Constructing elementary teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge through an inquiry-based elementary science course.

This study examines inservice elementary school teachers 'beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge toward inquiry-based science instruction and the influence of an inquiry-based elementary science course on teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge regarding inquiry. Both surveys and a case study were administered to the 14 elementary school teachers before and after completing a three-credit elementary science methods course that was inquiry-based. The findings showed that the teachers 'beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge about inquiry were clearly influenced by the course. Through this course, the teachers developed fairly positive beliefs and attitudes that promoted inquiry instruction. The majority of participants also improved their knowledge and skills of conducting inquiry as they successfully practiced inquiry-instruction in their science teachings.

**********

Recent science education reforms call for an innovative instructional design based on inquiry that engages K-12 students, allowing them to make meaningful constructions of scientific concepts. These reform documents include Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990), Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996) -- all emphasizing the role of inquiry-based science instruction.

Although inquiry-based instruction is recognized as an effective method of teaching and learning science, there has been limited success in implementing this practice in classrooms. Researchers have indicated that teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge are crucial factors in promoting a reform-based curriculum such as inquiry-based science instruction. Wallace and Louden (1992) suggest that the lack of success of reform efforts is attributed to the failure to take into account teachers' beliefs and practices when developing a new curriculum. Teachers use their knowledge base to make decisions on all aspects of teaching and also in adjusting to a new curriculum (Duffee & Aikenhead, 1992). It is, therefore, inevitable that teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge of inquiry have a direct and substantial impact on teaching science as inquiry.

Research literature about teacher education indicates that teachers tend to teach in the manner in which they were taught when they were students (Eiriksson, 1997; NRC, 1996; Phelps & Lee, 2003; Smart & Thurlow, 2000). Teachers develop views about teaching from their own learning experiences. With this in mind, teacher education courses as well as college educators play a major role in the reform by providing both preservice and/or inservice teachers with meaningful experiences. It is through these experiences that teachers develop their own positive beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge with regard to science teaching.

The primary goal of the current national reform is to promote science teaching and learning for all children (AAAS, 1990; NRC, 1996). This goal implies that K12 teachers are expected to have the necessary abilities and knowledge to meet the needs of all learners in the regular classroom. In order to make science meaningful for all children, teachers must be capable of responding effectively to the reform that includes learning and teaching science as inquiry- based. Changes in teacher education programs are necessary to ensure that teachers develop understanding and abilities to meet these expectations. In doing so, current reform in science education encourages changes in teacher preparation programs to ensure that teachers adopt an appropriate inquiry-based approach to teaching science.

The purpose of this study is to describe inservice elementary school teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge toward inquiry-based science instruction and to examine the influence of an inquiry-based elementary science course on teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge regarding inquiry. In order to accomplish this goal, the study addressed the following research questions: (1) What are inservice elementary school teachers' beliefs and attitudes toward inquiry-based science teaching prior to taking an inquiry-based elementary science course? (2) To what extent do inservice elementary school teachers demonstrate practical knowledge about inquiry-based science teaching? (3) How are teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge changed by an inquiry-based elementary science course?

Theoretical Framework

While numerous educational theories have explored learning processes, constructivism is very appealing, offering the philosophical basis for various types of practical instructions. In turn constructivism has brought new concepts of learning and teaching to education (Mayer, 2004). It describes how learners attain, develop, and use cognitive processes in order to construct an understanding or knowledge for themselves (Haney & Lumpe, 2003). Constructivist perspectives about learning have been broadly accepted among educators and have served as frameworks for understanding learning and teaching (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). There have been many efforts to translate constructivism into educational practices so that students are able to construct their own knowledge.

There are a number of distinct contributions of constructivism in science education. In the perspectives of constructivism, teachers alter their beliefs about the learning and teaching, and in turn, they focus on student involvement and on understanding as the goal of science instruction (Atwater, 1996; Lordbach & Tobin, 1992; Matthews, 1998). Social constructivism, especially, provided an epistemological basis for researchers regarding inquiry-based science instruction (Keys & Bryan, 2001). Emphasizing social interactions in constructing one's knowledge, constructivism allowed researchers to examine how teachers and students form their beliefs regarding inquiry, how teachers implement inquiry in the local context, and how students use tools during inquiry-based instruction (Eick & Reed, 2002).

