SCAFFOLDING THE INQUIRY CONTINUUM AND THE ... - Springer Link

WAYNE MELVILLE, ANTHONY BARTLEY and XAVIER FAZIO

SCAFFOLDING THE INQUIRY CONTINUUM AND THE CONSTITUTION OF IDENTITY Received: 19 April 2012; Accepted: 5 November 2012

ABSTRACT. This article considers the impact of scaffolding on pre-service science teachers’ constitution of identities as teachers of inquiry. This scaffolding has consisted of 2 major components, a unit on current electricity which encompasses the inquiry continuum and an open inquiry which is situated in context of classroom practice. Our analysis indicates 2 major themes. The first is the importance of scaffolding inquiry as a strategy for engaging in the discourses, experiences, and emotions that are foundational to the constitution of identity from the post-structural perspective. The second theme is that the opportunity to conduct an open inquiry, while concurrently considering its pedagogical implications, provides our pre-service teachers with an appreciation of the value of inquiry. KEY WORDS: inquiry, pre-service teachers, scaffolding

INTRODUCTION In his 1988 book Learning science, White wrote that “to change the way people teach requires a change in their perception of the context in which they work” (p. 114). For a science teacher to change the perception of their work is a difficult task, especially given the formidable forces of socialization that have acted on most teachers since their first science lesson in elementary school. Science education, at all levels, has emphasized the value of decontextualized substantive knowledge packaged in disciplinary boxes and leavened by practical work in which students followed a standard method in order to verify concepts that were already known. Despite the work of pioneering educators such as Dewey and Schwab and documents such as the National Science Education Standards, it remains that the traditional form of science education is relatively impervious to all but the slightest change. We believe that the reform of science education is not simply a matter of teachers acquiring knowledge, skills, and attitudes that support inquiry. To value and promote inquiry within classrooms requires teachers to constitute new professional identities (Luehmann, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2013) 11: 1255Y1273 # National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

1256

WAYNE MELVILLE, ANTHONY BARTLEY AND XAVIER FAZIO

2007). Such a development is problematic, as Windschitl (2006, p. 351) makes clear: . . . reform-minded teachers need to facilitate activities that are unlike any they experienced themselves as learners. This requires knowing how to elicit students’ current understandings of scientific ideas, to orchestrate classroom discourse so that it moves students from everyday ways of talking about phenomena to scientific ways, to mentor students through complex investigative experiences so that they become capable of inquiry without following predetermined protocols, and to use formative feedback to help students understand where their thinking is breaking down.

If science teacher educators are to assist in the constitution of identities that support inquiry, then there are two key facets to understand. The first is that constituting an identity should not be seen as tangential to preservice science teacher education: “as a by-product of teacher education programs, rather than as a targeted outcome, at least from the student teacher’s perspective” (Franzak, 2002, p. 259). Pre-service science teachers need to be actively engaged in the constitution of their own identities. Active engagement assists pre-service teachers to develop a robust framework for their professional lives. Maclure (1993, p. 312) makes this clear in the contention that an identity “should not be seen as stable—something that people have—but as, something that they use, to justify, explain and make sense of themselves in relation to other people, and to the contexts in which they operate.” This notion aligns with the ongoing reconceptualization of teacher education toward an inquiry ethic that is consistent with the notion of teachers as inquirers becoming “active participants in their own professional growth, knowledge constructors, and agents of change” (Mule, 2006, p. 205). The second facet is closely related to the first: Pre-service science teachers should be seen in the duality of being simultaneously students of science and (pre-service) teachers of science. Recognizing this duality is important as it puts in perspective the difficulty noted by Britzman (2003, p. 228) that: “student teachers dwell in two uncertain worlds: they are being educated as a student while educating others as a teacher.” It is not enough for teacher educators to assume that pre-service teachers will comprehend the cognitive shifts described by Windschitl (2006), if they have limited experience with inquiry in their own educational biographies. The work of Davis, Petish & Smithey (2006) indicates that preservice science teachers tend to lack an adequate understanding of science content and aspects of the nature of science as well as an unsophisticated understanding of inquiry and its requisite skills.

