The next section will

discuss the dimensions of variation that make up this category.


Role of the teacher: The role of the teacher in Category 3 was to

scaffold students in asking and answering their own questions. While still a

teacher directed approach in many ways (for example, defining the learning

environment for students, choosing learning activities), Category 3 had the

greatest potential as a student centred approach. Teachers now allowed

students a larger say in their learning compared with previous categories,

particularly with regards to the way to go about answering student questions.

132

Sometimes teachers would choose the topic (T4 unit on energy, T7 and T9

unit on microbes), and at other times teachers negotiated with students to

learn about what the students were interested in (T6 unit on under the sea,

T8 unit on bugs), but students still were allowed to select the question.

Teachers continued to describe their role as facilitators, but expanded

on this role from previous categories. As per the Teacher Generated

Problems category, teachers would often try to draw out student knowledge

rather than feed it to them, feigning ignorance of having an answer. However,

teachers were now also prepared to admit they did not know, but were willing

to learn the answer with students. The following quote from teacher 6 helps

to illustrate the teacher’s role as facilitator; getting materials ready for

students and teaching them skills through which they could answer their own

questions, as opposed to giving them the information ready made. This quote

also serves as an illustration of how questions guide the learning. For

example, student questions regarding the manta ray and how this teacher

was prepared to be a co learner by inviting a student’s father into the class to

answer that question:

T6 Um, I was pretty much a support role. Like they pretty much

steered themselves as I was just there to support with

resources, information, and materials pretty much. And

knowledge in the way that they wanted to know stuff, and I

didn’t want to learn all of a sudden about 32 different sea

creatures, so I had to teach them how to research. So I guess

my role was to show them the skills to get their own information

and, I don’t know, just to get them the materials that they

needed to find that information. So I was pretty much support

person rather than sitting up the front teaching them “electric

eels sting by doing this” and that, you know? And questions

would just come up like “oh, what’s the difference between a

manta ray and a sting ray?” and we had a question box and the

marine biologist father that came in answered a lot of those.

And then some he couldn’t even answer so we went ”oh, that’s

all right, we’ll just research it.” And a lot he didn’t know because

they were sea creatures in the abyss. So obviously that’s not

his forte. But the kids were able to research it themselves. So

133

that was pretty much my role, just teaching them the skills to

find the information themselves.

Role of the student: Students experienced the highest level of student

autonomy in their learning during the Student Generated Questions category.

Students were not only active participants as per the Student Centred

Experiences category and engaged participants contributing to the resolution

of the problem in Category 2, they could also become guided inquirers.

Students were striving to have the experiences and solve problems relating

to a question of their own choosing, with the teacher’s help. The following

long quote, illustrating the role of the student during the Student Generated

Questions category practice of teacher 8, will also be used to discuss

epistemological beliefs later on.

T8 And I think the challenge is getting the kids to ask. Even though

they’ve got a lot of questions, I think there’s still so many more

that we could be getting from them and there’s probably better

ways that I could get more questions and better questions from

them. … And then last year with the hot and cold thing [a

previous Student Centred Experiences category experiment], it

was getting them to just have a go at explaining why something

worked the way it did [a Teacher Generated Problems category

activity] and that was good because lots of children, who I didn’t

think would have been very good at explaining it, had a moment

to shine because they just came out of nowhere and came up

with these theories that I went “I didn’t know you had that in

you.” So I thought that was pretty exciting when they get to be

the scientist and they get to explain what happens. And then

what we did is … we would do the experiment then I would say

“Now why did that happen?” And they would give their reasons

for why it happened and then later we would read the – you

know, in the book it would tell us. “It happened because this did

this and this did that and that’s what happened.” And then we’d

go “Well, is that what we thought?” And we would discuss what

we thought happened and compare it to what the book said

happened and then expand their understandings that way. So

we come up with the interest. When they’ve got an interest,

they’ll do the questions and then we do activities to try and

134

answer the questions [a Student Generated Questions category

activity] and then we reflect on what we thought and what we’ve

learnt. So that’s probably how I do it. (Parenthesis added).

It is notable in the quote above that students were not free to explore

any question in any manner they felt appropriate. Teachers also expected

students to observe their instructions regarding which activity was to be

pursued at any one time, whether it was library searches, listening to videos

or visitors, participating or watching science demonstrations. As an example

from the practice of teacher 9:

J And what was the students’ role?

T9 I guess they were very much the investigators. A lot of them

they really did take ownership over it. I didn’t have to supply

materials. They were keen to bring it in from home. So on the

day, they brought in materials they wanted whether it was some

oil or apple or whatever. Yeah. They also had to work co-

operatively in a group. So that can always be a challenge!

The following quote from teacher 12 can be used to contrast Category

3 with Category 1, where the latter involves teacher selection of content, and

the former (Category 3) involves student selection of the questions that guide

the teaching. While the teacher holds an awareness similar to Category 3 in

that “[students] have to have a question”, this is actually an illustration of

what might be considered a Category 1 conception where students are

performing a scientific proof, answering a teacher generated question

through an activity with expected results:

T12 Okay. For students to do an experiment they have to have a

question and that they’re going to set out an investigation to

investigate the answer to this. At the moment I’m not getting

them to design the experiments ... But I will pose the question in

the introduction; I will provide the materials for them and a set of

instructions to follow. So really in my case it’s reading to follow

instructions and then this is where we are starting this unit to

develop observation strategies. …so part of what goes with the

experiment is making sure they answer the questions that you

ask. So it’s all the questions. (emphasis added)

135

Purpose of student experiences: In a pattern supportive of the

hierarchical arrangement of the categories, student experiences were

important, but not focal, in teachers’ thinking during the Student Generated

Questions category. Teachers arranged various sensory experiences for

students in order for the students to answer their own questions. However, it

was student generated questions that guided the learning, not a focus on the

potential of student centred experiences. For example, after deciding what

undersea animal they wanted to learn about, teacher 6 reported:

T6 … in our computer time I taught them how to log on to Google

and search images and click on the images so they could see

without all the text that that was the creature that they were

focusing on. And look at what it looked like, and what it ate, and

that sort of thing.

Teacher 6 went on to provide many more experiences to help children

answer their questions regarding their under the sea animal. This included

talking to a visiting parent marine biologist, watching movies such as Finding

Nemo, reading books to the class, building a model of their animal, and

placing that model on a giant poster representing the depth at which the

creature lived. This purpose of student experiences in Category 3 is the

same as with Category 2, and both contrast with Category 1 where student

experiences are focal in teacher awareness.

Purpose of teacher generated problems: In Category 1 simple teacher

generated problems were part of the thematic field of teacher awareness. In

Category 2 teacher generated problems were the focus, and were more

challenging. Now, in Category 3, teacher generated problems of both kinds

are again used as only one way among many in supporting students to find

answers to their own questions. For example, giving students the challenge

to “light the light” (T4), or the challenge to get a Google Images picture of

their “under the sea animal” (T6) as part of a broader, question based inquiry.

Teacher generated problems were no longer the focus of teachers’

awareness, but were more a specific activity teachers may have drawn upon

in helping students to answer their own questions. Thus, teacher generated

problems formed a part of the Student Generated Questions category in a

136

manner supportive of the hierarchical arrangement of categories by

supporting Category 3 inquiry.

Purpose of student questions: In this category, student generated

questions are focal in teachers’ awareness as being integral to guiding the

teaching experience. This focus differs from the experience and problem

centred categories where student generated questions were used only in

support of the learning, rather than to guide it. Teachers scaffolded students

in selecting questions to be answered using both scientific and non-scientific

processes. Inquiry was seen as more engaging and worthwhile for students

because they were gaining skills in asking and answering their own

questions, and more enjoyable for teachers because the students were more

engaged. As teacher 8 explained:

T8 I just think inquiry, as I understand, that you follow this path of

finding an answer to a question and going through those

processes, I just think that it’s teaching children that they can

think and that they can ask questions and that sometimes there

are clear answers and easy answers and sometimes they’re

just complicated answers to questions.

Teacher epistemological beliefs: The source of knowledge during the

Student Generated Questions category was found to be an expert, which at

times may be the teacher. However, since the teacher is prepared to take the

role of co-learner more so than in the experience and problem centred

categories, the expert may also be a book, a visiting parent, a correctly

performed experimental proof, or a website. Never at any point in this study

did student interpretation of the data become the source of knowledge, not

unless the interpretation was first qualified and accepted by the expert,

usually the teacher. As this quote from teacher 12 illustrates, a right answer

is there to be found, even if the teacher is not the one who knows it:

T12 I was a Primary teacher back in 1979. That’s when I first started

teaching. Now, I went out to Tara which was outside Dalby and

I had Brooks books Grade six science. And it told you what to

do. And it said “Write this in the board and---“. Well … I’m so

embarrassed that this happened, my lesson was on erosion,

right? Do this, do this and it was talking about contour farming.

137

I’m not very bright. I’m sitting there. I’m teaching and this little

boy in the front row, his name was [Student]. I can still see him.

And he’s sitting there shaking his head. Just like this. [covers

her eyes, looks down, and shakes head slowly] And in those

days kids were very quiet. It suddenly occurred to me “Why am

I teaching?” [this students], father owned a million dollars worth

of farming equipment, who was the biggest wheat farmer in the

area, [knew] about contour farming. I just handed him the chalk,

sat down and said “[Student], you tell them.” And that for me

was a bit of a changing point when I realised that teachers

didn’t have to be the font of all knowledge because I didn’t know

anything. Yeah there’s a few embarrassing moments in that first

year of teaching. I remember somebody sitting me down one

day in the pub and saying “Now listen [Teacher], I’ve got to

teach you some facts of life about cows. They don’t actually

produce milk unless they have a calf.” [laughs] Hello?!?

(parenthesis added).

4.4.3 Conclusion

This section has discussed the teachers’ experience of inquiry

teaching as Student Generated Questions. Whether allowing students to

study the animal of their choice, or using the scientific method to find out

which towel is more absorbent, teachers use inquiry teaching to empower

students to ask and answer their own questions.

4.5 The Outcome Space

Sections 4.2 through 4.4 argued for, and discussed in detail, the three

categories in which teachers experience inquiry teaching. A presentation of

the outcome space for this study now follows, beginning with a comparison of

the How and What of the phenomenon.

4.5.1 Comparison of the how and what of inquiry teaching

This section compares the three categories in terms of the how and

what of the phenomenon, as follows in figure 4.5. This figure illustrates that

while each category has the same three learning outcomes (the direct object

138

of learning), each category has a different main focus. During the Student

Centred Experiences category the focus is on science concepts and

attitudes, during the Teacher Generated Problems category the focus is on

attitudes and skills, and during the Student Generated Questions category

the focus is on developing student skills.

Figure 4.5. Comparison of the how and what of the three categories.

In terms of the act of teaching, teachers provide interesting

experiences, challenging problems, or guidance to help students to ask and

answer their own questions. However, a hierarchical arrangement can be

noted in the act of teaching in that teachers make use of the previous

categories to enact the current one.

In terms of the indirect object, a subtle hierarchical order may be

observed in terms of teachers’ expectation of the students’ responsibility for





How

What





How

What





How

What

139

their own learning. When teachers implement inquiry teaching aligned with

Category 2 they expect students are responsible to be engaged participants

in the experiences the teacher has chosen for them, for example; asking

questions, being involved, and taking notes. During Category 2 teachers

encourage students to connect with learning outcomes and gain valuable

skills as students are given a problem to solve and need to decide how best

to do so. Unlike Category 1, students may now choose some of the

experiences they will have in order to answer the teachers’ question. This

challenge may involve mistakes and dead ends, as well as requiring students

to be engaged participants as per Category 1. When experiencing inquiry

teaching as Category 3, teachers assist students to determine the questions

that will guide their learning and face the challenge of how to best answer

those questions, as well as being active participants. By choosing and

answering questions students are empowered in their science education,

while teachers also expect students to be engaged in their science learning

experiences, and encouraged as they overcome any teacher generated

problems included in the learning.