In addition, constructivism has a very appealing assumption: that all students can learn (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). The Standards and Science for All Americans of Project 2061 endorsed a constructivist perspective in this regard (Haney & Lumpe, 2003). Definition of Inquiry-Based Science Instruction

Inquiry has been a perennial and central term in science education reforms in the United States (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). The term "teaching science as inquiry" has been frequently used in many different ways including doing science, hands-on science, discovery learning, project-based learning and realworld science (Crawford, 2000). As it was used in many terms, inquiry was ambiguously defined sometimes as a way to teach science or a method for addressing all important educational goals.

However, in 2000, Crawford pointed out that the term "inquiry" should not be equated with the terms "hands-on science" or "discovery learning," in which a series of hands-on activities are provided, often without science content. Defining inquiry as hands-on activities alone results in clueless learning (Mayer, 2004) and consequently it does not guarantee meaningfulness (AAAS, 1993).

While many researchers have examined the definition of inquiry, it was the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) that presented the concept of inquiry-based science instruction which reflects upon the current consensus among the science education community. The NSES refers to inquiry as an instructional approach that helps K-12 students develop an understanding of scientific knowledge as well as skills to conduct inquiry. These skills include identifying and posing scientific questions, designing and conducting investigations to answer the question, analyzing data to construct explanations, and communicating the findings (NRC, 1996, 2000). In sum, the NSES are explicit about the dual roles of inquiry that cultivate the content and process in science education.

A Relationship among Teachers 'Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practical Knowledge

Attitude represents an individual's metal position to like or dislike an object (Barros & Elia, 1998). People's beliefs about an object have a predictable influence on their attitudes; thus, people construct their attitudes on the basis of their beliefs (Albarracin & Wyer, 2005). Teachers' beliefs are defined as a repertoire of general knowledge of objects, people, events, and their characteristic relationships (Fang, 1996). A belief system plays a key role in the process of creating and recreating practical knowledge (Pajares, 1992). Beattie (1995) defines practical knowledge as teachers' experiential knowledge of a repertoire of instructional techniques, classroom management skills, and students' learning needs. In the classroom, teachers' beliefs influence their attitudes and practical knowledge and consequently their teaching practice (Barros & Elia, 1998).

Nespor (1987) suggests teachers' beliefs about teaching are constructed through their experiences as students first, and later they transmit their beliefs into their own teaching patterns. The types of belief systems teachers have depend on their personal histories, experiences with family and also from learning in and out of school. These personal beliefs are powerful factors, influencing teachers' pedagogical thinking (Helms, 1998; Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991). As a result, teachers develop strong sets of personal beliefs regarding plans and teaching practices based on their personal experiences (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Sulman, 2006). These personal beliefs of teachers give rise to the various teaching methods, despite similar teaching context, curriculum, and degree of subject knowledge. For example, teachers who believe that knowledge is a set of facts are likely to transmit sets of facts to students (Yerrick, Parke, & Nugent, 1997). In contrast, teachers who believe in the importance of students' interpretation of knowledge, focus on the process of transformation of knowledge among students.

The school science curriculum, thus, rests upon a body of knowledge and a certain instructional method which teachers choose (Sch6n, 1987). Although the new reform of science teaching is clearly and comprehensively stated, teachers may not implement it until they hold strong beliefs regarding the new instruction (Yerrick et al., 1997). In this respect, it is inevitable that teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge of inquiry have a direct and substantial impact on implementing inquiry-based science instruction in the classroom.

Practical Importance of Teaching Science as Inquiry in the Elementary Level

A number of scholars are concerned about science education in the elementary schools (Appleton & Kindt, 2002; Goldston, 2005; King, Shumow, & Lietz, 2001; Sivertsen, 1993). These scholars believe that many elementary students across the United States receive inadequate science education. Goldston clearly stresses, "It is important to recall that science in the elementary grades is being left behind" (p. 186). To improve elementary science education, a new approach to the teaching of science is needed in order to engage students to consistently and meaningfully construct knowledge through application (Anderson, 1997; Brandwein, 1962).

