Investigation of Preferred Teaching Pedagogies of Preservice Science Teacher Through Individual and Team Studies

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine how working individually and as a team in solving pedagogical scenarios for teaching science subjects is reflected in the teaching preferences of preservice science teachers. This interpretive case study was conducted with 69 preservice science teachers studying at a university in eastern Turkey. The data of the study were collected using the teaching pedagogy preference form. The analysis of the data included descriptive analysis based on four instructional pedagogies that included direct instruction, direct active, guided inquiry, and open inquiry. The results of the research revealed that preservice teachers did not sufficiently turn to inquiry-based teaching pedagogy for the solution of problem scenarios in both individual and teamwork. In addition, the results indicated that preservice teachers' professional knowledge of teaching various science subjects is largely based on traditional teaching pedagogy. Based on these results, it is recommended that science educators use problem scenarios to reveal preservice teachers' inquiry-based teaching preferences.

Keywords

• Science teaching pedagogy
• Preservice science teacher
• Inquiry-based teaching
• Science Education

References

1. Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teachers’ knowledge. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1716093
3. Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2019). Teaching practices linked to the implementation of inquiry‐based practical work in certain science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 64-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21469
4. Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from Qatar. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.533717
5. Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teachers’ views on CoRes and PaP-eRs as a framework for articulating and developing pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1027-1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9227-4
6. Cairns, D., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9639-x
7. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of science teacher education, 23(3), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2
8. Clarke, P. A. J., & Fournillier, J. B. (2012). Action research, pedagogy, and activity theory: Tools facilitating two instructors' interpretations of the professional development of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.013

9. Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., & Skyjod, B. (2013). The-pedagogy-of-science-teaching-test. Paper presented at the ASQ Advancing the Stem Agenda Conference, Michigan.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/293a/b4a3e3f616747b3a27ae8ffefb2a584d210b.pdf
10. Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Skjold, B. A., Muğaloğlu, E. Z., Bentz, A., & Sparks, K. (2014). Pedagogy of science teaching tests: Formative assessments of science teaching orientations. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2265-2288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.918672
11. Coetzee, C., Rollnick, M., & Gaigher, E. (2020). Teaching electromagnetism for the first time: A case study of preservice science teachers’ enacted pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09948-4
12. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
13. Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education, (pp. 515–541): Routledge.
14. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328
15. DeMonte, J. & Coggshall, J. (2018). New collaborations, new approaches: research for improvement in teacher preparation. American Institutes for Research.
16. Dudu, W. T., & Vhurumuku, E. (2012). Teachers’ practices of inquiry when teaching investigations: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(6), 579-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9287-y
17. Faikhamta, C., Ketsing, J., Tanak, A., & Chamrat, S. (2018). Science teacher education in Thailand: a challenging journey. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-018-0021-8
18. Feyzioglu, E. Y., Feyzioglu, B., & Demirci, N. (2016). Active direct or guided inquiry: Examining the science teaching orientations of science teachers. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(39), 150-173.
19. Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9623-5
20. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
21. Gess-Newsome, J., Cardenas, S., Austin, B. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Stuhlsatz, M. A. M., Wilson, C. D. et al. (2011, April). Impact of educative materials and transformative professional development on teachers’ PCK, practice, and student achievement. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Meeting, Orlando.
22. Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: Teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9418-x
23. Harris, C. J., & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9172-5
24. Henze, I., & Barendsen, E. (2019). Unravelling student science teachers’ pPCK development and the influence of personal factors using authentic data sources. In Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 203-223). Springer, Singapore.
25. Jüttner, M., Boone, W., Park, S., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2013). Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9157-y
26. Kang, J. (2022). Interrelationship between inquiry-based learning and instructional quality in predicting science literacy. Research in Science Education, 52, 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09946-6
27. Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2018). The effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science: Relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches. Research in Science Education, 48(4), 865-885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2
28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023
29. Kim, M. (2020). Teacher Scafolding Strategies to Transform Whole-classroom Talk into Collective Inquiry in Elementary Science Classrooms. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 66(3), 290–306.
30. Kim, M. (2021). Student agency and teacher authority in inquiry-based classrooms: Cases of elementary teachers’ classroom talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10233-7
31. Kirschner, S., Taylor, J., Rollnick, M., Borowski, A., & Mavhunga, E. (2015). Gathering evidence for the validity of PCK measures: Connecting ideas to analytic approaches. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 229–241). Routledge.
32. Kotlyar, I., Krasman, J., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2021). Virtual high-fidelity simulation assessment of teamwork skills: How do students REACT?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 333-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1783401
33. Kuo, Y. R., Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (2019). Examining low and non-low achievers’ motivation towards science learning under inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 845-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9908-9
34. Kwak, E. J. L. (2004). Team effectiveness and characteristics: apparel product development teams. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
35. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Teaching and learning of nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: building capacity through systematic research-based professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(7), 737-762. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1625572
36. Lee, Y. C., Lee, C. K. P., Lam, I. C. M., Kwok, P. W., & So, W. W. M. (2020). Inquiry science learning and teaching: A comparison between the conceptions and attitudes of preservice elementary teachers in Hong Kong and the United States. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9687-2
37. Lotter, C. R., & Miller, C. (2017). Improving inquiry teaching through reflection on practice. Research in Science education, 47(4), 913-942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9533-y
38. Lotter, C. R., Thompson, S., Dickenson, T. S., Smiley, W. F., Blue, G., & Rea, M. (2018). The impact of a practice-teaching professional development model on teachers’ inquiry instruction and inquiry efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9779-x
39. Luft, J., Bell, R. L., & Gess-Newsome, J. (Eds.). (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. NSTA Press.
40. Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B., & Alston, D. M. (2017). Inquiry-based instruction: A possible solution to improving student learning of both science concepts and scientific practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 777-796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x
41. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
42. Masats, D., & Guerrero, P. (2018). The ins and outs of teamworking: When university teachers, in-service secondary teachers and preservice teachers collaborate to transform learning. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 5(3), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.2478/ejser-2018-0069
43. McLaughlin, C. A., & MacFadden, B. J. (2014). At the elbows of scientists: Shaping science teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry-based instruction. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 927-947.
44. Meltzer, D. E., & Otero, V. K. (2015). A brief history of physics education in the United States. American Journal of Physics, 83(5), 447–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4902397
45. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
46. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.
49. Nutt, P. C., (2008). Investigating the success of decision making processes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 425-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00756.x
50. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
51. Park, S., & Oliver, S. J. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
52. Peters-Burton, E. E., & Frazier, W. (2012). Voices from the front lines: Alignment of reform documents and master teacher instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 179–190.
53. Pease, M., Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Science Education, 95, 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20412
54. Peters-Burton, E. E., Merz, S. A., Ramirez, E. M., & Saroughi, M. (2015). The effect of cognitive apprenticeship-based professional development on teacher self-efficacy of science teaching, motivation, knowledge calibration, and perceptions of inquiry-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(6), 525-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9436-1
55. Ramnarain, U., & Schuster, D. (2014). The pedagogical orientations of South African physical sciences teachers towards inquiry or direct instructional approaches. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 627-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9395-5
56. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000070261
57. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided?. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831-848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9222-9
58. Sahingoz, S., & Cobern, W.W. (2018). Evaluating preferences of science teachers participating in applied science education course regarding inquiry-based teaching. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(4), 1371-1382. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.413586
59. Schuster, D. & Cobern, W. W. (2011). Assessing pedagogical content knowledge of inquiry science instruction. Proceedings of the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL, USA, April 2011 Schuster, D., Cobern, W. W., Adams, B., Skjod, B.A., Bentz, A., Sparks, K. (2012). Case-based assessment of science teaching orientations. American Educational Research Association National Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
60. Schuster, D., Cobern, W. W., Applegate, B., Schwartz, R., Vellom, P., Undreiu, A., & Adams, B. (2007). Assessing pedagogical content knowledge of inquiry science teaching-Developing an assessment instrument to support the undergraduate preparation of elementary teachers to teach science as inquiry. October 19-21, 2007, Proceedings of the National STEM Conference on Assessment of Student Achievement, hosted by the National Science Foundation and Drury University, Washington D.C.
61. Seung, E., Park, S., & Jung, J. (2014). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ understanding of the essential features of inquiry-based science teaching using evidence-based reflection. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 507-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9390-x
62. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
63. Sinatra, G. M., Broughton, S. H., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Emotions in science education. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 415–436). New York: Routledge.
64. Soprano, K., & Yang, L. L. (2013). Inquiring into my science teaching through action research: A case study on one preservice teacher’s inquiry-based science teaching and self-efficacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1351-1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9380-x
65. Steele, K., Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. A., (2007). Right decisions or happy decision makers?. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21(4), 349-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720601159711
66. Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9617-6
67. Tseng, C. H., Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: Perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 809-825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9292-3
68. Walan, S., Nilsson, P., & Ewen, B. M. (2017). Why inquiry? Primary teachers’ objectives in choosing inquiry-and context-based instructional strategies to stimulate students’ science learning. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1055-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9540-z
69. Wang, J. (2020). Compare inquiry-based pedagogical instruction with direct instruction for preservice science teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(6), 1063-1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10010-7
70. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2008). Qualitative research methods (6th ed.). Seckin Publishing.
71. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72. Yoon, H., Joung, Y., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for preservice teachers in elementary classrooms: difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42, 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9212-y
73. The Council of Higher Education (2018). Education Faculty Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs (Science Education Undergraduate Program). CoHE: Ankara.
74. Zhang, L. (2016). Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort?. Science & Education, 25(7), 897-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9856-0
75. Zhang, L., & Cobern, W. W. (2021). Confusions on “guidance” in inquiry-based science teaching: A response to Aditomo and Klieme (2020). Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21(1), 207-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00116-4
76. Zhang, L., & Li, Z. (2019). How does inquiry-based scientific investigation relate to the development of students’ science knowledge, knowing, applying, and reasoning? An examination of TIMSS data. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 19(3), 334-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00055-9
77. Zhao, L., He, W., Liu, X., Tai, K. H., & Hong, J. C. (2021). Exploring the effects on fifth graders' concept achievement and scientific epistemological beliefs: applying the prediction-observation-explanation inquiry-based learning model in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(4), 664-676. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.664
78. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938