4.5.2 Quantitative comparison of category frequency

Typically, phenomenography does not compare demographic

information regarding the number of subjects which experienced each

category as their dominant conception. This is because during analysis the

interview transcripts are considered as a whole, thus a single category of

description may express one possible way in which many participants, or the

same participant at different times, might experience a phenomenon (Marton

& Pong, 2005). However, some readers may find it informative to gain a

general sense of the spread of categories among participants. It was found

that of the participants, ten experienced Category 1, six experienced

Category 2, and four experienced Category 3 as their predominant but not

exclusive way of conceptualising inquiry teaching. Participants often

expressed diverse conceptions depending on the context. For example,

participant 8 experienced inquiry teaching as helping student to ask and

answer their own questions in the early childhood context, but when

140

discussing her work in upper primary was very focused on the student

experiencing content material.

4.5.3 Outcome space for the awareness structures

Table 4.5 overviews the outcome space for the three structures of

awareness as discussed in sections 4.2 to 4.4. As can be seen, the three

qualities that move into and out of awareness are the teacher acts of (a)

providing interesting physical experiences to students, (b) challenging

students with problems to solve or (c) helping students to ask and answer

their own questions. Each of these qualities is a central theme at a different

time depending on what category the teacher is employing. External to all

categories is the idea of transmissive or “chalk and talk” approaches to

inquiry teaching. Category 3 is seen as being the most expansive way of

experiencing inquiry teaching in science education.

Table 4.5

Outcome space for the awareness structures.

Structural aspect Category Referential aspect (meaning)



Category 1-Student Centred Experiences

Meaning 1: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing stimulating experiences to students

Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field -Student generated questions -Teacher generated problems

Transmissive approaches to teaching such as “Chalk and Talk”

Category 2-Teacher Generated Problems

Meaning 2: Inquiry teaching is experienced as providing challenging problems to students

Theme -Teacher generated problems Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Student generated questions

Inquiry must move beyond simply experiencing content outcomes. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context a teachers provide a challenging problem.

Category 3-Student Generated Questions


Theme -Student generated questions Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Teacher generated problems


141

It is important to note that, as a hierarchical structure of awareness,

teachers who made use of the most inclusive Category 3 did at times provide

interesting experiences or challenging problems in order to teach. At the

other extreme, teachers who focused only on providing interesting

experiences (Category 1) did not focus on teacher problems or student

questions to guide their teaching. In Category 2, while teacher generated

problems were focal, student questions and student experiences were in the

thematic field of teacher awareness. Another way to visualise the

relationships among the categories is depicted schematically in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of the outcome space of teachers’ ways

of experiencing inquiry teaching in science education.

Figure 4.6 shows the three categories represented as three concentric

circles. In the centre, Category 1, Student Centred Experiences, is

represented as the most limited way of experiencing inquiry teaching, but it is

still a fundamental part contained within the teaching experiences of the other

two categories. At the other extreme, Category 3, Student Generated

Questions is seen as the broadest and most expansive way of experiencing,

and is represented by the largest circle. However, both categories 1 and 2

are subsumed within the circumference of Category 3, indicating that student

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

142

centred experiences and teacher generated problems were both used within

Category 3.

4.5.4 Comparison of the Dimensions of variation

In this section I now compare the dimensions of variation that were

found across the three categories. Some dimensions of variation can be seen

to have logical progression among the categories, and are thus considered

themes of expanding awareness (see Chapter 3.1.4), as overviewed in Table

4.6.

Table 4.6

Summary of the dimensions of variation across categories

Student Centred Experiences (Category 1)

Teacher Generated Problems (Category 2)

Student Generated Questions (Category 3)

Role of the teacher

Knower, but not teller

Feigning ignorance Doesn’t know, willing to learn

Role of the student

Lowest agency– students did not choose content or activities (but were still very active participants)

Higher agency – students could now propose some content by suggesting solutions. (considered engaged participants)

Highest agency – students had a large say in content through selection of questions to be answered, and may have helped choose topic. Considered guided inquirers

Purpose of student experiences

Focal – directed learning and teaching experience

Supportive – one way teachers used to help students solve problems

Supportive – one way teachers used to help answer student questions

Purpose of teacher generated problems

Simple problems used to assist students to experience content.

Focal – Teaching structured around complex teacher generated problems

Supportive – one way teachers may have used to answer student questions

Role of student generated questions

Supportive-helped students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding

Supportive – help students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding

Focal – directed learning and teaching experience for students and teachers

Epistemological belief-Source of knowledge

The teacher (via student experiences)


An expert (usually teacher, but not always. Correctly performed experiments would yield expected results.)

143

Table 4.6 is a summary of the dimensions of variation for this study

which may be used to highlight logical relationships among the categories.

For instance, it can be seen that the role of the teacher and role of the

student both are themes of expanding awareness, complementing each other

as teachers progress from a somewhat teacher directed approach to the

more student directed Student Generated Questions category.

Epistemological beliefs in terms of the source of knowledge also progress

from categories 1 to 3 as teachers progress from being the holders of all

knowledge to being prepared to be co-learners with students. The

dimensions of variation and their relationships among categories will now be

discussed in greater detail.

Role of the teacher: All teachers saw themselves as facilitators during

inquiry teaching. However, it was noted that what it meant to be a facilitator

differed in each of the three main categories of inquiry teaching in a pattern

supportive of the hierarchical arrangement. The Student Centred

Experiences category was somewhat teacher directed: The teacher’s role

was to decide what the students were to learn, how to learn, to gather

equipment and manage student behaviour. They were to know the content

material and express it to students in an engaging and hands on manner.

The Teacher Generated Problems category was slightly less teacher

directed. During the Teacher Generated Problems category the teacher had

the same role, but now added feigning ignorance to their role of drawing out

student understandings. Teachers needed to know the best ways to

challenge students to think about and interpret their experiences.

The Student Generated Questions category was the least teacher

directed, but to call it entirely student directed may be inaccurate as teachers

still directed many aspects of the learning as with the previous categories.

During the Student Generated Questions category however, teachers now

allowed students some say in the direction the learning took. In particular,

students contributed to the decision of what content was important as they

negotiated the questions to be answered with the teacher. The teacher’s role

was to support students in answering their own questions rather than support

them in learning the teacher-driven content material of previous categories.

144

Thus, the role of the teacher can be seen as a theme of expanding

awareness among the three main categories.

Role of the student: In all forms of inquiry teaching, teachers

considered their practice student-centred. Teachers were concerned with

how students learnt, that learning was engaging, and that students were

learning things that were important and that would benefit them in the future

and the community as a whole. However, it was noted that the students’ role

differed in each of the three main categories of inquiry teaching in a pattern

supportive of the hierarchical arrangement.

During the Student Centred Experiences category, students were

active learners, getting in and having the experiences the teacher had

chosen for them. Students were expected to do such things as ask

questions, make observations, take notes, play with the equipment, share

ideas, listen respectfully, take turns, and talk to their peers about their

experiences.

During the Teacher Generated Problems category students built on

their role during Student Centred Experiences category to become what may

be considered an engaged learner. Students were not only paying attention

and participating, they were now proposing and testing solutions to the

problem. Students therefore experience a greater level of self directedness of

their learning during the Teacher Generated Problems category.

However, students experienced the highest level of self directedness

during the Student Generated Questions category. They were not only active

participants as per the Student Centred Experiences category, and engaged

participants as per the Teacher Generated Problems category, but they now

were able to negotiate content to be covered, and may perhaps be

considered guided inquirers. This role does not mean students were free to

come to any conclusion, or to pursue any question they liked. Teachers still

placed many subtle and overt restrictions on students’ knowledge creation,

the questions that were appropriate to ask, and the answers that were most

congruent with teacher understanding. There was still an expectation that the

teacher was in control of the overall learning experience. However, in

Category 3, students experienced the greatest level of student autonomy with

regards to their work as compared with previous categories.

145

Purpose of student experiences: A focus on student’s sensory

experiences, as based on their engagement with science materials, is the

focus of the Student Centred Experiences category and thus is also a part of

all other categories of inquiry. For example, in Category 3 teachers would

strive to give students meaningful experiences with science materials in order

to answer their own questions (for example, teacher 8 bringing in a fish for

students to touch during the “under the sea” unit). Also, student experiences

were used to help solve teacher generated problems (for example, teacher

14 allowing them to play with the plank and heavy box to help solve a

problem).

This quality of a focus on sensory experiences with materials appears

to be a secondary attribute that can be used to separate inquiry from other

learning experiences such as “chalk and talk” (T1). The first attribute is that

someone is asking a question, even if it’s not the teacher (see ‘role of student

questions’). Indeed, even in subjects other than science, students are

inquiring not so much when they are asking questions, but when they are

playing with materials. Inquiry might occur as maths inquiries with blocks or

technology inquiries (e.g., T10.) The importance teachers place on student

engagement with materials as a necessary quality of inquiry teaching is

discussed further in Chapter 5.

Purpose of teacher generated problems: Teacher generated problems

form a hierarchical arrangement among categories. In Category 1, teacher

generated problems are relatively simple, and are used to help students to

notice events or features of a system and express explanations, store up

experiences, propose causal links, and show interest. In Category 2, where

teacher generated problems are focal in teacher awareness, the kinds of

problems presented to students become more complex. Category 2 problems

require a definable, feasible and researchable question which usually

emerges from observations of a natural phenomenon and to which students

must apply some strategy. Finally, in Category 3, both kinds of problems are

used by teachers in the service of helping students to ask and answer their

own questions. As part of a Student Generated Questions category, for

example, a complex problem may involve challenging students to light a light

during a unit on energy (T4), while a simple challenge might involve having

146

students research and arrange ocean animals on a poster indicating

preferred depth (T6) as part of answering their own questions regarding sea

animals.

Purpose of student generated questions: In all categories, someone is

asking questions. This seems to be the defining attribute that qualifies a

teaching experience as inquiry in the minds of teachers, even if it is the

teacher who is asking most of the questions. In categories 1 and 2, questions

are predominantly asked by the teacher, who used them to guide learning,

focus student attention, and draw out student understanding. It appears that

teachers encouraged students to ask questions for at least two reasons, (a)

to help teachers assess student understanding and (b) to help students learn

by benefiting from engagement.

However, during the Student Generated Questions category, student

generated questions became the focus of the learning, and answering those

questions directed the learning experiences that teachers chose for their

students; whether it was experiencing content materials, solving a problem,

or conducting an experiment. In this way, the role of student questions is also

a theme of expanding awareness for this study. Questions start in a

supportive role by helping teachers assess student understanding and

increasing student engagement, and then become the purpose of the

learning experience and the focus of teacher awareness.

Epistemological beliefs: This thesis found qualitative variation in one

kind of epistemological belief, the source of knowledge. During categories 1

and 2 the ultimate source of knowledge was the teacher. During the Student

Generated Questions category the teacher was no longer the holder of all

scientifically acceptable answers, and thus the scope for understanding went

beyond the teacher to other experts, such as books or the internet.

However, teacher beliefs regarding the nature of student

understanding of scientific knowledge did not differ among categories. In all

categories, knowledge is gathered rather than created, though the process of

gathering that knowledge did differ between categories; from watching

demonstrations or experiencing materials in the Student Centred

Experiences category, through solving a problem during the Teacher

Generated Problems category, to concluding (correctly) on the results of their

147

own investigations during the Student Generated Questions category. This

effect of teacher beliefs of student understanding of scientific knowledge, as

well as teacher beliefs of the source of knowledge is explored further in

Chapter 5.