While recent science reform is nurturing a fundamental goal, meaningful science learning for all children, a growing number of researchers widely recognize the need to better prepare teachers to accomplish this goal (Gess-Newsome, Southerland, Johnson, & Woodbury, 2003; NRC, 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Watters & Ginns, 2000; Weld & Funk, 2005). They note that science education of teachers is a critical component in making real change, and in turn, securing lasting reform in the classrooms. For this reason, it is necessary to bring a systemic change to teacher preparation courses and also to the faculty's method of delivery (Cuban, 1988).

To improve science education in elementary schools, educators and researchers applied a twofold approach: implementing inquiry-based science instruction in elementary schools and also developing new teacher education programs that are specially designed with inquiry-oriented pedagogy. In doing so, it is expected that teachers' levels of science content knowledge and skills are strengthened as a result of exposure to inquiry-based programs, with the result that students are provided adequate learning environments and experience diverse ways to develop the abilities and understandings of scientific inquiry, as well as the understanding of the fundamental subject knowledge of science (Bybee, 2000; NRC, 1996).

Methodology

This study, constructed from a constructivist perspective, examined inservice elementary school teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge toward inquiry-based science instruction and the influence of an inquiry-based elementary science course on teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge regarding inquiry.

Participants

The participants in the study were 14 inservice elementary school teachers enrolled in a three-hour, elementary science methods course that emphasizes teaching science as inquiry at a large urban university in the spring of 2007. All participants volunteered to participate in the research. All of the participants except one were women. Among the 14 teachers, eight were elementary education majors and six were education majors of other content areas (e.g., English, history, natural science, and physical education). All teachers were certified elementary school teachers and currently enrolled in a Master degree program. The teachers had a broad range of years of teaching experience: two teachers had taught 0-3 years; two 4-6 years; three 7-10 years; four 11-15 years; and three 16-20 years. Participants had completed a wide range of science coursework during their undergraduate studies; nine teachers had 0-3 courses; three had 4-7 courses; and two had more than 10 courses.

Elementary Science Course

The course structure incorporated two major conceptual frameworks. One was the learning philosophy, derived from a constructivist idea of teaching and learning. The other was a model for inquiry-based and learner-centered instructional strategies. The participant teachers worked in a small group setting seated around tables in groups of four or five. They were encouraged to collaborate within their small groups while they investigated problems or tasks.

This course was aimed at enabling the elementary school teachers to plan and implement effective and appropriate science instruction based on principles of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). Table 1 shows the overview of the course. The course consisted of three phases. During the first phase, participants explored the concepts of the nature of science and inquiry-based science teaching through reading materials and extensive discussions. After giving participant teachers the opportunity to build a conceptual understanding of inquiry-based science instruction, the teachers were subsequently engaged in inquiry-based activities during the second phase.

In the final third phase, participants created their own inquiry-based science lesson, applying their knowledge and understanding of the inquiry-based instruction. Each participant prepared and taught a 30-minute elementary-level science lesson to the class. Additionally, participant teachers completed an experimental journal of critter observations, essays, science lesson plans, and presentations. The goal of these assessments was to measure participants' learning through opportunities for them to share their understanding and reflections of inquiry-instruction.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews, practice teaching observations, students' lesson plans, and written reflections of the participants. The interviews were tape-recorded, and the construction of the interview items followed techniques and procedures published in previous studies (Atwater, 1996; King et al., 2001; Zacharia, 2003). The interview protocol consisted of four categories: prior knowledge, belief, practical knowledge, and practice.

Practice teaching observations for each participant were measured using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), designed by the Evaluation Facilitation Group of the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (Sawada et al., 2002). RTOP was a twenty-five-item classroom observation protocol that includes five subscales. The score resulted in an individual practice teaching ranging from 0--100 describing the degree of inquiry-reform present. Any RTOP score greater than 50 indicated considerable presence of "inquiry-reformed teaching" in a lesson. The reliability was estimated by Cronbach's alpha 0.97 for the 26 items and ranging from 0.80 to 0.93 for subscales. Validity correlation coefficients ranged from 0.88 to 0.97.

Quantitative data were obtained using a 22-item Likert scale of the Revised Science Attitude Scale (Bitner, 1994; Thompson & Shrigley, 1986). The survey was administrated for measuring participants' attitudes, and to all participants at the beginning and end of the elementary science course. The reliability estimate, using coefficient alpha, was 0.89 and validity coefficient ranged from 0.46 to 0.70 (Bitner; Thompson & Shrigley).

