Learning through teaching: Teaching the nature of scientific inquiry in online outdoor learning environments

Abstract

This study aims to examine the developments of 50 pre-service teachers' NOSI views during a 14-week implementation in the online outdoor learning environment. This is an experimental study that examines each participant's views and changes about NOSI using an open-ended questionnaire (VASI), and follow-up interviews. The data were analyzed by using content analysis. Almost all participants positively improved their views through the explicit/reflective approach and teachers' own experiences by practicing. In this study, the views of pre-service teachers developed more clearly after preparing lesson plans and their teaching practices. This is an indication that NOSI teaching, which does not provide the experience of conveying their learning outcomes to their practices to the participants is limited on its own and that the importance of “learning through teaching” in teachers' in-service and pre-service training on this subject should not be overlooked. Online teacher education in outdoor learning environments might be used in the development of NOSI views of pre-service teachers. We think that it is important to investigate the effect of this training on teacher education. These types of training might create a more economical and sustainable alternative for the development of NOSI views of wider groups of pre-service and in-service teachers.

Keywords

• Nature of scientific inquiry
• Outdoor learning
• Teacher training
• Learning through teaching

References

1. Akerson, V.L. (Ed.) (2007). Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in elementary classrooms: Applying research to practice. Erlbaum: NJ.
2. Akgül, G.D. & Arabacı, S. (2020). Okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [The views of science teachers on the use and application of out of school learning environments]. Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmacıları Dergisi, 3(2), 276-291.
3. Alı̇sı̇nanoğlu, F. & Özbey, S. (2011). Okul öncesinde fen eğitimi [Preschool science education]. Maya Akademi.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. Oxford University Press.
5. Andersson, B. (1999). Pupils’ conceptions of matter and its transformations. Studies in Science Education, 2(1), 53-85.
6. Andiema, N.C. (2016). Effect of child-centered methods on teaching and learning of science activities in preschools in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(27), 1-9.
7. Aydemir, S., Ugras, M., Cambay, O., & Kilic, A. (2017). Prospective preschool teachers’ views on the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Üniversitepark Bülten, 6(2), 74 87. https://doi.org/10.22521/unibulletin.2017.62.6
8. Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K. & Skinner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school student's understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 403 421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4