This section completes the discussion of the outcome space in terms

of the structure of awareness, qualitative comparison of categories, the how

and what of teaching, and dimensions of variation found in the study. A full

tabulated comparison of all categories can be found in Appendix C.

4.6 Conclusion

In summary, the three main categories in which teachers experience

inquiry teaching in science are the Student Centred Experiences category

(Category 1), the Teacher Generated Problems category (Category 2) and

the Student Generated Questions category (Category 3). These three form a

hierarchy with the most inclusive way of experiencing inquiry teaching being

the Student Generated Questions category. Teachers did not make use of

the language of educational theory regarding inquiry teaching, specifically

with regards to there being levels of inquiry (National Research Council of

America, 2000), or terminology such as open or guided inquiry (Martin-

Hansen, 2002). Teachers displayed limited epistemological beliefs of the

source of knowledge in science. The implications of these findings and their

relationship to established theoretical perspectives of science education will

be discussed in the next chapter.

148

149

Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendations

This study investigated the qualitatively different ways in which

primary school teachers experience inquiry teaching, and presented three

categories of description which were: Student Centred Experiences

(Category 1), where teachers focused on engaging students through

providing them with interesting sensory experiences; Teacher Generated

Problems (Category 2), where teachers focused on encouraging students

through helping them overcome challenging problems; and Student

Generated Questions (Category 3), where teachers focused on engaging

students through helping them to ask and answer their own questions. These

three categories form a hierarchy with the Student Generated Questions

category being the most inclusive way of experiencing or conceptualising

inquiry teaching. In the following chapter, general findings are discussed

emerging from the research results (Section 5.1). The findings are then

analysed in relation to the inquiry teaching literature (5.2), such as the US

National Standards (National Research Council of America, 2000; National

Science Board, 2007) and various models of inquiry teaching (Bybee, 2001;

Martin-Hansen, 2002). Issues of epistemology are highlighted with regards to

the results of this study (5.3), in particular regarding the Nature of Science

(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000) and the authentic science debate (Chinn

& Hmelo-Silver, 2002).

Research limitations and related areas of potential research are then

addressed (Section 5.4), including: (a) student outcomes; (b) congruency

between reported and actual teacher practice; (c) experiences of individual

teachers; (d) influence of issues of context; (e) inquiry teaching in other

curriculum areas; and (f) use of equipment. Finally, this chapter ends

discussing recommendations developed from the findings of this study. This

is dealt with in two sections; first, six specific recommendations are made to

help teachers implement Category 3 inquiry (5.5.1). Next, two

recommendations are made regarding the potential of this study to contribute

to further research and teacher education programs (5.5.2). General findings

are now addressed.

150

5.1 General findings

This study set out to explore teachers’ ways of experiencing inquiry

teaching in primary science education. It was found that teachers experience

inquiry teaching as Student Centred Experiences (Category 1), as Teacher

Generated Problems (Category 2), or as Student Generated Questions

(Category 3).

Teachers did not make use of educational terminology such as open

or guided to describe their conception of inquiry teaching (Martin-Hansen,

2002), nor did they talk about there being levels of inquiry teaching (National

Research Council of America, 2000). Also, while all teachers welcomed

student questions, few teachers talked about using student questions to

guide the teaching experience, even those making use of the 5E’s method of

instruction (Bybee, 2001). Epistemologically teachers appeared to be

operating under an alternative conception regarding constructivism, for

example, expecting scientific knowledge to be derived from expert sources

rather than student analysis of the results of their own or others experiments.

These results also help inform the theoretical understanding of teacher

conceptions of inquiry teaching. Knowing what teachers actually experience

as inquiry teaching, as opposed to understand theoretically, is a valuable

contribution to the literature. This knowledge provides a valuable contribution

to educational theory, helping policy, curriculum development, and the

practicing primary school teachers to more fully understand and implement

the best educative practices in their daily work. Suggestions for how this

might come about are dealt with in Section 5.5, however, an in depth review

of the research findings as they relate to the literature as presented in

Chapter 2 is necessary in order to interrogate the findings in the light of

contemporary understandings.

5.2 Comparison with definitions of inquiry teaching

I will now consider definitions of inquiry teaching with the conceptions

uncovered in this study. The National Science Board of America (2007)

defines inquiry experiences as a “Process in which students investigate,

work-through, and solve problems” (p.83). The focus in this definition is on

problems and not on students asking and answering their own questions,

151

which as a related teaching practice would make it equivalent to Category 2.

This quote is contrasted with the definition of inquiry teaching in Justice et al.

(2009, p. 843) that “inquiry refers to instructional practices designed to

promote the development of high order intellectual and academic skills

through student-driven and instructor-guided investigations of student

generated questions” which as a teaching practice would be clearly

congruent with Category 3 in terms of the role of student questions. This also

shows that some formalised definitions of student inquiry and thus inquiry

teaching are built on teacher generated problems, not student generated

questions, and thus may not be representative of the broadest conception

among teachers of inquiry teaching as uncovered in this study.

DeBoer (2004) defined inquiry teaching as “…a broad array of

approaches that has as its most general characteristic a problem to be

solved or a question to be answered.” This definition appears to include both

categories 2 and 3 from this study; however, this definition does not say

whose question guides the teaching experience, the students or teachers.

Thus the role of student questions is left unclear in the literature, and it is

hoped that the findings of this study might clarify the issue, demonstrating

two distinct categories (categories 2 and 3). In the current study it is either

the students’ questions (Category 3) or teacher problems (Category 2) that

guide inquiry teaching, thus indicating what category of inquiry teaching they

are applying through their use of student questions in teaching.

The Deboer (2004) definition also excludes Category 1, though

perhaps student centred experiences may be assumed to be part of what it

means to solve problems or answer questions. However, the findings of the

current study indicate that some teachers focus on the hands on experiences

and do not structure their teaching around problems or student questions at

all. Inservice programs need to be aware of this potential limitation in teacher

conceptions should teachers be presented with DeBoer’s definition at

inservice. Teacher education may be informed by knowing that some

teachers will not perceive inquiry teaching as being able to be structured

around teacher generated problems or student generated questions, and

making teachers aware of possible variation in their thinking may assist in

152

helping them to experience broader and more expansive conceptions of

inquiry teaching than they might otherwise have experienced.

This discussion indicates that the teacher education literature has

developed and continues to develop definitions of inquiry teaching separate

from the language and knowledge teachers use in describing their

conceptions. None of the existing definitions of inquiry teaching adequately

encompassed the full range of teacher understanding as evidenced in this

study.

To further illustrate this point, many theoretically derived definitions of

inquiry teaching taken from the literature strive to base the pedagogical

approach on authentic scientific inquiry as it occurs in the community (Chinn

& Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Schwartz & Crawford, 2004; Watters & Diezmann,

2004). The definitions of both scientific inquiry and inquiry teaching given by

Sandoval (2005) may also be meaningfully contrasted with the results of this

study:

Inquiry generally refers to a process of asking questions,

generating and pursuing strategies to investigate those

questions by generating data, analysing and interpreting those

data, drawing conclusions from them, communicating those

conclusions, applying conclusions back to the original question,

and perhaps following up on new questions that arise… As an

instructional method, inquiry can occur along a continuum of

more to less structure. (pp. 636-7)

This quote demonstrates that inquiry teaching can be seen as an

instructional method based on authentic scientific inquiry as practiced by

scientists. Inquiry is seen as applying methods and processes to answer

questions. It may be observed that, at its best, Category 3 is most similar to

this definition, but it was noted in the current study that most teachers did not

achieve a Category 3 experience of inquiry teaching. Also, the phrase

“drawing conclusions from them [data]” (p. 636) is particularly telling as in

each category, the source of curriculum knowledge was the teacher or

another expert, rather than the empirical evidence from which students based

their own conclusions.

153

The decision to base scientific conclusions on expert advice rather

than empirical evidence appears to be another gap between school science

inquiry and scientific inquiry as it is practiced by scientists in the community,

(e.g. Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Goodrum et al.,

2001; Lotter et al., 2007; Watters & Diezmann, 2004). For instance, the US

NRC (1996) defines scientific inquiry as “…the diverse ways in which

scientists study the natural worlds and propose explanations based on the

evidence derived from their work.” It may be noted that few teachers in this

study were basing knowledge claims on student conclusions, most often

expecting an expert source of knowledge to define what knowledge was

accurate and what was not. However, each category of inquiry teaching in

this study drew on helping students learn from their experiences, which is

seen here as a positive step towards making decisions based on evidence.

This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.3 epistemology and the nature of

science.

This chapter now turns to a discussion of the formal models of inquiry

teaching that were introduced in Section 2.3.4.

5.2.1 Comparison with theoretical models of inquiry teaching

In general, it is concluded that the difference between teachers’

conceptions of inquiry teaching and formal models of inquiry teaching is

substantial. No formalised definition or model from the literature corresponds

to the teachers’ actual ways of experiencing inquiry teaching as found in this

study. This anomaly is especially apparent in the failure of teachers to use

any language promoted by theoretical models in describing their practice,

which also indicates that actual teacher conceptions are clearly not being

represented by theoretical models promoted thus far.

The results of this study are now situated in the broader context of

science teacher education. A significant finding of this research is that the

most expansive conception of inquiry teaching as found in this research

(Category 3) is not represented in some of the theorised models of inquiry

teaching (Section 2.3.4). Table 5.1 (page 177) compares the results of this

study with the NRC (2000), Martin-Hansen (2002) and Bybee’s 5E’s (2001)

descriptions of inquiry teaching.

154

Table 5.1

Comparison of results with major models of inquiry teaching.

Current thesis

NRC of America (2000) From less (level 1) to more (level 4) teacher direction.

Martin-Hansen (2002) Open (full), coupled, guided, structured (closed).

5E’s, Bybee (2001) Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate.

Student Centred Experiences

Most similar to level 4 teacher directed, however, students may have been encouraged to gather own evidence and conclude on it from their own experiences (albeit pending teacher approval)

Structured inquiry relates strongly to Category 1, however, Student Centred Experiences inquiry is more student centred than the “following recipes” description of structured inquiry in the Martin-Hansen text.

Both Category 1 and 2 fit very well within the 5E’s model.

Teacher Generated Problems

Category 2 relates to Level 2 (and somewhat 3), though they may have been told how to analyse data.

Guided inquiry matches well with Category 2 – both focus on having the teacher select topic and challenge students to answer teacher generated questions.

Both Category 1 and 2 fit very well within the 5E’s model.

Student Generated Questions

Category 3 of this study corresponds well with Level 1 in terms of students identify and posing questions, however students may not have been given data and told how to analyse when teachers are acting as knowers, but not tellers.

Open or Full inquiry (also, the open inquiry section of Coupled inquiry) match reasonably well with Category 3 – however the Martin-Hansen paper does not explicitly allow for material-less inquiry such as library search

However, Category 3 is not at all like the 5E’s model in that at all times a challenge or experience as designated by the teacher guides the teaching, and not student questions at all.

Many points of congruency may be found between the current study

and the studies cited, for instance, some similarity exists between Category 2

and each of the studies cited (Bybee, 2001; Martin-Hansen, 2002; National

Research Council of America, 2000). In other ways, there are clear

mismatches between the studies. The Martin-Hansen (2002) model is fairly

similar, with each category from this study matching on to a level of the

155

Martin-Hansen model. However, the Martin-Hansen model does not explicitly

allow for inquiry that does not require science equipment and materials, such

as library search, as this study does.

The theoretical model of the NRC (2000) is found to present a

mismatch in terms of teacher understanding and terminology. When teachers

are experiencing inquiry teaching as Category 1 as per this study, the role of

the question may be level 4 teacher directed as per the NRC definition.

However, at the same time the role of evidence and attending explanations is

found to be more appropriate to level 2 in the NRC – teachers are striving to

help students decide or discover content material from their own

experiences. Knowing teacher understanding in terms of these qualities is

one of the great advantages of this study over theoretically derived

definitions.