To examine the participants' responses to the survey, percentages of disagreement, agreement, and neutral were calculated for the small size of participants (N = 14). A constant comparative method and triangulation (Strauss & Glaser, 1980) were used for analyzing the qualitative data. Analysis of the data using the constant comparison method enables the examination of relationships among the participants' beliefs, practice patterns, and assertions (Watters & Ginns, 2000). A four-step procedure that includes chunking, defining and integrating categories, and reliability check used for the study was modified from Bohning and Hale (1998), Merriam (1998), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Strauss and Glaser (1980).

During the analysis, all data were chunked into one or three sentence statements representing a single idea, and then the chunked data were clarified into coding categories. At this point, the most common patterns and a summary are made of the categories for each participant's case and all patterns are then incorporated into narratives of individual profiles. All steps were checked for consistency by three trained researchers. Interview transcripts, lesson plans, and reflective notes were typed into computer word-processing files for the analysis. Establishing inter-rater agreement for the qualitative data, both percent agreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and Cohen's kappa coefficient (DeVellis, 2003; Miller & Worthington, 2007) were calculated. The value for the agreement was 82% and 0.763 for the kappa coefficient.

Findings

Beliefs and Attitudes

Most of the participant teachers did not hold any beliefs about inquiry-based science instruction, responding that they were not taught this way before taking the course (Figure 1). Only four teachers (29%) shared their beliefs about inquiry-based science instruction. They viewed inquiry-based science as asking questions, providing hands-on activities, and having a student-centered approach to learning. After completing the course, all of the 14 teachers constructed or expanded their beliefs on inquiry instruction, becoming more aware that it involved student-centered, open-ended exploration, and a deeper understanding of concepts that ultimately led to meaningful learning of science.

Participants' attitudes on inquiry-based science instruction are summarized in Table 2. From the results of the pretest, most of the participants had positive attitudes to the importance of science teaching in elementary level (12 of 14, 85.7%) and toward learning and teaching science content and lab through inquiry instruction in general. However, these participants also hold negative attitudes about the actual practice of delivering science in their classrooms, especially using inquiry-instruction. The participants responded that they were reluctant (12 of 14, 85.7%), even dread (11 of 14, 78.6%) to teach science because they believe they have a shortage of knowledge and skills (10 of 14, 71.4%) required to teach science and practice inquiry-based science instruction.

After the completion of the course, all participants responded they no longer dreaded employing an inquiry approach, and only one teacher differed from the others in not being comfortable with teaching inquiry-based science. More teachers (78.3%, 11 of 14) agreed on enjoying the use of science equipment and planning inquiry-instruction. However, these participants' attitudes towards actual usage of inquiry instruction in their teaching still remained negative and this result was consistent with their shared negative attitudes with regard to their shortage of knowledge necessary to teach inquiry and inquiry instruction is time consuming.

Practical Knowledge

The mean score of RTOP for the teachers was 55 and ranged from 76 to 33. Eight teachers (57%) achieved RTOP scores greater than 50, representing the presence of inquiry teaching in their lessons (Table 3). Sub-totals for each sub-category were also analyzed to assess participant teachers' strengths and weaknesses in regard to inquiry instruction. The sub-categories with the highest mean scores were classroom culture-teacher and students' relationship with 14.4 out of 20, and the lowest mean score was for content-procedural knowledge, with 7.7 out of 20.

Based on the participant interviews, the teachers valued inquiry-based instruction and believed teaching science as inquiry in the elementary classroom was beneficial in engaging students with open-ended explorations, improving students' involvements, increasing a deeper understanding, and connecting to the students' prior knowledge (Table 4). They also identified some of the disadvantages of inquiry-instruction, including requiring too much time and materials, difficulties of assessing, and making little connection with concepts.

While taking the course, 12 teachers (86%) tried to implement inquiry-based science lessons in their classrooms. The frequency of using inquiry instruction in the classroom varied among the teachers from all the time to at least one time per month. Two teachers reported that they did not provide any type of inquiry-lessons to their students because they believed that planning and delivering inquiry lessons require too much time and effort.