SCAFFOLDING THE CONTINUUM

1257

What is needed is support in understanding both the content and nature of science and strategies that can support the teaching and learning of inquiry. Without experience, and support, in both the teaching and learning of inquiry, pre-service teachers are unlikely to buy into the reform of science education (Luehmann, 2007). The constitution of preservice identities that support inquiry requires the provision of contexts in which pre-service teachers can develop their understandings. Bencze, Bowen & Alsop (2006, p. 418) have argued for “explicit instructional techniques, such as discussions surrounding assigned readings, along with some implicit approaches, such as encouraging them to conduct student directed, open-ended scientific inquiries about which they are asked to reflect.” Without such opportunities, and the capacity to reflect upon them, the constitution of pre-service teachers’ identities may be limited. In this article, we are considering how the notion of scaffolding can assist in constituting pre-service teachers’ understanding both the content and nature of science and strategies that can support the teaching and learning of inquiry. Specifically, we are looking to investigate the influence of scaffolding the inquiry continuum on constituting the identities of pre-service teachers as teachers of inquiry.

INQUIRY, SCAFFOLDING, AND IDENTITY There is a substantive literature around the words inquiry, scaffolding, and identity. Given the range of perspectives from which they can be understood, it is the purpose of this section to provide understandings of each word that are appropriate for our research. Inquiry as a Continuum Starting with the work of Schwab (1962), there has been a recognition that inquiry exists at different levels. Herron (1971) identified three levels of openness for inquiry, while Rezba, Auldridge & Rhea (1999) integrated the work of Schwab and Herron into a four-level model of inquiry. The most detailed model can be found in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 2000, p. 29). Depending on the model, the major differentiation between these levels can be ascribed to factors such as the teacher-supplied structure, the existence of a solution to the question, the complexity of the activity, or the amount of information that is provided to the student. Rezba et al. (1999) describe the levels, in ascending order of complexity, as

1258


confirmation, structured, guided, and open inquiry. Bell, Smetana & Binns (2005) argue that the levels should be seen as a continuum, along which students can progress from lower to higher levels. Further, student progression cannot be assumed along this continuum: Although the goal is to help students develop the skills and knowledge to conduct [highlevel] inquiries, they cannot be expected to begin there. Students need practice in inquiry, building up to increasingly open and complex levels. Students will reap as little benefit from being thrown unprepared into [high-level] inquiry activities as they will from being held at low-level activities … Students cannot be expected to conduct high-level inquiry investigations after having participated exclusively in low-level activities throughout the year. A gradual progression to high-level inquiry, coupled with appropriate scaffolding, will result in greater student success and satisfaction.

There is an obvious implication for the education of pre-service teachers here. As Windschitl (2002, p. 113) states, “It is unreasonable to assume that, as teachers, these individuals will spontaneously embrace the idea of using open inquiry with their own students or feel capable of managing such complex instruction.” Consequently, as science teacher educators, we believe that it “seems intuitive that teachers who use an inquiry approach must have rich and deeply developed understandings of science content, student learning, the nature of science, and ways to engage students in investigative practices” (Keys & Bryan, 2001, p. 637). This belief brings us to the notion of scaffolding and how we can design our work to shape the identities of pre-service teachers. Scaffolding Pea (2004) provides a historical account of the development of the concept of scaffolding and the range of meanings that has been attached to it. Scaffolding was first defined as the process that enabled a “novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (Wood et al., 1976, p. 90). In 1978, Vygotsky’s concept of “instructional scaffolding” was introduced, highlighting the role of another, more expert, person initially taking responsibility for the novice’s learning of the task(s). Over time, the responsibility for learning is transferred to the novice, until they are capable of independent performance. This shift in responsibility for learning leads to one of the key aspects of scaffolding: fading. This term, first introduced by Collins, Brown & Newman (1989, p. 456), posits that “once the learner has a grasp of the target skill, the master reduces (or fades) his participation, providing only limited hints, refinements, and feedback to the learner, who practices successively approximating smooth