The 5E’s model (Bybee 2001) was found to be lacking in that while

student questions are valued and encouraged, at no point does the model

explicitly consider that such questions could guide and structure the inquiry

teaching experience. While students may often select a problem during the

elaborate phase, questions are not guiding the teaching experience. In this

manner, Category 3 ways of experiencing inquiry teaching are potentially

absent from the 5E’s model of inquiry teaching. This absence leads us to ask

if the 5E’s model is limited in the following way – if authentic inquiry is taken

as structuring teaching around student generated questions, as in Category 3

of this study, is the 5E’s model, while engaging, failing to emulate authentic

inquiry if it does not explicitly solicit and explore student questions during the

teaching experience?

This continues to illustrate that curriculum documents and educational

theory are somewhat at odds with the actual teacher conceptions of inquiry

teaching as found in this study. Perhaps this disparity is made most clear by

the fact that teachers did not make use of educational theorist terminology in

reference to their actual work. Terms such as open, guided and free inquiry

(Martin-Hansen, 2002) were not part of teacher vocabulary when discussing

their practice of inquiry teaching in the classroom. Also, teachers’

understanding was not influenced by the idea of different kinds or levels of

inquiry teaching (for example, simple or authentic) – teachers spoke about

156

their work as being inquiry teaching or not: there were no levels in teacher

language. These points indicate that, at least with every teacher in this study,

such models of inquiry have not yet had a lasting effect on the meaning and

language teachers used to describe their conceptions of inquiry teaching.

The purpose of this study has been to find out what language and ideas are

being used by teachers, as part of their conceptions of inquiry teaching.

This section has compared the findings of this study with definitions of

inquiry teaching and theoretical models as presented in the literature, finding

that teachers hold several alterative beliefs compared to the literature. These

comparisons will now continue to be explored though a focus on teachers’

epistemological beliefs as uncovered by this study.

5.3 Epistemology and the nature of science

Similar to other studies performed in this area, this research found that

teachers’ scientific epistemologies, or beliefs about the Nature of Science

(NOS), were incongruent with the formal account of science presented in the

literature review (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Fazio, 2005; Seroussi, 2005).

To illustrate, the five characteristics given by Perla and Carifio (2008) on the

nature of science as distilled from the literature and national science

curriculum documents are compared here with the general results of this

thesis in Table 5.2.

Although these general findings are congruent with findings in the

NOS literature, some specific points need to be mentioned. In particular

teachers seemed to hold alternative beliefs rather than beliefs informed by

social constructivist learning theories. Teachers acted as though a correct

answer was waiting to be found in science (Section 4.5.3 teachers role,

epistemological beliefs), rather than being created and tested through

scientific processes of knowing (Prosser et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain,

1992). This may well be due to misunderstandings on the part of teachers in

regards to the nature of a constructivist viewpoint. For example, teacher 18

indicated that a constructivist viewpoint meant that the children “rule the

room”. However, constructivism as a referent for learning does not

necessarily mean this at all. Constructivism can be used to inform inquiry

157

teaching as teachers find ways to connect with student understandings and

student desires for learning, rather than simply making absorbing knowledge

more fun by bringing in interesting things to see and touch (Abruscato, 2001;

Hodson & Hodson, 1998).

Table 5.2

Comparison of Perla and Carifio (2008) and the current study

Perla and Carifio definition of NOS

Current study

Science is empirical

While scientific knowledge was experienced experientially, it was not created by forming and testing hypothesis.

Science is a human enterprise

These results do not comment on this quality. It is expected that individual teachers differed in their approach.

Science involves creativity and human imagination

Students were generally encouraged to involve creativity in terms of finding ways to experience and explore content, at times students were encouraged to simply play with materials. However, creativity in terms of the generation and testing of hypothesis was only observed, and then only briefly, in Category 3.

Scientific knowledge is subjective and theory laden

Scientific knowledge was not treated as subjective or theory laden.

Scientific knowledge is stable yet tentative.

Either scientific knowledge was treated as stable, or there was something considered at fault with the teaching process or learners themselves.

It was noted that teachers held limited conceptions with regards to the

epistemology of science in other important ways. For example there was an

idea, present in all categories, that experiments can go “wrong” (T3 and T10

mentioned this in particular), meaning that a scientific demonstration did not

go as planned and that, therefore, the students’ or teacher’s knowledge must

be faulty in some way. This idea is contrasted to the thinking, absent in this

study, that the experiment had performed exactly as it should as an

expression of the laws of nature. Teacher thinking along these former lines

also implies that experiments are used to prove a point, not to answer

questions and test hypotheses which is more congruent with the modern

account of the epistemology of science (Windschitl, 2004).

158

Teacher epistemological beliefs around the source of knowledge,

being from expert opinion or student’s analysis of evidence, has been

mentioned as one of the more significant findings of this study. From the

definition of Eastwell (2008); “An inquiry activity is one that requires students

to answer a scientific question by analysing raw, empirical data themselves”

(p. 31), it can be seen that all categories in this study involve answering a

question (student or teachers’) and all involve students interpreting data.

Thus, according to this definition, all forms of inquiry represented in this

thesis are potentially inquiry. The difficulty lies in teacher epistemological

beliefs – students were concluding what teachers expected, even incorrectly,

rather than using evidence and logic as the source of knowledge as this

definition seems to imply. This failure to meet the epistemological standards

of the literature is the motivation behind the NOS movement, especially with

regards to evidence as opposed to authority based decision making

(Osborne & Collins, 2003). Several studies strive to place evidence highly as

an epistemological standard in science, for example, “Students using

evidence to defend their conclusions.” (Harwood et al., 2006, p. 72) and

“Learner gives priority to evidence” (National Research Council of America,

2000, p. 42). Even certain definitions of scientific literacy require students to

be able to “draw evidence-based conclusions” (Goodrum et al., 2001, p. ix).

Teachers appear to be looking for a fun, hands on activity that

engages students and potentially helps make them better people. Teacher

educators are looking to train a scientifically literate generation (Goodrum et

al., 2001), through student experiences that are more closely aligned with

authentic science (Chinn & Hmelo-Silver, 2002) and require students to

create knowledge rather than absorb it in new and entertaining ways

(Colburn, 2000). Part of the reason for this difference in aims could be the

differences in epistemological beliefs of teachers and teacher educators.

Teachers appear to have limited epistemological beliefs with regards to

science: using it to prove a point rather than test an idea, using creativity to

explore content but not to create or test hypothesis. Section 5.5,

recommendations, continues the discussion regarding this gap and potential

ways to bridge teacher and teacher educators’ expectations for inquiry

teaching.

159

This section has discussed the role of several epistemological beliefs

held by teachers and their effects on their experience of inquiry teaching in

the science classroom. Before a discussion of the recommendations can be

enjoined, potential limitations of the study should be discussed in order to

explore the limitations of the current study, including discussions of potential

ways to address said limitations.

5.4 Limitations

Based on the findings and observations made during the study,

limitations and related areas of potential research include: (a) student

outcomes; (b) congruency between reported and actual teacher practice; (c)

experiences of individual teachers; (d) influence of issues of context; (e)

inquiry teaching in other curriculum areas; and (f) use of equipment.

It is important to note that this study does not compare teacher

experiences with student outcomes. That is, this phenomenographic study

cannot say what effect each category has in terms of outcomes for students.

This limitation is the first area of potentially fertile future research; that is, if

teachers are striving to engage students by giving them experiences that

empower students while helping them answer questions, what are the

outcomes for students? Such an experimental study could conceivably take

place by first interviewing teachers to assess their dominant conception of

inquiry teaching, then comparing their students’ results with national

averages, taking care to control for local factors such as socioeconomic

status of the school intake population. Other measures of data gathering

should also include viewing the teacher in practice to assess the teachers’

general style of teaching, such as may be achieved through video data.

Information about teacher views of science (such as the VNOS-C, Lederman,

Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) and science education in general

should also be gathered.

The purpose of such a study would be to uncover if teacher

implementation of Category 3 results in the highest outcomes for students. It

is expected that other qualities such as teacher experience with teaching,

160

views of the nature of science, or teacher engagement with the community of

science educators will be greater predictors of student achievement than the

categorisation scheme from this study. However, student ability to perform in

inquiry based situations is expected to be positively correlated.

Second, the study is limited in that it was not able to compare reports

of teacher practice with video/audio recordings of actual practice. Further

research should be conducted to compare observations of teacher practice

with their interview data (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Such research would

have the benefit of comparing the espoused categories of conceptions to

teacher practice. A measure of incongruence might be evident, though this

incongruence will have been minimalised by the use of practical examples in

the interview data and the use of a very specific, rather than general,

phenomenon under investigation (Ajzen, 2005, see also section 2.4.3).

Third, as a phenomenographic study data are analysed in such a way

as to categorise individual conceptions, blurring the line between individuals

and potentially diluting the richness of individual experiences for the purpose

of developing the outcome space. That is, the findings of this study do not

provide a detailed description of all the possible ways of experiencing, nor do

they describe individual differences in experiencing (Prosser, Martin, Trigwell,

Ramsden, & Lueckenhausen, 2005). Having grouped the individual teacher’s

conceptions of inquiry teaching, further research could therefore be

undertaken to compare individual teachers’ execution of inquiry teaching in

light of the research findings herein. Such research could serve to highlight

the individual differences in the expression of each category which could help

to unpack the underlying beliefs of teaching, learning and assessment that

inform a teacher’s decision to use a particular category.

Such a study would also help answer how some teachers come to

believe in allowing students to answer questions, rather than just providing

students with challenges or experiences. Adding to our understanding of the

influences in teacher belief in science education, such as helping students to

ask and answer their own questions, would be a valuable contribution to the

literature and a potential outcome of such research.

Fourth, an accepted limitation of phenomenography is that it is a

“snapshot” (Åkerlind et al., 2005, p. 81), commenting on only a small number

161

of people and only over the time of data gathering. Potential research should

be undertaken to explore whether the categories here uncovered are

represented in: (a) the primary school teacher population at large; (b) primary

school teachers in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts; and (c)

teachers at institutions such as early childhood and tertiary settings. It would

be valuable to explore teachers at different times to explore possible

variables that influence variations in understanding over time.

A fifth possible limitation is that the study was designed to uncover

conceptions in the science curriculum only. Potential research may include

other curriculum areas. As an inclusive yet parsimonious categorisation

scheme it may be that the three categories will be expressed in some form

even in other curriculum areas such as English, Mathematics, and Religious

Education. That is, for example, do Religious education teachers make use

of inquiry teaching to focus on: (a) providing interesting experiences to

students; (b) giving them problems to solve; or (c) helping students to ask

and answer their own questions. A phenomenographic study such as the one

undertaken here would suffice to answer this research question, and it is

predicted that similar results will be uncovered, given the unique

characterisations of each curriculum context.

Sixth, another finding of the study was the apparent perception among

teachers that science education is intrinsically tied up with the use of

equipment (see Section 4.5.3). This study was limited in that it could not

devote sufficient time to exploring this perception. This emphasis on

equipment included objects such as thermometers, special chemicals, and so

on, as well as more mundane equipment such as string, cups, and plastic

bags for the purpose of conducting class activities. Science education was

sometimes seen as hard not because of the content required, but the time

and expense it incurred on teachers to gather the necessary equipment. This

is an interesting perception which may be holding teachers back, and the

attending beliefs should be further explored. Questions should be asked such

as: (a) Do teachers’ perceptions of inquiry go beyond materials?; (b) Does

this idea contribute to a misunderstanding on the part of teachers that

science education is about demonstrating ideas rather than constructing and

challenging ideas?; (c) Does this idea indicate that science is seen as a

162

distinct curriculum area, and not a way of knowing that can inform many

curriculum areas?