Discussion

The majority of the elementary school teachers in this study did not have any beliefs about inquiry-based science instruction due to their lack of exposure to and experience with this type of pedagogy prior to this course, including high school education, undergraduate programs, and professional development programs. According to recent research (King et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsley & Mattsumoto, 1999), a high proportion of teachers are inadequately prepared during undergraduate programs, both in terms of science content and instructional skills. Consequently, teachers often lack the support network that they need to facilitate their teaching using an inquiry-based approach (Eick & Reed, 2002). In this study, only a few teachers experienced some degree of inquiry-instruction and these experiences enabled them to perceive positive beliefs on inquiry instruction.

After completing the course, there were some positive changes in participants' attitudes toward learning and teaching science content and lab through inquiry-instruction, Related to this result, other researchers reported that well-designed inquiry programs influenced a change in teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy, including: a science professional development program (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000), a hands-on physics laboratory program (Freedman, 1997), and a professional summer workshop (Butts, Koballa, & Elliott, 1997); a science workshop was shown to increase teachers' understanding and positive beliefs about science (Johnson, 2004).

However, the participants' attitudes with regard to being reluctant to teach science and toward fear of teaching inquiry remained in negatively by the end of the course. In order to change teachers' attitudes, their core beliefs must change to allow rationalizing new perspective (Albarracin & Wyer, 2001). Cronin-Jones (1991) also found that teachers have difficulty in incorporating the new perspective, emphasizing values different from those that teachers hold. Changing process in attitudes may take a long period that more than a semester as for this study.

After the completion of the course, most of the teachers implemented inquiry-based instruction in their practice teachings of science. Other teachers also tried to implement some degree of inquiry-based instruction using learning-activities and asking questions in their lessons and none of the teachers used traditional lecture instruction during their lesson. Other research acquired similar results of successful practicing in teaching science as inquiry with specially designed inquiry-summer programs (MacIssac & Falconer, 2002; Ruth, 2007).

On the other hand, the majority of participant teachers exhibited strengths in facilitating students' active participation and they showed weaknesses in using scientific reasoning and an understanding of pedagogy as demonstrated by their sub-categories of RTOP. This finding was consistent with results from other research. Wallace and Louden (1992) suggested that few elementary school teachers have strong content and pedagogical knowledge of science. Other researchers also mentioned that elementary school teachers generally have been found to possess a low level of content and procedural knowledge of science (Carol & George, 1996).

Some teachers had difficulty in incorporating inquiry-instruction in their practice teaching. Successful translation of inquiry-instruction in the classroom requires teachers' strong beliefs, knowledge, and expertise to do inquiry (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freedman, 2005). The majority of these teachers had never been exposed to inquiry-instruction before completing this course and they might need more opportunities other than that described in this study to experience this type of instructional approach in order to practice inquiry instruction in their teaching successfully. On a positive note, after completing the course, the participants expressed that they would continue to use more inquiry-instruction in their classroom.

Results from the RTOP scores and the teachers' beliefs and attitudes suggested that the teachers' beliefs and attitudes could be used to determine the factor that predicts particular teaching patterns. Therefore, if a teacher felt comfortable in teaching science and using inquiry-instruction, then they were likely to carry out inquiry-instruction in their lessons. Roehrig and Luft (2004) proposed that the translation of inquiry-instruction in the classroom requires teachers' supporting beliefs, with prior and current experience. In the classroom, teachers' beliefs influence the whole processes of instructional decisions, including how to translate and utilize the content knowledge they possess, and how to develop their practice (Pajares, 1992). Consequently, this study concluded that the elementary science course influenced the teachers' beliefs and attitudes about inquiry-instruction, and that these beliefs and attitudes affected their decision-making process to favor teaching science as inquiry in their teaching practices.

Implications

In view of the results and conclusions produced by this study, there are two major implications for implementing inquiry-based science instruction in the classroom. First, teachers in this study need more exposure to learning inquiry-based science instruction. Second, beliefs and attitudes towards inquiry-based science instruction of participant teachers may affect the practice of inquiry in teaching science in their classroom.

Therefore, it is recommended that teachers should have more opportunities to provide a rich context of knowledge and experience on inquiry instruction during and after their teacher preparation programs. These teachers, thus, construct positive beliefs and attitudes toward inquiry-based science instruction, which will help them in their efforts to practice this approach in the classroom. Apparently, college teacher-education programs and professional developments are expected to contribute to this effort in developing positive beliefs and attitudes on inquiry-based science instruction. Ultimately, this effort may lead to successful implementation of an inquiry-based reform in K-12 science education.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Lederman, N. G., Mamilok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419.