9. Bartels, S., & Lederman, J. (2022). What do elementary students know about science, scientists, and how they do their work?. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050487
10. Baykara, H. & Yakar, Z. (2020). Pre-service science teachers' views about scientific inquiry: The case of Turkey and Taiwan. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 161-192. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.618950
11. Bell, R.L., Blair, L.M., Crawford, B.A. & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.
12. Brock, K.L. & Cameron, B.J. (1999). Enlivening political science courses with Kolb’s learning preference model. Political Science and Politics, 32(2), 251-256.
13. Burns, M. (2011). Distance education for teacher training: modes, models, and methods. Education Development Center, Inc.
14. Camlıbel Çakmak, Ö. (2014). Okul öncesi dönemde fen eğitimi ve öğretmenin rolü [Science education and the role of the teacher at the preschool period]. In M. Çetin & Ç. Şahin (Eds.), Okul öncesi dönemde fen eğitimi [Science education at the preschool period] (s.29-47). Pegem Akademi.
15. Crawford, B.A., Zembal Saul, C., Munford, D. & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers' ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry‐based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613-637.
16. Crawford, B.A., Capps, D., Meyer, X., Patel, M. & Ross, R.M. (2010, April). Supporting teachers in complex situations: Learning to teach evolution, nature of science, and scientific inquiry. A paper presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting-Denver, Colorado.
17. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
18. Çavuş Güngören S., & Öztürk E. (2016). Turkish adaptation of the views about scientific inquiry VASI and examine pre-service mathematics teachers' views about scientific inquiry. VI. International Congress on Research in Education (ICRE).
19. Deniz, H. & Akerson, V. (2013). Examining the impact of a professional development program on elementary teachers' views of the nature of science and nature of the scientific inquiry, and science teaching efficacy beliefs. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 17(3), 1-19.
20. Dori, Y.J., & Tall, R.T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: engaging in the industry with environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95-113.
21. Dudu, W.T. (2014). Exploring South African high school teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry: A case study. South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1-18.
22. Erdas Kartal, E., Cobern, W.W., Dogan, N., Irez, S., Cakmakci, G., & Yalaki, Y. (2018). Improving science teachers’ nature of science views through an innovative continuing professional development program. International Journal of STEM education, 5(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0125-4
23. Gelişli, Y. (2015). Practices of distance education for teacher training: History and development. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(1), 313-321.
24. Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education, 11(1), 55-67.
25. Gürsoy, G. (2018). Fen öğretiminde okul dışı öğrenme ortamları (Outdoor learning environments in science education). Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(11), 623 649. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.13225
26. Karışan, D., Bilican, K., & Şenler, B. (2017). Bilimsel sorgulama hakkında görüş anketi: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (The adaptation of the views about scientific inquiry questionnaire: A validity and reliability study). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 326-343. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.307053
27. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
28. Koyunlu-Ünlü, Z. (2020). Improving pre-service teachers' science process skills and views about scientific inquiry. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(3), 474-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.626165
29. Kubat, U. (2018). Okul dışı öğrenme ortamları hakkında fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri (Opinions of pre-service science teachers about outdoor education). Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(1), 111 135. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.429575
30. Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
31. Lederman, J.S. & Lederman, N.G. (2004, April). Early elementary students’ and teacher’s understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from project ICAN. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia.
32. Lederman, N.G. (2006). Research on nature of science: reflections on the past, anticipations of the future. Asia-Pasific Forum Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 1-11
33. Lederman, J.S. (2012). Development of a valid and reliable protocol for the assessment of early childhood students' conceptions of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.
34. Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C.J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (24th ed., pp. 335–359). Springer
35. Lederman, J.S., Bartels, S.L., Liu, C. & Jimenez, J. (2013). Teaching the nature of science and scientific inquiry to diverse classes of early primary-level students. A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Juan, PR, USA.
36. Lederman, N.G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285-302.
37. Lederman, J.S., Lederman, N.G., Bartos, S.A., Bartels, S.L., Meyer, A.A., & Schwartz, R.S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125
38. Lederman, N.G. (2019). Contextualizing the relationship between the nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 28(1), 249 267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00030-8
39. Lederman, J.S., Lederman, N.G., Bartels, S., Jimenez, J., Akubo, M., et al. (2019). An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh-grade students' understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 486-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512
40. Lederman, J.S., & Bartels, S.L. (2018). Assessing the ultimate goal of science education: Scientific literacy for all! In S. Kahn (Ed.), Toward inclusion of all learners through science teacher education (pp. 277–285). Brill.
41. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
42. Lotter, C., Singer, J., & Godley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and reflection on pre-service teachers’ views of inquiry and nature of science. Journal of science teacher education, 20(6), 553-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9144-9
43. McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Education research: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
44. Merriam, S.B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S.Turan, Trans.) [A guide to qualitative research patterns and practice] (Trans. S. Turan). Nobel Press.
45. National Research Council [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press.
46. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academic Press.
47. National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? National Academies Press.
48. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.
49. Norris S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(1), 224-240.
50. Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A., & Jones, D. (2008). Experience and reflection: Pre-service science teachers' capacity for teaching inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 477-494.
51. Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R.S. (2017). Changing pre-service science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9
52. Mesci, G., Çavuş Güngören, S., & Yesildag Hasancebi, F. (2020). Investigating the development of pre service science teachers’ NOSI views and related teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 50 69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1700316
53. Mesci, G., & Kartal, E.E. (2021). Science teachers' views on the nature of the scientific inquiry. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 10(1), 69 84. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.797246
54. Metin-Peten, D. (2021). Influence of the argument-driven inquiry with explicit-reflective nature of scientific inquiry intervention on pre-service science teachers' understandings of the nature of the scientific inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 921-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10197-8
55. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Elementary and secondary science curriculum. National Education Press.
56. Opfer, J.E., & Siegler, R.S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology. Cognitive psychology, 49(4), 301-332.
57. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework-mathematics, reading, science, and problem-solving knowledge and skills. OECD Publishing.
58. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education, vol. II (pp. 579–599). Taylor and Frances Group.
59. Penn, M., Ramnarain, U., Kazeni, M., Dhurumraj, T., Mavuru, L., & Ramaila, S. (2021). South African primary school learners' understandings of the nature of scientific inquiry. Education 3-13, 49(3), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1854956
60. Pérez, B.C., & Díaz-Moreno, N. (2022). Promoting pre-service primary teachers’ development of NOSI through specific immersion and reflection. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11795
61. Pritchard, A. (2017). Ways of learning: Learning theories for the classroom. Routledge. Reid, J., Forrestal, P. & Cook, J. (1989). Small group learning in the classroom: Scarborough (Australia). English and Media Centre.
62. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Field Studies Council.
63. Roberts, D.A., & Bybee, R.W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2(1), 545-558.
64. Roehrig, G.H., & Luft, J.A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24
65. Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
66. Schwartz, R.S. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practices: A cross discipline comparison of scientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Oregon State University.
67. Schwartz, R.S., & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as a context for teaching nature of science: Identifying critical elements for success. In L. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331–356). Kluwer Publishing Co.
68. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, N. (2008, March). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD.
69. Singer, J. (2005). Integrating technology and pedagogy: The ideas, the shift and the targets. In S. Rhine & M. Bailey (Eds.), Integrated technologies, innovative learning: Insights from the PT3 program (pp. 199–215). International Society for Technology in Education.
70. Tatar, N., & Bağrıyanik, K.E. (2012). Opinions of Science and Technology Teachers about Outdoor Education. Ilkogretim Online, 11(4), 883-896.
71. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2003). Tracing young children's scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 433-465.
72. Wang, J. & Zhao, Y. (2016). Comparative research on the understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry between science teachers from Shanghai and Chicago. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1), 97.
73. Wong, S., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431-1463.
74. Yung, B., Wong, S., Cheng, M., Hui, C., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking pre-service teachers’ changing conceptions of good science teaching: The role of progressive reflection with the same video. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 239–259.
75. Yurt, Ö. (2015). Okul öncesi dönemde fen eğitimi [Science education at preschool period]. In F. Şahin (Ed.), Her yönüyle okul öncesi eğitim: Okul öncesi dönemde fen eğitimi [Preschool education in all aspects: Science education at preschool period], (ss.11-20). Hedef CS Yayıncılık ve Mühendislik.
76. Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383–399.