Conclusion to section

This study has explored several limitations and proposed several

potential research agendas. It has been a major contention of this study that

one important cause of the inability of many professional development

programs to change teacher conceptions of teaching science though inquiry

might be a misunderstanding of their conceptions in the first place (Sandoval,

2005). The effect of developing and implementing a professional

development program based on the findings of this study, including sharing

the outcome space and discussing and comparing the conceptions therein, is

certainly an area of potential research, and is one of the topics discussed in

the next section.

5.5 Recommendations

This section will now discuss the recommendations ensuing from this

thesis. This will be dealt with in two sections; first, six specific

recommendations are made to help teachers implement Category 3 inquiry

(5.4.1). Next, two recommendations are made regarding the potential of this

study to contribute to further research and teacher education programs

(5.4.2).

5.5.1 Recommendations for implementing Category 3 inquiry

Having considered that Category 3, Student Generated Questions, is

the most inclusive and broadest way of experiencing inquiry teaching, I now

turn to a discussion of potential ways in which teachers may begin to

experience this category more often in their daily practice. As a second

generational developmental phenomenographic study (Section 3.1.3),

recommendations for assisting participants to implement the highest and

most inclusive category is seen as appropriate.

As a hierarchy, Category 3 is inclusive of activities typically connected

with the Teacher Generated Problems or Student Centred Experiences

categories. Examples include the teacher generated challenge to light a light

as part of an introduction into a student generated questions inquiry into

163

energy (T4), or structured library searches about insects as students strive to

answer their own questions about bugs (T6). The primary difference is that in

Category 3, questions generated by the students themselves play a far

greater role in the teachers’ thinking, planning and enactment of inquiry

teaching, rather than the supportive role students’ questions play when

categories 1 and 2 are the limit of teacher’s experience. By bringing Student

Generated Questions into the forefront of teacher thinking and planning it is

expected that teacher practice will draw nearer to emulating the best practice

advocated by expert teachers and teacher educators (National Curriculum

Board, 2009; National Research Council of America, 2000; Osborne &

Collins, 2003). For example, encouraging teachers to use Category 3 may be

seen as an important step towards students to develop the kinds of scientific

literacy advocated by in the literature where students are able to “identify

questions and draw evidence-based conclusions” (Goodrum et al., 2001, p.

ix).

Six specific recommendations are here proposed which could assist

teachers to implement Category 3. They are: (a) Making teachers aware of

the categories of conceptions uncovered in this study; (b) Making use of the

KWL technique in science education; (c) Challenging teacher epistemological

beliefs to allow the source of knowledge in science education to be evidence

and not just expert opinion, thus allowing students to be creators and not just

consumers of knowledge; (d) Using more appropriate terminology in the

classroom; (e) During inquiry units based on the 5E’s method, making special

effort to validate and explore student generated questions during the explore

and elaborate phases; (f) helping teachers see how Category 3 can be

successfully applied at all year levels.

The first way in which teachers could experience Category 3 inquiry

teaching more often is to make them aware of the outcome space as

presented in this study, highlighted with illustrative examples of teacher

practice and thinking. Making teachers aware of their own and other

teachers’ thinking can help them challenge their long term practices and

attending epistemological beliefs regarding science and inquiry teaching

(Porlán & Pozo, 2004). In a sense, by helping them experience variation in

ways to conceptualise the phenomenon, it is hoped they can begin to

164

challenge their own expectations and experience learning in this regard.

Naturally, research should be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of such

a claim.

Second, teachers should allow student questions to move more into

the focus of their curriculum and planning, which will also empower teachers

by improving student engagement in the science lessons (Windschitl, 2004).

One way this may hypothetically be achieved is to use the KWL technique

advocated by Primary Connections (Hackling et al., 2007) and other

professional development programs, and further research needs to be

undertaken to validate this claim. There appears to be a relation between

teacher experience of Category 3 and use of the KWL technique: Teachers

4,8,17 and 18 all mentioned the KWL technique in this study, all but teacher

17 expressing a Category 3 conception at least once.

During KWL technique, students answer the following question at the

beginning of a unit of work: “What do I know?”, then during the unit “What do

I want to know?”, then during and at the end of the unit “What have I learnt?”

One indication of this study is that good science teaching does make use of

student experiences and of teacher generated problems, but does so in the

context of helping students to ask and answer their own questions. The KWL

is one way in which more teachers may potentially experience Category 3

inquiry teaching.

Third, in line with many other studies of teacher epistemological

beliefs, teachers’ conceptions uncovered in this study do not match with the

literature regarding what is termed the source of knowledge in science in this

study. There appears among teachers in this study an underlying belief that

scientific knowledge is fixed, that science exists primarily as a body of

knowledge to be memorised. One implication from this study that may help

teachers to experience inquiry teaching as student generated questions

would be to help teachers understand science as a way of knowing as well

as a body of knowledge. Compared with previous categories, teachers in

Category 3 were beginning to relinquish the need to be all knowing and were

prepared to be co-learners with students. However, it was found that at no

point did student interpretation of data become the source of knowledge for

students or teachers.

165

This understanding would be achieved if students were encouraged

though inquiry teaching to be creators and not just consumers of knowledge.

For example, teachers could be encouraged to allow students to conclude on

the interpretation of data even if it contradicts formal understandings, and

present the formal interpretations as educated reasoning rather than divinely

appointed truth. This will have the result of making the correction of student

misconceptions a matter of evidence and discussion, rather than subjugation

and memorisation. By owning their own conclusions students are brought

into discussion (rather than compliance) with the ideas and conclusions of

scientists throughout history. Teachers should encourage student creation of

knowledge though analysis of the interpretation of data as it supports the

development of authentic scientific literacy in students.

Also, as teachers adopt Category 3 they allow themselves to become

co-learners with students, seeing their role no longer as the exclusive holder

of answers (see Section 4.4.2 ‘teachers role’ under dimensions of variation).

This will help teachers to bring student generated questions more into the

focus of their teaching as facilitators of student understanding. The message

of teacher educators is that science education is not just more exciting

experiments or making absorbing knowledge more fun (Hodson & Hodson,

1998). Science education is the creation of knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick &

Lederman, 2000). It is expected that teachers will be empowered as they

strive to teach students the strengths, limitations and actual processes

scientists use in the creation of knowledge – to convince students through

their own experiences that they too can be creators of scientific knowledge

and active participants in the scientific debates in society (Chinn & Malhotra,

2002).

Related to this point of helping students become creators of

knowledge, a fourth important recommendation from this study is that

teachers could make more appropriate use of scientific terminology in their

teaching. This recommendation may be implemented with the formal

understanding and therefore use of such teaching terms as open and

confirmation inquiries. Also, it may be helpful for teachers to begin to

discriminate scientific demonstrations of a concept from experiments where

the goal is to test an idea. This understanding may also be reflected in their

166

language use as they avoid calling every activity in science an experiment.

Teachers were found to hold alterative conceptions of the definition of the

word ‘experiment’ (see Section 5.3) in this study. The epistemological belief

inherent in the informal use of the word experiment to mean activity portrays

science in the classroom as an activity where scientific knowledge is

demonstrated and absorbed not where scientific knowledge is constructed

and rigorously tested.

Fifth, it was noted that the 5E’s approach, while engaging, might not

be sufficiently representative of authentic inquiry as it is practiced by some

teachers. This is especially pertinent in the Australian context as the

emerging National Curriculum intends to make extensive use of Primary

Connections, a professional development program that relies heavily on the

5E’s method (Hackling et al., 2007). One way in which the 5E’s method may

be improved towards more Category 3 inquiry might be if during the

Elaborate phase, students have the opportunity to ask and then later

research answers to their own questions, perhaps using such techniques as

the KWL mentioned previously. As is advised during the 5E’s method,

students should be encouraged to apply their knowledge to a problem that

might be of personal interest, and be allowed to play with equipment before

and afterwards, in order to help them express and explore the personal

questions they have regarding the content material. Asking and seeking

answers to student questions, even if no answer is immediately forthcoming,

should be seen as a more desirable outcome of science education than pure

content knowledge memorisation.

Finally, an important finding of this study was that teachers’

conceptions of inquiry teaching act somewhat independently of year level or

level of student understanding (4.1.5). In encountering professional

development and inservice training, some teachers may see Category 1 as

belonging to early childhood settings where students possess less

knowledge, and Category 3 as only possibly in settings where students have

greater knowledge such as upper year levels or even tertiary settings.

However, the ability to ask and answer one’s own questions should be

emphasised as possible at all year levels, indeed, even more so in the early

childhood setting where the majority of Category 3 examples from this study

167

are found. Category 3 does require greater scaffolding in order to help

students ask and answer their own questions than Category 1, yet even

preparatory aged children (4 to 6 year olds) engaged in the processes the

teacher employed. Certain kinds of Category 3 inquiries, such as testing for

viscosity or measuring the effectiveness of bubble gum, might be best left to

upper year levels after sufficient scaffolding in terms of necessary knowledge

has been applied. But it is strongly advocated that the general principal of

engaging children though asking and answering their own questions guide

teachers at any year level.


In conclusion, one significant finding in regards to the unity of the

indirect objects. Teachers are looking for students to have positive and

motivating experiences with science (engaged, encouraged, empowered).

With this aim in mind, it may be that teachers have less time and inclination

to focus on the content outcomes of science education during inquiry

teaching. Perhaps the Student Generated Question category can assist. If in

Category 3 students are answering their own questions and teachers really

are prepared to be co-learners with students; if expert sources are treated

more as evidence and not the final word on truth, then teachers may

experience a more inclusive conception of inquiry teaching. Seen this way,

even library research may potentially be a form of constructivist informed

inquiry, and not the gathering, memorisation and regurgitation of facts.

Perhaps by encouraging teachers to experience Category 3 more often, and

continuing the struggle to help teachers connect with the actual

epistemological understandings of modern science, the gap between the

teacher understanding of inquiry teaching and theoretically derived definitions

may be narrowed.

5.5.2 Recommendations for general education

The previous section dealt with suggestions for scaffolding teachers’

experience of Student Generated Questions inquiry. The following two

recommendations apply the findings of this study to general education in

regards to: (a) dimensions of variation in educational research; and (b) the

categories of description.

168

First, previous studies have mentioned the importance of using

dimensions of variation to understanding the nature of conceptions (Åkerlind,

2004), and that such dimensions may be more enduring than the

categorisation schemes of which they are a part (Samuelowicz & Bain,

1992). For example, the role of the teacher as a dimension of variation in

many studies has clearly outlived any individual categorisation scheme these

studies have presented. From this study, the role of student, role of teacher,

and the epistemological beliefs regarding source of knowledge are

dimensions of variation that are all mentioned in other studies. However, the

three main dimensions that make up the themes of the categories

themselves – purpose of student experiences, purpose of teacher generated

problems, and purpose of student generated experiences – are all new

dimensions in the literature, and are therefore worthy of further research to

uncover their relationship to other dimensions and influence on teacher

conceptions. The derivation of these new dimensions may be one of the most

important and unique contributions of this study. A recommendation is made

that these three new dimensions of variation be given far more attention in

future studies seeking to explore teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching,

even in non-science curricula.

Second, the primary aim of this study was to add to our theoretical

understanding of teacher knowledge by mapping teachers’ conceptions of

inquiry teaching. One use of this understanding may be to inform preservice

and inservice instruction. Prosser et al. (1994) found that professional

development programs that focused on teaching strategies without regard to

the conceptions underlying those strategies were unlikely to be successful. A

major contribution of this study is to inform teacher educators with regards to

teachers’ potential responses to professional development, especially as new

innovations in education are contrasted against pre-existing conceptions

(Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Sandoval, 2005).