Albarracin, D., & Wyer, R. S. (2000). The cognitive impact of past behavior: Influences on beliefs, attitudes, and future behavioral decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 5-22.

Albarracin, D., & Wyer, R. S. (2005). Belief formation, organization and change: Cognitive and motivational influences. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook of attitudes and attitude change (pp.273-322). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997, February). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.

Anderson, O. R. (1997). A neurocognitive perspective on current learning theory and science instructional strategies. Science Education, 81, 67-89.

Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers' development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 43-61.

Atwater, M. A. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 821-837.

Barros, S. S., & Ella, M. F. (1998). Physics teacher's attitudes: How do they affect the reality of the classroom and models for change? In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem, & J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education (section D2) (pp.267-278). Ohio: ICPE.

Beattie, M. (1995). New prospects for teacher education: Narrative ways of knowing teaching and teacher learning. Educational Research, 3 7, 53-70.

Bitner, L. B. (1994, March). Revised science attitude scale for preservice elementary teachers: Re-examined. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Bohning, G., & Hale, L. (1998). Images of self-confidence and the change-of-career prospective elementary science teacher. Journal of Elementary Science Teacher, 10(1), 39-59.

Brandwein, O. F. (1962). Elements in a strategy for teaching science in the elementary school. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Butts, D. P., Koballa, T. R., & Elliott, T. D. (1997). Does participating in an undergraduate elementary science methods course make a difference? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 1-17.

Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Boston: American Association Society Publisher.

Carol, S., & George, W. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers' knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 2-8.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.

Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235-250.

Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 341-344.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493-506.

Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Teacher Education, 86, 813-814.

Eiriksson, S. (1997). Preservice teachers' perceived constraints of teaching science in the elementary classroom. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 18-27.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.

Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343-357.

Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnson, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 731-767.

Goldston, D. (2005). Elementary science: Left behind? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 185-187.

Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (2003). Constructive beliefs about the science classroom learning environment: Perspective from teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and students. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 366-377.

Helms, J. V. (1998). Science and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 811-834.

Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668-690.

Johnson, K. (2004). The role of field Paleontology on teachers' attitudes toward inquiry science. NOVA-tions Journal, 2f Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://novationsjournal.org/content/article.pl?sid=04/05/04/0024254

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, 631-645.

King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. International Journal of Science Education, 85, 89-110.

Knowles, J. G., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Shaping pedagogies through personal histories in preservice teacher education. Teachers College Record, 93, 87111.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene.

School Science and Mathematics, 99, 259-271. Lorsbach, A., & Tobin, K., (1992). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. In F. Lorenz, K.

Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Research matters ... to the science teacher. NARST Monograph, 5(pp. 21-28). Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers' beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275-292.

MacIssac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOE The Physics Teacher, 40, 479-485.

Matthews, P. (1998). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Boston: Kluwer.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, K., & Worthington, G. (2007). Assessing interrater agreement in the coding of narrative data. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://bss.sfsu.edu/kemiller/presentations/ miller-apa2001_interrateragreement.pdf

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Phelps, A. J., & Lee, C. (2003). The power of practice: What students learn from how we teach. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 829-832.

Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing science inquiry lesson. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3-24.

Ruth, L. (2007, April). Impacts of reform-based curricula and pedagogy on student achievement in middle school science classrooms. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the National Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 245- 253.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (2006). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching [Electronic version], Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Sivertsen, M. L. (1993). Transforming ideas for teaching and learning science: A guide for elementary science education. (Report No. ISBN-0-16-041975). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362417)

Strauss, A. 1., & Glaser, B, G (1980). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers' experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 113-121.

Thompson, C. L., & Shrigley, R. L. (1986). What research says: Revising the science attitude scale. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 331-343.

Wallace, C. S., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers' knowledge: Prospects for reform of elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507-521.

Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 301-321.

Weld, J., & Funk, L. (2005). "I'm not the science type": Effect of an inquiry biology content course on preservice elementary teachers' intentions about teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 189-204.

Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The "filtering effect" of teachers' beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81,137-159.

Zaccharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792-823.