1259

execution of the whole skill.” It is fading, Pea (2004) argues, that differentiates scaffolding from other forms of cognitive support. The notion of fading also indicates that, while science teacher educators have a responsibility for the preparation of their students, cooperating teachers during placements and teacher colleagues within schools also have a responsibility in the development of the nascent teachers’ identity (Melville & Bartley, 2010). If we accept that scaffolding is understood as the learner gradually taking greater responsibility for their learning under the fading direction of an expert, then we must consider how learning can be scaffolded. Drawing on the work of Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976), Pea (2004, p. 432) has defined two forms of assistance to a learner. The first is channeling and focusing. Channeling relies on the gradual removal of constraints on the learner in order to gradually improve their efficacy with at learning task. Focusing seeks to maintain the learner’s directedness toward the task by explicitly highlighting important points within a complex concept. The second form of assistance is modeling, in which the expert models behaviors and learning toward the focus of the learning. These forms of assistance to learners have particular resonance with the continuum of inquiry, in which the locus of control gradually shifts from the expert to the learner. The ongoing involvement of the expert in the process of scaffolding has several important implications for the teaching of inquiry. The first is the explicit need for an expert—the teacher or instructor—to be actively engaged with the learner throughout the entire inquiry continuum. A common criticism of inquiry is that it is unworkable in school science classes. We would agree with Settlage (2007, p. 464) that open inquiry, if viewed as a “mode of instruction that is simultaneously hands-on for students and hands-off (if not stand-offish) for adults,” should not be perpetuated. Science as both content and process is more than “hands-on” (Tytler, 2007). Teachers of inquiry require a range of strategies for teaching in their classrooms, a point that Johnston (2008, p. 12) makes: If I need students to remember key characteristics of a cell, I may teach in a relatively didactic manner; if I want them to understand freefall motion, I can easily imagine a guided or otherwise scaffolded inquiry activity. As for open inquiry, it’s very process should be a central learning goal in all that we do, more important than cell features or freefall or any other piece of scientific content.

Without the capacity to scaffold inquiry and give students experience with the processes of science, the archetypal science is one in which “teacher-talk sessions and … the laboratory” (White, 1988, p. 114) predominate. The omnipresent confirmation lab explores the correlations

1260


between experimental factors, but frequently fails to connect students with the scientific concepts behind the experiment. In failing to make this connection, they “fail to represent the essence of scientific ways of reasoning” (Tytler, 2007, p. 47). In turn, this results in students “parroting back disciplinary forms of thinking rather than performing with understanding of what they have created” (Pea, 2004, p. 436). The second implication is closely related to the first: How should the expert engage with the learner in order to scaffold inquiry? In other words, what does research tell us about the channeling, focusing, and modeling that support inquiry? Herrenkohl, Palincsar, DeWater & Kawasaki (1999) studied the scaffolding conversations needed to develop and interrogate models from data. Central to these conversations was the development of a “sophisticated epistemology of science by having students experience science as a process of revision” (p. 451). This epistemology was constructed by guiding student usage of three important tools in science: the capacity to predict and theorize, the capacity to summarize results, and the capacity to relate predictions and theories to results. Given that these capacities are critical in the linking of theory to experimental evidence, they could reasonably be described as channeling according to Peas’ (2004) definition. The focusing of the work relied on the provision of guidelines for cooperative group work, which allowed for the completion of the tasks. As Duschl & Osborne (2002, p. 57) state “both epistemological and social structures in the classrooms are important factors for designing inquiry activities that foster argumentation.” The importance of the social structures reinforces the modeling aspect of the expert when scaffolding inquiry: “someone whose performances and knowledge one could personally aspire to as a cultural issue and involving at its core a sense of identity” (Pea, 2004, p. 437). A clear implication from this is that science teacher educators need to have successfully grappled with the challenges of teaching inquiry themselves. It is not enough for teacher educators to rely on curriculum documents as substitutes for practice, as Furtak (2006, p. 465) makes clear: [there is a] gap between conceptions of guided scientific inquiry teaching in research and policy versus practice. In addition to seeking out ideal models of implementation, researchers also need to explore what guided scientific inquiry teaching looks like in average classrooms, with teachers of varying backgrounds and levels of experience. Then, models can be refined for how to effectively and consistently manage problems with answers when they arise.

