Abstract
This study examines the relationships between preservice primary teachers’ (PSTs) views, understandings, and implementations of inquiry-based teaching (IBT) in primary biology education. In earlier studies, these relationships have been researched separately. Exploring them simultaneously allows a greater insight into the process of teacher change and science teacher identity development. Drawing on the narrative method, data included learning diaries, lesson plans, and interviews during a two year research period. Our findings reveal the complex relationships between three aspects of IBT. For example, embracing views of IBT were sometimes accompanied by a significant understanding of IBT and other times by a weak understanding. Whereas, hesitant views of IBT also went together with significant understanding. We discuss these relationships in the light of their impact on science teacher identity and provide suggestions for teacher education.
Highlights
The prominence of inquiry-based teaching (IBT) as student-centered approach and as contributor of nature of scientific knowledge has been acknowledged for many decades (National Research Council [NRC], 2012, 1996; Generation Science Standards, [NGSS], 2013; National Science Education Standards [NRC], 2000; Timmerman, Strickland & Carstensen, 2008)
A PST with embracing beliefs approves IBT and is willing to plan teaching with IBT, but a PST with hesitant beliefs is uncertain of planning with IBT and his or her own competence in planning of it
We came to this characterization via expressions such as: ‘...what can be more effective when it comes to learning than a child searching and producing knowledge by oneself’ and ‘It is essential that students conduct the question by themselves and find an answer to it’
Summary
The prominence of inquiry-based teaching (IBT) as student-centered approach and as contributor of nature of scientific knowledge has been acknowledged for many decades (National Research Council [NRC], 2012, 1996; Generation Science Standards, [NGSS], 2013; National Science Education Standards [NRC], 2000; Timmerman, Strickland & Carstensen, 2008). The benefits of IBT in science teaching (Breslyn & McGinnis, 2011; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010; Reiser, Tabak, Sandoval, Smith, Steinmuller & Leone, 2001) include that it enhances student learning as well as the desired knowledge of scientific content and scientific practices (Alfieri, 2011; Furtak, Seidel, Iverson & Briggs, 2012; Marshall, Smart & Alston, 2017; NGSS, 2013; NRC, 2012). This means that students combine scientific practices such as formulating research questions, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, and constructing explanations and evaluate and communicate the findings (Furtak et al, 2012; NGSS, 2013; Zion, Cohen, & Amir, 2007). The levels of inquiry presented in research literature include structured, guided and open inquiry (Banchi & Bell, 2008; Fitzgerald et al, 2019), which form a continuum of the instruction provided by the teacher (Furtak et al, 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