Sanghee Choi

University of Memphis 

John Ramsey 

University of Houston

Table 1
Outline of the Elementary Science Course

Phase   Theme                      Day    Activities

I       * Overview of               1     Invisible letter
        conceptual                        What is on your cubic box?
        framework:                  2     Begin with long-term
          --Nature of Science             investigation, watching
          --Constructivism                critters
          --Inquiry-Instruction           Reading and discussion
                                          with science journals

II      * Inquiry-based             3     School Science Safety
        lessons to develop:               Learning Cycle (SE Model)
          --Science Process         4     Floating raisins experiment
            Skills                        Jumping frogs
          --Science Concepts        5     Oreo investigation
            (Physical Science,      6     Paper helicopter
            Earth Science,          7     Swinging a pendulum
            Life Science)           8     The Lorax: Cause and effect
                                    9     Lighting shoes: Electronic
                                          circuit
                                    10    Life cycles

III     * Students' practice      11-13   Each student designs and
        teaching                          presents a 30-minute
                                          science lesson to
                                          the class
                                    14    Collaborative revision
                                          of the lesson
                                    15    Critter-log presentation
                                          Review of the course

Table 2
Attitudes of Participants (Pretest and Posttest Results

Statements                        Surveys   % Disagree (N)

1. Comfortable teaching             Pre          21.2 (3)
   inquiry                         Post           7.1 (1)
2. Teaching science in              Pre          71.1 (1)
   elementary is important         Post           0.0
3. Fear that unable to teach        Pre          71.1 (1)
   inquiry                         Post          71.1 (1)
4. Inquiry lesson is time-          Pre          14.3 (2)
   consuming                       Post          28.5 (4)
5. Enjoy the lab                    Pre           7.1 (1)
                                   Post           0.0
6. Difficult to understand          Pre          14.3 (2)
   science                         Post           7.1 (1)
7. Comfortable with science         Pre          21.4 (3)
   content                         Post           7.1 (1)
8. Interest in working on           Pre           7.1 (1)
   inquiry-instruction             Post           7.1 (1)
9. Dread teaching inquiry-          Pre          14.3 (2)
   instruction                     Post         100.0 (14)
10. Not afraid to demonstrate       Pre           7.1 (1)
    science                        Post           0.0
11. Reluctant to teach science      Pre          14.3 (2)
                                   Post          14.3 (2)
12. Enjoy helping students'         Pre          14.3 (2)
    with science equipment         Post           0.0
13. Willing to spend time to        Pre           7.1 (1)
    plan inquiry                   Post           0.0
14. Shortage of knowledge to        Pre          28.5 (4)
    answer students' questions     Post          14.3 (2)
15. Science is basic skill to       Pre           7.1 (1)
    learn                          Post           0.0
16. Enjoy manipulating science      Pre          14.3 (2)
    equipments                     Post           0.0
17. Fear of unexpected event        Pre           7.1 (1)
    happening during the lab       Post           7.1 (1)
18. Science is my preferred         Pre          28.5 (4)
    subject to teach               Post          21.4 (3)
19. Expect students' excitement     Pre           0.0
    with inquiry-instruction       Post           0.0
20. Too much effort to teach        Pre           7.1 (1)
    inquiry                        Post           7.1 (1)
21. Children are not curious        Pre           0.0
    about scientific matters       Post           0.0
22. Plan to investigate science     Pre           7.1 (1)
    into other areas               Post           7.1 (1)

Statements                        % Agree (N)    % Neutral (N)

