Abstract
Although various governmental and professional organizations recommend that teachers use, an inquiry-based approach to science education, most teachers do not use this pedagogy. Lack of content knowledge and/or insufficient skills in planning inquiry-based lessons may contribute to teachers’ reluctance to utilize this methodological approach. This study explores the relationship between science content knowledge and inquiry-based lesson planning ability. The authors found a significant positive relationship between content knowledge and the ability to create an inquiry-based science lesson. These data are of great interest since proficiency in lesson-planning is believed to contribute significantly to the ability to teach an inquiry-based lesson.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abraham M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1986). The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 121–143.
Allard, D. W., & Barman, C. R. (1994). The learning cycle as an alternative for college science teaching.Bioscience, 44(2), 99–104.
American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences (AAAS). (1993).Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention?The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–51.
Barman, R. (2002, October). Guest editorial: How do you define inquiry?Science and Children, 9.
Barman, R., Barman, N., & Miller, J. (1996). Two teaching methods and students’ understanding of sound.School Science and Mathematics, 96(2), 63–69.
Benford, R. (2001).Relationships between effective inquiry use and the development of science reasoning skills. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Arizona State University, Tempe.
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding?Science Education, 84(4), 486–506.
Borko, H., Bellamy, M. L., & Sanders, L. (1992). A cognitive analysis of patterns of science instruction by expert and novice teachers. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.),Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 67–96). London: Falmer Press.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In R. C. Calfee & D. Berliner (Eds.),Handbook on educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.
Brown, F. S. (1996, April).The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science course on preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1988).Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom?Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175–194.
Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model.The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56–59.
Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1995). An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 205–222.
Gerking J. (2003). A vocal inquiry.The Science Teacher, 70(4), 8.
Greene, E. D., Jr. (1990). The logic of university students’ misunderstanding of natural selection.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 875–886.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, W. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.),Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23–36). New York: Pergamon.
Lawson, A. E. (1995).Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989).A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills (NARST Monograph 1). Columbia, MO: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998).Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marek, E. A., Cowan, C. C., & Cavallo, A. M. (1994). Students’ misconceptions about diffusion: How can they be eliminated?American Biology Teacher, 56, 74–78.
Marek, E. A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. H. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821–834.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry.The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.
Michigan Department of Education. (2000a).Michigan curriculum framework— Science benchmarks. Available online: <http://cdp.mde.state.mi.us/Science/default.html#Benchmarks>. Retrieved January 31, 2002.
Michigan Department of Education. (2000b).Michigan educational assessment program, high school test science: Model of the assessment. Available online: <www.michigan.gov/documents/SC11s_96918_7.pdf>. Retrieved January 18, 2002.
Michigan Department of Education. (2001).Design and validity of the MEAP test. Available online: <www.meritaward.state.mi.us/mma/design.htm>. Retrieved March 31, 2003.
Michigan Department of Education. (2003).The Michigan definition for identifying highly qualified teachers. Available online: <www.michigan.gov/documents/definitionofhighlyqualifiedteachers_63281_7.pdf>. Retrieved April 4, 2004.
Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of the learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23–37.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1983). Recommended standards for the preparation and certification of teachers of science at the elementary and middle/junior high school levels (An NSTA position statement).Science and Children, 21(1), 65–70.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. I, No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
Noffke, S. E., & Stevenson, R. B. (1995).Educational action research: Becoming practically critical. New York: Teachers College Press.
Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry Centre for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Piaget, J. (1970).Structuralism (Chaninah Maschler, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row.
Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (n.d.).Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report IN00-3). Phoenix: Arizona State University, Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers. Available online: <www.ecept.net/rtop/RTOP_Reference_Manual.pdf>. Retrieved March 28, 2005.
Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1985). The importance of the form of student acquisition of data in physics learning cycles.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 303–325.
Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1988). The necessity of each phase of the learning cycle in teaching high-school physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 39–58.
Renner, J. W., Stafford, D. G., Coffia, W. J., Kellogg, D. H., & Weber, M. C. (1973). An evaluation of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study.School Science and Mathematics, 73, 291–318.
Science for life and living. (1992). Biological Science Curriculum Series. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Settledge, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers.Science Education, 84, 43–50.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387–404.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science.Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1–20.
Stepans, J. I., Beiswinger, R. E., & Dyche, S. (1986). Misconceptions die hard.The Science Teacher, 56, 65–69.
Stofflett, R. T., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31–51.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003a).The facts about … science achievement. Available online: <www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/science/science/html>. Retrieved March 3, 2003.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003b).The facts about … state standards. Available online: <www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/state/standards.html>. Retrieved March 3, 2003.
van Zee, E. (1998). Fostering elementary teachers research on their science practices.Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 245–254.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education washed out by school experience?Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7–11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luera, G.R., Moyer, R.H. & Everett, S.A. What type and level of science content knowledge of elementary education students affect their ability to construct an inquiry-based science lesson?. J Elem Sci Edu 17, 12–25 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174670
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174670