For example, if a teacher’s conception of inquiry teaching is that it is

about engaging students through interesting sensory experiences, efforts to

change teacher practice through professional development programs to more

student-centred authentic inquiry may fail. To such a teacher, inquiry

169

teaching is about interesting experiences, and all new activities promoted as

inquiry are seen in light of that conception. Thus new activities are judged

valuable if they promote student engagement, and not because they help

students learn how to ask and answer their own questions. Epistemologically,

such teachers may be expected to see the source of knowledge in science

education as themselves, and not students’ conclusions on their own

experiences. Another potential error of perception may include that if a

teacher is expecting that inquiry teaching is about providing student centred

experiences (Category 1), then they may be expected to use student

questions to highlight and engage students, rather than as an important tool

to guiding the entire teaching experience (Category 3).

Likewise, if a teacher conceives of inquiry teaching as essentially

giving students challenging problems, it may be expected that most teachers

will mould professional development initiatives to fit this conception rather

than actively confronting their perceptions and altering their conception of

inquiry teaching itself. For example, they may see a program of soliciting

student questions for exploring circuit work as part of a process that engages

students, rather than the focus that can guide their teaching. In Category 2,

the role of student questions is downgraded to indicating student

engagement rather than fulfilling the potential of directing student learning.

Also, epistemological beliefs regarding the source of knowledge may be

expected to be as found in this study, and not as envisioned by program

developers. While solving problems, teachers are expecting students to find

the correct answer, rather than helping students to make informed decisions

based on evidence. Knowledge is treated as coming from the teacher as

illustrated by the experiment, not from students concluding on the data, as

Hackling (2005) envisioned.

These difficulties are distinctly different to the challenges of

implementing inquiry teaching outlined in Section 2.3.5. With the situation of

non-implementation of inquiry teaching in schools, studies must look

elsewhere to explore reasons why the best educative methods are not being

used. This study has found that one potential area is that many teachers’

conceptions are not congruent with the most expansive way of experiencing

inquiry teaching. That is – they perceive inquiry teaching as being about

170

providing interesting experiences or challenging problems, not as a chance to

help students to ask and answer their own questions. While these

conceptions still have their place, this study indicates that inquiry teaching is

more than helping students to solve problems as is the focus during problem

based learning (Kanter, 2010), and more than helping students experience

science as per the discovery learning movement (Kowalczyk, 2003).

Pedagogical practices that hope to achieve the greatest outcomes for

students through inquiry teaching should look beyond motivating students

through interesting experiences, and beyond challenging them with teacher

generated problems, to actually scaffolding students in asking and answering

their own questions.


Having teachers experience the qualitatively different ways of

experiencing inquiry teaching uncovered in this study is expected to help

teachers to move towards a more student-centred, authentic inquiry outcome

for their students and themselves. Going beyond this to challenge teacher

epistemological beliefs regarding the source of knowledge may also assist

them in developing more informed notions of the nature of science and of

scientific inquiry during professional development opportunities. The

development of scientific literacy in students, a high priority for governments

worldwide, will only to benefit from these initiatives.

171

Chapter 6 Conclusion

In spite of having a long history in education, inquiry teaching in

science education is still a highly problematic issue in education today (Abd-

El-Khalick et al., 2004; Goodrum et al., 2001), notwithstanding its potential to

benefit student learning (Wynne et al., 2003). When teachers attempt to

develop and implement science lessons they are influenced by their own

conceptions or understandings of science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) and the

nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2009). This study has revealed

insights into the range of teacher conceptions by identifying three

approaches adopted by teachers in this context. These approaches

represent the ways teachers say they see their approach to teaching science

so as to engage students in inquiry. These were categorised using

phenomenography as: Student Centred Experiences (Category 1), Teacher

Generated Problems (Category 2), and Student Generated Questions

(Category 3). This study has made a significant contribution to the literature

by developing a strong, workable categorisation scheme of the limited

number of qualitatively different ways in which a group of primary school

teachers experience inquiry teaching in science education.

Taken together, these results represent fundamental understandings

among teachers regarding the requirements of their profession, the learning

needs of children, and the nature of science and science instruction. Gaining

a better understanding of these categories adds positively to the science

education literature in many ways.

In terms of theory building, this study informs our understanding in that

teachers appeared to conceive of inquiry teaching in a different way to that

promoted in the literature, specifically that there are levels of inquiry.

Teachers appear to be thinking along the lines that they are either using

inquiry teaching, or they are using didactic “chalk and talk” methods of

instruction. When the conception of inquiry teaching is further analysed there

are three distinct ways of conceiving inquiry teaching as outlined in this

study, rather than a continuum from more to less teacher guidance as per the

NRC (2000).

172

This study also informs our theoretical understanding of the

epistemology of inquiry and teacher understanding of the nature of science.

In support of the findings of current literature, teachers still treat scientific

knowledge as gathered, not created, and rely on expert sources rather than

student interpretation of results to inform theory and knowledge generation.

Understanding teacher knowledge about the nature of science is important

for informing research around scientific literacy (Lee et al., 2004).

These results may also be used to begin to inform preservice and

inservice teaching programs regarding the underlying conceptions that

teachers actually employ. Before teacher educators can hope to improve

teacher implementation of inquiry teaching in the science classroom, they

should determine teachers’ current understandings of inquiry teaching

(Porlán & Pozo, 2004; Prosser et al., 1994). Professional and inservice

development programs, for instance, may begin to work with teachers who

conceive of inquiry teaching solely as giving students interesting experiences

or challenging problems in a broader and more inclusive manner, allowing

students own questions to take a greater role in their teaching.

Researchers and teacher educators can now work with this important

contribution to our understanding to help practicing and pre-service primary

school teachers to understand and implement the best educative practices in

their daily work. High quality science education is a priority in Australia and

internationally (Department of Education, Services, and Training [DEST],

2002; National Science Board, 2007). Inquiry teaching is encouraged

internationally as one of the most effective means of educating students in

science (National Curriculum Board, 2009; National Research Council of

America, 2005). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of inquiry teaching had

made a clear and unique contribution the literature, which can be used to

inform our theoretical understanding of this important aspect of contemporary

science education.

173

Appendix A: Participant quantitative data

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

Sample topics

ants, tomatoes

balloon rockets

lux flakes, bad apples and mysterious insects

energy efficient houses

earthworms under the sea

marvellous microorganisms

opposites and bugs

stale bread paper towers and experiments

Sex m m f f f f f f f m Years teaching

10 2 4(9) 7 7 3 28 2 2 30

Class 2 4 p 7 3 4 1 7 prep 6 4/5 Age mature young middle young mature young mature young young mature Usually teaches

lower lower lower upper middle lower senior prep 6 music

Preferred level

lower lower lower upper ? lower senior prep 6 ?

Past exp with science

engineer minimal hated it at high school

geological researcher

none none minimal minimal research assistant - psychology

none

Like science?

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes y yes

Do they teach science

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes y no

team teaching

no no no no no T8 n T6 n n

Dominant category

1

3

1 3 1 3 (1) 1 (2) 3 (1) 2 2

174

T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20

Sample topics

beans n underwater vehicles

flick flacs, mouldy bread, yeast

Body systems, technology items, space

the lever and the heavy box

water powered toys and evaporation

It's electrifying

natural disasters (and maths)

meccano, under the sea, what floats

volcanoes and cooking

buttered screw-drivers

Sex f f f m f f f f f m Years teaching

25 10+ 14+ 6 28 6 26 18 9 2

Class 6/7 7 7 prep 6 6 5 4 p 6 Age mature mature mature young mature young mature mature mature young Usually teaches

upper upper 7 6/7 upper upper primary lower lower -

Preferred level

? upper upper prep middle school

lower - lower lower -

Past exp with science

bad some at uni as little as possible - yr8

yr 12 physics

none none none none (bio at school)

- business

Like science?

yes love it no yes doesn't mind

yes yes y - yes

Do they teach science

y yes yes yes no yes yes not directly yes Yes

Team teaching

T18 n no n T17 n T15 T11 n no

Dominant category

1 1 (3) 1 2 1 2 2 2 (3) 1 1

172

175

Appendix B: Interview schema

Bracket: know their world

There is a lot of discussion in education and curriculum documents

about inquiry learning. I am doing a study to find out about what perceptions

teachers have of teaching in ways that foster inquiry based learning in

science. There are no wrong answers here. I am predominantly interested in

exploring your ideas and experiences. I want you to feel that I am the learner

here and you the expert regarding your own practice, I will try to be like a

blank slate. I want you to do all the talking and I’ll do the listening. I just want

you to tell me about your experiences with inquiry, and dig down into your

understanding and practice of the what and why of inquiry in your classroom!

OK?

Do have any questions?

Well, can you tell me a bit about yourself as a teacher? (Who do you

teach, how long have you been teaching, what experiences led you to

teaching, have you any past experience with science as a profession?)

“Can you tell me about a recent teaching experience you have had in

which you feel you taught science through inquiry particularly well?”

Regarding a specific teaching experience:

Teacher role

Student role

Assessment

Goal

Outcomes

Cues

Teacher role: How did you go about teaching? Where and how did this

take place?

Student role: How did the students go about learning during the

teaching experience you just described?

Assessment: How did you know that the students had learnt

something? What was the role of assessment in your program?

176

Goals: What were you trying to teach? What did you want students to

learn? Why did you choose to do it that way?

Outcomes: How do you know if your approach is working? What do

you feel were the results of this approach? What did inquiry offer?

What is easy about inquiry science, what is difficult, what challenges

you in implementing an inquiry science program?

Cues:

When did you first hear about teaching science through inquiry?

What does it mean to teach science through inquiry?

Can you think of a time when you thought differently about what it

means to teaching science through inquiry?

Regarding inquiry learning: What is inquiry learning?

Complete this sentence “Inquiry learning is…”

Before we conclude, is there anything else you’d like to add?

177

Appendix C: Comparison of categories

Student Centred Experiences

Teacher Generated Problems

Student Generated Questions

Illustrative quote

T19 “…they’re finding things out for themselves and it’s more meaningful to them, I think. Like if we try and tell them something they may not remember it. But if they have done it themselves that learning is more valuable.” (Italics added).

T17: … Usually I begin with a question or a problem or a story and there’s a problem in the story that has to be solved. And then we, as a class group, find out how we’re going to solve this problem. … “Well what are you going to do about it?”

T18 I mean to me inquiry learning is giving children the opportunities to find out new things, and to ask the right questions to learn about new things in a collaborative way, … where the children find out what it is that they want to know, and we give them the tools to be able to do that.

The how and what

How Provide experiences Provide Problems Provide guidance What – Direct object

Concepts, attitudes (skills)

Attitudes, Skills (concepts)

Skills (attitudes, concepts)

What – Indirect object

To engage students To encourage students

To empower students


Referential aspect (meaning)





Theme-Student centred experiences Thematic field-Student generated questions

Theme -Teacher generated problems Thematic field -Student Centred Experiences -Student generated questions

Theme -Student generated questions Thematic field -Student centred experiences -Teacher generated problems


“Chalk and Talk”

Inquiry must move beyond simply experiencing content outcomes. Inquiry needs to be given depth and context a teachers provide a challenging problem.


178

Experience centred category

Problem centred category

Question centred category


Role of the teacher

Knower, but not teller Feigning ignorance Not knowing, willing to learn

Role of the student

Lowest – students did not choose content or activities, but were still very active participants.

Higher – students could now propose some content by suggesting solutions. Considered engaged participants.

Highest – students had a large say in content through selection of questions to be answers, and may have helped choose topic. Considered guided inquirers

Purpose of student experiences

Focal - directed learning and teaching experience

Supportive - one way teachers used to help students solve problems

Supportive - one way teachers used to help answer student questions

Purpose of Teacher generated problems

Supportive - were one way teachers may have used to help students experience content

Focal - Teacher Generated Problems used to structure teaching

Supportive - were one way teachers may have used to answer student questions

Role of Student generated questions

Supportive - helped students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding

Supportive - help students benefit from engaging and help teachers measure student understanding

Focal - directed learning and teaching experience for students and teachers

Epistemological belief - Source of Knowledge



An expert (usually teacher, but not always. Correctly performed experiments would yield expected results.)