1. Comfortable teaching             78.6 (11)       0.0
   inquiry                          78.5 (11)      14.3 (2)
2. Teaching science in              85.7 (11)       7.1 (1)
   elementary is important         100.0 (12)       0.0
3. Fear that unable to teach        78.5 (14)      21.4 (3)
   inquiry                          78.5 (10)      21.4 (3)
4. Inquiry lesson is time-          64.3 (10)      21.4 (3)
   consuming                        64.3 (10)       7.1 (1)
5. Enjoy the lab                    42.8 (9)       50.0 (7)
                                    85.7 (6)       14.3 (2)
6. Difficult to understand          64.3 (12)      21.4 (3)
   science                          78.6 (11)      14.3 (2)
7. Comfortable with science         57.1 (8)       21.4 (3)
   content                          78.6 (11)      14.3 (2)
8. Interest in working on           71.5 (10)      21.4 (3)
   inquiry-instruction              92.9 (13)       0.0
9. Dread teaching inquiry-          78.6 (11)       7.1 (1)
   instruction                       0.0 (0)        0.0
10. Not afraid to demonstrate       78.6 (11)      14.3 (2)
    science                         92.9 (13)       7.1 (1)
11. Reluctant to teach science      85.7 (12)       0.0
                                    85.7 (12)       0.0
12. Enjoy helping students'         85.7 (12)       0.0
    with science equipment          85.7 (12)      14.3 (2)
13. Willing to spend time to        92.9 (13)       0.0
    plan inquiry                   100.0 (14)       0.0
14. Shortage of knowledge to        71.4 (10)       0.0
    answer students' questions      71.4 (10)      14.3 (2)
15. Science is basic skill to       85.7 (12)       7.1 (1)
    learn                          100.0 (14)       0.0
16. Enjoy manipulating science      85.7 (12)       0.0
    equipments                      78.6 (11)      21.4 (3)
17. Fear of unexpected event        78.5 (11)      14.3 (2)
    happening during the lab        64.3 (9)       28.6 (4)
18. Science is my preferred         42.9 (6)       28.6 (4)
    subject to teach                42.9 (6)       35.6 (5)
19. Expect students' excitement    100.0 (14)       0.0
    with inquiry-instruction       100.0 (14)       0.0
20. Too much effort to teach        85.7 (12)       7.1 (1)
    inquiry                         85.7 (12)       7.1 (1)
21. Children are not curious       100.0 (14)       0.0
    about scientific matters       100.0 (14)       0.0
22. Plan to investigate science     92.9 (13)       0.0
    into other areas                92.9 (13)       0.0

Table 3
RTOP Scores of Participants

Participants   RTOP Total                        Sub-Categories **
                 Score *
                            Lesson design/             Content
                            implementation
                                             Propositional   Procedural
                                               knowledge     knowledge

    P001           33             5              10             3
    P002           50            10              11             8
    P003           44            16              13             1
    P004           45            16              14             1
    P005           75            14              13            12
    P006           76            16              15            14
    P007           64            16               5             9
    P008           63            16               6             9
    P009           54            11              12             7
    P010           62            11              15             9
    P011           52             6              10             9
    P012           69            16              11            15
    P013           44            12              12             6
    P014           43            10               8             5
     M             55            12.5            11.1           7.7

Participants        Sub-Categories **

                    Classroom culture

               Communication    Teacher-and-
                               students relationship

    P001             7                 8
    P002             8                13
    P003             3                11
    P004             3                11
    P005            16                20
    P006            14                17
    P007            14                19
    P008            14                18
    P009            10                14
    P010            11                16
    P011            11                16
    P012            14                17
    P013             4                10
    P014             8                12
     M             9.8              14.4

* Possible scores 1 ~ 100 and any RTOP Scores < 50 reflect
an inquiry-lesson.

** The highest possible score for each sub-category was 20.

Table 4
Practical Knowledge of Participants

Question                   Reasons (Categories)

Advantages of inquiry      Open-ended exploration
                           Improve student involvement
                           Deeper understanding
                           Connect to prior knowledge

Disadvantages of inquiry   Time-consuming for planning
                           Shortage of materials
                           Difficulty of assessments
                           Little connection to the content

Inquiry usage in their     Practice of inquiry-instruction:
teaching                   Open-ended exploration, students'
                           interests and involvement
                           No-practice of inquiry-instruction:
                           Time-consuming

Frequency of inquiry       All the time: 3
teaching                   3 & more/week: 4
                           1/week: 2
                           1 or 2/month: 3
                           None: 2 (Time-consuming)

Future use of inquiry      Ownership of learning
                           Student involvement
                           Build solid knowledge
                           Engaging communications

Constraints to             Time-consuming for planning & efforts
implementation             Shortage of materials

Needs for the              Knowledge & skills to do inquiry
implementation             Materials
                           Planning time & efforts
                           Collaborative relationships

Note: Source from the participants' interview

Figure 1. Changes in participants' beliefs.

Initial Beliefs

Inquiry-Based
Science
Instruction

students-center     7%
hands-on           14%
asking questions   14%
no-beliefs         64%

Emerging Beliefs

op-ended exploration   40%
deeper understanding   25%
students-center        20%
meaningful learning    15%

Note: Table made from pie chart.