179

Appendix D: Sample personal profile

Personal profile – Lux bubbles, bad apples, peas, mysterious

insects, smarties, snakes, garden worms, volanco’s and sunflowers.

Experienced teachers of preparatory year.

Highlights (quotes are representative of general themes carried on throughout the interview. Interviewer thoughts are included in parenthesis. This is not the official analysis, but more of a ‘personal profile’.) Inquiry is Engaging (fun) “If you can’t engage a child and make something fun and interesting, I don’t feel like I’m doing my job. So every activity, whatever we do, it has to be engaging. And I suppose that’s the main word – you’ve got to be able to engage this age group.” Hands on “And it’s exciting, just to see the children engage in those sorts of things, because it is hands on. In prep, how we look at inquiry based science teaching is hands on, and that’s what we do with them. (time mark11:59)” Student selection of topic (somewhat) – but note it was frequently employed! “So you’ve got all these things, and when you’ve got a class of 28 children which I have this year, all wanting to do something different, you are taking all those things/ they are all on individual pathways, they’re all doing something different. But also you’ve got to bring them back into “ok, we all as a group want to learn about something”. So we put all those sort of ideas up on the board and then we go through it with them, saying “ok, well, which would be the best area for us to learn as a whole class?” “ Science ‘doesn’t always work’ (tried to make craft materials out of apples but instead of dry and wrinkly, they ended up wet, swollen, and very very smelly. Used it to teach the children that ‘things don’t always work out’) “It’s either going to work or its not. And they’re going to learn through life not everything happens the way you might predict it might happen. And that’s, I think, where science sort of fits in, because, yeah, there might be lots of activities that when you do this, and you do this [thumps table] and you add this chemical and that chemical and you get the perfect result, but I think you don’t always get a perfect result in life anyway. So if they might add too much water or too much lux flakes or whatever they’re not going to get that result, so then they have to go back and work out ‘ok, why didn’t it work, what can we do?” and those children, even though they’re prep children can see that. They can / they don’t just walk away from it. If they find it interesting enough they will go “ohhh.” And not everything works and that’s how I teach them, because I lot of things that I’ve done don’t.”

180

Which also indicates that science is perceived as a set of activities, not as ideas to be tested and explored, or as a ‘way of knowing’. J Can you give me an example of when you’ve explored a students interest… T3 Example of that and this is, hmm, it’s probably not science based J That’s ok T3 Yeah, but I’ll just show you. For example, these were some of our children, um, this amazing insect flew onto our building one day. Now I have never seen it before, I don’t even know what it is. (They went on to explore it, take pictures, ask experts, and even check on the internet. The bug was not identified, but it is even more fascinating that the whole event was not perceived as ‘science’ – though I suspect she would have noticed if I’d mentioned it to her.) Teaching tactic – uses music “And then with all those songs you then bring in all those songs ‘feather, fur and fins’ and you jump off into another tangent.” Students are at different levels “So they don’t all move together. “ One goal of inquiry is to teach them to organise equipment, and to be able to set up some self directed activities independently. “We tried to get the preschool children last year by the end of the year, we had a whole heap of this sort of stuff “we want to do the pea activity.” So we’d have all these things ready for them, and then they’d come over and say “We’ll we want to do this activity or we want to do a different one” (Isn’t that interesting! I’ve never had a teacher mention this as a goal. She allowed students to return to the experiment to re-experience it at any time) Solving problems (answering questions) is inquiry based learning “So those sorts of things to me are inquiry based learning. Because they had to learn “OK, who is going to get the weeds out of the garden, who is going to look after it, who is going to water it?” This year, and even last year, “OK, we’re going into a drought. We can’t just go and get the hose, so we need to bucket it down there. We need to only use so much a day. And do we need to water everyday.” So all those sorts of questions the children then have to work out what they’re gonna do” (sounds more like solving problems, which is only a part of inquiry learning to me.) It’s all inquiry “So, um, on that topic, can you think of a time when you thought differently about what it means to teach science through inquiry? As in, has your opinion changed? T3 No, I don’t think it has. Whether I knew what it was called before, to what I’m doing, to me, especially in early childhood what we’re teaching is inquiry based because the children are engaging either through their own ideas, or through what we think might fit in to their unit of learning.”

181

What isn’t inquiry? J So what’s not inquiry? T3 That’s a really good one! When they sit there and they don’t want to engage?! [laughter] When I don’t want to do a science lesson! [laughs] “Mothering” the children (uses the terms ‘my kids’) “Because I’m like mother hen to everyone of them. I’m actually, y’know, they come in and call me mum [laughter].“ (representative of a high level of personal attachment to the students?) In summary Teacher has a very high emphasis on student selection of topic. However, there is much more direction in terms of content and outcomes expected. Perhaps the content was adaptable to any topic? For example; use of materials, safety (not explicitly), science ‘not everything works’, difference between (shapes, textures, kinds of animals), learning to set up an experiment independently. These ‘content’ areas are general enough for most any topic. “J So just to finish off, what do you like about inquiry based learning in science? T3 I think it just makes the children more responsible, it gives them a direction of their own learning, so they might decide what they’re going to do. It gives them direction, makes them a little bit more responsible. And then how they tackle it, and what they understand, and what they learn out of it. It could be fantastic or it couldn’t be.”

182

183

References

AAAS. (2009). Science, a process approach (Publication. Retrieved 5th

March 2010: http://archives.aaas.org/about/index.php?c_id=5)

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive

training on preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of

science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-

2184.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Baujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-

Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004).

Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science

Education, 88(3), 397-419.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers'

conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature.

International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.

Abruscato, J. (2001). Teaching children science: A discovery approach. (5th

ed.). USA: Allan and Bacon.

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour (2nd ed.). Berkshire:

Open University Press.

Åkerlind, G. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching.

Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363-375.

Åkerlind, G. (2005a). Academic growth and development – how do university

academics experience it? Higher Education, 50, 1-32.

184

Åkerlind, G. (2005b). Phenomenographic methods: A case illustration. In J.

A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental

phenomenography (pp. 103-127). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Åkerlind, G. (2005c). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic

research methods. Higher Education Research and Development,

24(4), 321-334.

Åkerlind, G., Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do

Phenomenography: A reflective discussion. In J. A. Bowden & P.

Green (Eds.), Doing developmental Phenomenography (pp. 74-100).

Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science through

inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680.

American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological

principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. (Publication.

Retrieved 11th of October, 2010:

http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing

professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Arthur, H. L. (1964). The process approach of the AAAS commission on

science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(4),

271-282.

185

Asay, L. D., & 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.

Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A

practical approach to the design, conduct and reporting of

phenomenographic research. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-

308.

Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science

Teacher, 29(September), 45-51.

Australian Bureau of statistics. (2003). Media release 4102.0 - Australian

Social Trends, 2003. Retrieved 21 June, 2010, from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca2570

61001cc588/459c3882fad473a2ca2570eb0083be84!OpenDocument

Australian Government. (1999). A national statement on ethical conduct in

researching involving humans. Retrieved 20th Feb, 2005, from

http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm

Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.

Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students

"Ideas-about-science": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science

Education, 88(5), 655-682.

186

Beck, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers'

beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their

classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.

Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and

acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow up

study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 536-581.

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction.

The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.

Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching

of chemistry: What are they and what are their effects? In J. K. Gilbert

(Ed.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165-

184). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through

inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers.


Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, learning and teaching. Higher

Education Research and Development, 16(2), 135-158.

Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C., &

Campbell, K. J. (2001). Secondary teachers' conceptions of teaching

and learning. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 35-51.

187

Bowden, J. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A.

Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1-18). Melbourne:

RMIT University Press.

Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research

process. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental

phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.

Bowden, J. A., Dall'Alba, G., Laurillard, D., Marton, P., Masters, G.,

Ramsden, P., Stephanou, A., & Walsh, E. (1992). Displacement,

velocity and frames of reference: Phenomenographic studies of

students' understanding and some implications for teaching. American

Journal of Physics, 60, 262-269.

Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2000). Doing developmental phenomenography.


Brown, F. (2000). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science

course on preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science.

Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 1-6.

Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science

teachers' views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90(5), 784-

802.

Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science

teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based

experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938-

950.

188

Brownlee, J. (2001). Epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education

students. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(3), 281-

291.

Brownlee, J. (2004). An investigation of teacher education students’

epistemological beliefs:Developing a relational model of teaching.

Research in Education, 72, 1-18.

Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1995). Towards university lecturers' conceptions of

student learning. Higher Education, 29(4), 443-458.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Buelens, H., Clement, M., & Clarebout, G. (2002). University assistants'

conceptions of knowledge, learning and instruction. Research in

Education 67, 44-59.

Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee, H

(Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry: Learning and teaching in science. (pp. 20-

46). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of

Science.

Bybee, R. (2001). Constructivism and the 5 E's (Publication. Retrieved 2nd of

March, 2010: http://www.miamisci.org/ph/lpintro5e.html)

Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N., & Chapman, H. (2010). Development of

instruments to assess teacher and student perceptions of inquiry

189

experiences in science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 21(1), 13-30.

Campbell, T., & Bohn, C. (2008). Science laboratory experiences of high

school students across one state in the US: Descriptive research from

the classroom. Science Educator, 17(1), 36-48.

Candy, P. (1989). Alternative paradigms in educational research. Australian

Educational Researcher, 16(3), 1-11.

Carnes, G. N. (1997). Teacher conceptions of inquiry and related teaching

practices. Paper presented at the the annual conference of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Oak Brook,

IL.

Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students' science perceptions

and enrolment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms.


Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A

consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in

biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics,

7(241-247).

Chinn, C. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to

the special section. Science Education, 86(2), 171-174.

190

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in

schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science

Education, 86(2), 175-218.

Colburn, A. (1997). How to make lab activities more open ended. California

Science Teachers Association Journal, fall, 4-6.

Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science educator's "grand unifying

theory." Clearinghouse, 74(1), 9-12.

Cope, C. (2004). Ensuring validity and reliability in phenomenographic

research using the analytical framework of a structure of awareness.

Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 5-18.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for

science teachers. Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and

tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4),

613-642.

Cushman, P. (2007). The male teacher shortage: A synthesis of research

and worldwide strategies for addressing the shortage. KEDI Journal of

Educational Policy, 4(1), 79-98.

Dall’Alba, G. (2000). Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J.

A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 83-101).

Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.

191

Dean, G. (1994). A phenomenographic investigation of policing by consent.

In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice Conference (pp. 111-

127). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.

DeBoer, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools.

In L. B. Flick & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of

science (pp. 17-35). Netherlands: Kluwer academic publishers.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

DEST. (2002). Supporting science teachers: The Commonwealth's

commitment to improving science education in Australian schools.

Retrieved 21 June, from

http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/schools/publications/2002/scienceteac

hers/Science2002.pdf

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994).

Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational

Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Duffy, G. (1992). Let's free teachers to be inspired. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(6),

442-448.

Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers

College Press.

192

Eastwell, P. H. (2007). Readers forum: More on inquiry. Science Education

Review, 6(4), 139.

Eastwell, P. H. (2008). Inquiry (continued) [Readers' Forum]. The Science

Education Review, 7, 30-36.

Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2001). An invasion in the classroom: Influence of

an ill-structured innovation on instructional and epistemological beliefs.

Learning Environments Research, 4, 87-105.

Eley, M. G. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and the making of

specific decisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51, 191-214.

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and

beliefs about “good teaching”: An integration of contrasting research

areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5-26.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological

Review, 87, 215-251.

Ernest, P. (1999). Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics:

Radical Constructivism.

Fazio, X. E. (2005). Exploring teachers' beliefs and knowledge about

scientific inquiry and the nature of science: A collaborative action

research project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Toronto, Canada.

193

Fensham, P. J., & Harlen, W. (1999). School science and public

understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education,

21(7), 755 - 763.

Fleer, M., & Hardy, T. (2001). Science for children: Developing a personal

approach to teaching (2nd ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.

Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Introduction. In L. B. Flick & N. G.

Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix-xviii).

London: Kluwer.

Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education,

8(2), 151-163.

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided

scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.

Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based

science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science.

Science Education, 86(5), 693-705.

Gilbert, A. (2009). Utilizing science philosophy statements to facilitate K-3

teacher candidates’ development of inquiry-based science practice.

Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 431-438.

Giorgi, A. (1988). Validity and reliability from a phenomenological

perspective. In W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. V. Rappard & H. J. Stam

(Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 167-176). New

York: Springer Verlag.

194

Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of

teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra:

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship

to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-

33.

Hackling, M. (2005). Working Scientifically: Implementing and assessing

open investigation work in science. Retrieved 20th of November,

2010, from

http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/science/teach/workingscientificall

yrevised.pdf.

Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: Reforming

science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science,

53(3), 12-16.

Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology

class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072-1088.

Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs

about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative

instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-

79.

Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography - a "good-for-

nothing-brother" of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher


195

Hill, L., Stremmel, A., & Fu, V. (2005). Teaching as inquiry: Rethinking

curriculum in early childhood education. Boston, MA: Pearson

education.

Ho, A. S. P. (2001). A conceptual change approach to university staff

development. In D. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the

Chinese Learner: Psychological and Instructional Perspectives (pp.

237-252). Melbourne: Comparative Education Research Centre.

Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social

constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning

science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.

Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students' knowledge about the

nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.

Ireland, J. (2008). ‘Inquiry learning is… difficult to define!’: Primary school

teachers’ conceptions of teaching science through inquiry learning.

Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science

Education Research Association (ASERA). 2-5 July, Brisbane:

Queensland.

Ireland, J. (2010). Teachers' conceptions of how to engage students thought

inquiry leaning: Foundations for STEM. Paper presented at the

Science Engineering Mathematics in Education (STEM). 26-27

November, Brisbane: Queensland.

Ireland, J., Tambyah, M., Neofa, Z., & Harding, T. (2008). The tale of four

researchers: Trials and triumphs from the phenomenographic

196

research specialization. Paper presented at the Australian Association

for Research in Education International Education Research

Conference (AARE). Brisbane

Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to

Settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 19, 11-13.

Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-

based learning in higher education: Administrators’ perspectives on

integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education,

58(6), 841-855.

Kadriye, E., & Wolff-Michael, R. (2006). What good is polarizing research Into

qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.

Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of

laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and

practices. Science Education, 89, 140-165.

Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing

project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science

Education, 94(3), 525-551.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university

academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3),

255-275.

197

Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students' approach

to learning. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and

learning in higher education (pp. 1-25). Melbourne: Acer Press.

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-Constructing inquiry based science

with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.

Keys, P. (2005). Teacher knowledge and organisational change.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of

Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging

perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 1st of

April, 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

King, D. (2009). Context-based chemistry: Creating opportunities for fluid

transitions between concepts and context. Teaching Science, 13-19.

Koballa, T., Glynn, S., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. (2005). Conceptions of

teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification

program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 287-305.

Kowalczyk, D. L. (2003). An analysis of K-5 teachers' beliefs regarding the

uses of direct instruction, the discovery method, and the inquiry

method in elementary science education. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University Pennsylvania.

198

Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational

Research Review, 4(1), 1-6.

Kuzel, A., & Engel, J. (2001). Some pragmatic thought on evaluating

qualitative health research. In J. Morse, J. Swanson & A. Kuzel (Eds.),

The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 114-138). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research

interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lawson, A. E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of

formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-

24.

Lawson, A. E. (2002). The learning cycle. In R. G. Fuller (Ed.), A love of

discovery: Science education - the second career of Robert Karplus.

New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of

science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.

Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and

science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific

inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301-317). Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

199

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002).

Views of the nature of science questionnaire: Towards a valid and

meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of the nature of

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 509.

Lederman, N. G., & Neiss, M. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally?

School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.

Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional

development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of

diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

41(10), 1021-1043.

Leveson, L. (2004). Encouraging better learning through better teaching: a

study of approaches to teaching in accounting. Accounting Education,

13(4), 529-548.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1991). Naturalistic inquiry. CA: Sage.

Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. E. (2005). Learning the learning cycle: The

differential effect on elementary preservice teachers. School Science

and Mathematics, 105(2), 61-72.

Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core

teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices.


Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in

the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and

200

practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on

science education (pp. pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Lupton, M. (2008). Information literacy and learning. Unpublished Doctorate,

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Mahoney, M. J. (1996). Connected knowing in constructivist psychotherapy.

In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy & M. Belenky (Eds.),

Knowledge, difference, and power. Essays inspired by women's ways

of knowing (pp. 126-147). New York: Basic books.

Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of

inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.

Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1991). Conceptions of teaching and implications for

learning. In B. Wright (Ed.), Research and development in higher

education (pp. 298-304). Campbelltown, NSW: Higher education

Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).

Marton, F. (1975). On non-verbatim learning: Level of processing and level of

outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 16, 273-

279.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating

different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-43.

201

Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite

(Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp.

4424). London: Pergamon.

Marton, F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh

(Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 102-116). Melbourne: RMIT University

Press.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in

phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development,

24(4), 335-348.

McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K-12 education in

the context of current educational reform. Theory Into Practice, 42(2),

93-101.

McDonald, S., & Songer, N. B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry:

Theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Science

Education, 92, 973-993.

McKenzie, J. (2003). Variation and change in university teachers' ways of

experiencing teaching. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University

of Technology, Sydney.

202

McMahon, M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A

Paradigm for Learning. . Paper presented at the Paper presented at

the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.

Miles, S. J. (1999). Postgraduate nursing students: Conceptions of clinical

experience in acute paediatric health care settings. Unpublished

masters thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,

Queensland, Australia.

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.

Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification

strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.

Murray, K., & MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers'

conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher

Education, 33(3), 331-349.

National Curriculum Board. (2009). Shape of the Australian curriculum:

Science (Publication. Retrieved 8th of January, 2010, from Australian

curriculum, assessment and reporting association:

http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_-

_Science.pdf

203

National Research Council of America. (1996). National science education

standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council of America. (2000). Inquiry and the national

science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

National Research Council of America. (2005). America’s lab report:

Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for assessing the critical

needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics

education system. Published online at

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf: National

science foundation.

National Science Teachers Association. (2007). NSTA position statement.

The integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction

[Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx.

Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J.

(2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher

education. Higher Education, 50, 537-571.

O'Niell, K., & Pollman, J. L. (2004). Why educate "little scientists?" Examining

the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234-266.

204

Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry

discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2003). What "Ideas-about-Science" should be

taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community.


Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and education research: Cleaning up

a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Pang, M. F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the

phenomenographic movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 47(2), 145-156.

Perla, R., & Carifio, J. (2008). Can our conception of the nature of science be

tentative without qualification? The Journal of Educational Thought,

42(2), 127-150.

Pierce, W. (2001). Inquiry made easy. Science and Children, 38(8), 39-41.

Porlán, R., & Pozo, R. M. d. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and

prospective primary school teachers about the teaching and learning

of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 39-62.

Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers'

descriptions of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in

higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18, 109-120.

205

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly,

42(4), 203-220.

Pratt, D. D., Arseneau, R., & Collins, J. B. (2001). Reconsidering “good

teaching” across the continuum of medical education. The Journal of

Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 21, 70-81.

Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Lueckenhausen, G.

(2005). Academics’ experiences of understanding of their subject

matter and the relationship of this to their experiences of teaching and

learning. Instructional Science, 33, 137-157.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The

experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University

Press.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of

academics, conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning

and Instruction, 4, 217-231.

Queensland University of Technology. (n.d.). An introduction to research

ethics at QUT. Retrieved Feb 20th, 2006, from

http://www.research.qut.edu.au/oresearch/ethics/humanmanual.jsp

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of

phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1),

53-82.

206

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' approaches to learning and teachers'

approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology,

25(6), 673-680.

Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: the Cold war

reconstruction of American science. New York: Palgrave.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S.-P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one

premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining

students' scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583-608.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by

academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93-111.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about

teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-395.

Sandburg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher


Sandoval, A. W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies

and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89,

634-656.

Sanger, M. J. (2007, Feburary). Is inquiry-based instruction good for

elementary teaching majors? The effects on chemistry content

knowledge and views about teaching and learning science. Paper

207

presented at the American Insitiute of Physics Conference

Proceedings, New York, USA.

Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as

context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman

(Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 331-355). London:

Kluwer.

Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

Seroussi, M. J. (2005). Science teachers' perceptions and implementation of

classroom inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of

Connecticut, Connecticut.

Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering

the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education,

18(4), 461-467.

Skamp, K. (2004). Teaching primary science constructively (2nd ed.).

Melbourne: Thomson.

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about

effective primary science teaching: A longitudinal study. International

Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 331- 351.

Spencer, H. (1864). Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical. New York:

Appleton.

Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher


208

Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In

J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 43-57).


Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and

strategy in university science teachers' approaches to teaching.

Higher Education, 32(1), 77-87.

Tsai, C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers' beliefs of teaching,

learning and science. International Journal of Science Education,

24(8), 771-783.

Van Gigch, J. P. (2002). Comparing the epistemologies of scientific

disciplines in two distinct domains: Modern physics versus social

sciences. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(3), 199-209.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and

learning. (Vol. 6). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary

science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing

belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.

Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J.

Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 13-23).


Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the

nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers' beliefs

209

about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of

Science Education, 28(8), 919-944.

Watkins, D., Dahlin, B., & Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of the backwash

effect of assessment: A phenomenographic study of the views of Hong

Kong and Swedish lecturers. Instructional Science, 33, 283-309.

Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2004). Reforming education: The pursuit

of learning through authentic inquiry in mathematics, science and

technology. Paper presented at the epiSTEME 1, International centre,

Dona Paula, Goa.

Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of

inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science

Education, 65(1), 33-50.

Wilson, A. L. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. In S. Merriam (Ed.),

An update on adult learning theory. New directions for adult and

continuing education (Vol. 1993, pp. 71-79). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Wilson, J., & Wing Jan, L. (2003). Focus on inquiry: A practical approach to

integrated curriculum planning. Carlton, South Victoria: Curriculum

Corporation.

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.

210

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry": How preservice teachers

reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific

method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.

Withee, T., & Lindell, R. (2006). Different views on inquiry: A survey of

science and mathematics methods instructors. AIP Conference

Proceedings, 818(1), 125-128.

Wynne, H., Macro, C., Reed, K., & Schilling, M. (2003). Making progress in

primary science: A handbook for professional development and

preservice course leaders. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Yager, R. (2007). The centrality of inquiry to reforms in science education.

The Science Education Review, 6(3), 104-113.

Yang, F., Chang, C., & Hsu, Y. (2008). Teacher views about constructivist

instruction and personal epistemology: A national study in Taiwan.

Educational Studies, 34(5), 527-542.

Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social

constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64,

373-388.

"Of only one thing am I convinced: I have never seen anybody improve in the

art and techniques of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry.”

(Bruner, 1962, p. 94).

Documents

Inquiry teaching in primary science: A phenomenographic studyeprints.qut.edu.au/45772/1/Joseph_Ireland_Thesis.pdf · Inquiry teaching in primary science: A phenomenographic study