By defining scaffolding and relating it to inquiry, this literature review highlights several key aspects for consideration: fading, channeling,


1261

focusing, and modeling. These aspects are pivotal in questioning how our courses help our pre-service teachers in justifying the use of the strategies from the inquiry continuum, their acquisition of subject knowledge that underpins their teaching, and how they can constitute a sense of independence and identity. Identity Teacher identities can be conceptualized from a range of perspectives. Wenger (1998) explicates identity in terms of lived experience in a community of practice, while Helms (1998) examines identity as a sense of self. Sfard & Prusak (2005) view identity as the reified, endorsable stories that people tell of themselves and others, whereas Gee (2005) discusses acknowledgment by self or others as a certain “kind of person.” Foundational to all perspectives, however, is the recognition that identity can be considered in terms of three traditions: the Ericksonian, which focuses on the individual and their self-reflection; the Vygotskian, which emphasizes sociocultural influences on identity development; and the post-structural, in which “identity is a dynamic process of intersubjective discourses, experiences and emotions” (Zembylas, 2003, p. 221). In this article, we are working from the post-structural tradition. Pre-service teachers’ identities are transformed throughout their careers as “the emotional salience or power of one’s experiences changes … the construction of identity exposes the struggles and negotiations between different discourses” (Zembylas, 2003, p. 229). Emotions “provide us with an inner perspective for interpreting and responding to experience” (Zembylas, 2003, p. 215). Zembylas (2003) defines emotion as “the combination of a mental evaluative process, simple or complex, with dispositional changes to that process” (Damasio, 1994, p. 139). The capacity of pre-service teachers to constitute identities that embraces inquiry, an identity that is often at odds with their image of science (Ryder, Leach & Driver, 1999), is heavily reliant on emotion. The neglect of emotions in the constitution of an identity has also been identified by Leuhmann (2007, p. 824): “programs supporting teacher change … often buy into the dichotomous division between intellect and affect, focusing only on supporting the development of cognitive understandings and skills.” Given the inherently affective nature of scaffolding, built on the relationship between the expert and the learner, we believe that the poststructural tradition is an appropriate tradition from which to work. In making this decision, we accept that there is no particular, coherent, teacher identity; rather, identity is constantly constituted through teachers’

1262


ongoing discourses, experiences, and emotions as they work along the inquiry continuum. It is these aspects of identity constitution that will inform our work.

CONTEXT This article is based on the Curriculum and Instruction courses for preservice science teachers that the first and second authors teach at a regional Canadian university. The courses, components of a post-graduate Bachelor of Education program, involve 18 weeks of instruction and two 5-week school placements in November/December and March/April. Successful completion of the degree qualifies our pre-service teachers for professional certification in the intermediate/senior grades (grades 9–12) across Canada. In the remainder of this section, we will first describe the context in terms of the pre-service teachers and their instructors and second in terms of the scaffolded activities. Pre-service Teachers and Instructors In considering the influence of scaffolding on the constitution of preservice teachers’ identities, it is reasonable to provide a sketch of both the pre-service teachers and their instructors. All our pre-service teachers possess a Bachelor degree in a science, or a science related field, upon entering our courses. Through our interactions with the pre-service teachers, we have also come to understand some commonalities in their educational biographies. Particularly relevant to this article are the understandings that the majority of our pre-service teachers have generally had a “traditional” science education with only limited experiences with inquiry at either school or university (see Melville et al., 2008). Turning to the instructors, both the first and second authors taught secondary science for 17 years before entering their current positions, and both worked at incorporating inquiry into their school classrooms. This commitment to inquiry, developed independently in different countries, has been translated into two major course objectives in their current university teaching: to help pre-service teachers make the transition from students of science to being students and teachers of science and to provide explicit instruction in teaching science from an inquiry perspective. In addition, both instructors maintain strong professional links with teachers who promote the teaching of inquiry


1263

and introduce these teachers’ classroom practices to their pre-service teachers at several points in the academic year. Scaffolded Activities The Curriculum and Instruction courses are taught from an inquiry perspective. This perspective, by its nature, incorporates ongoing reflections on the nature of science, scientific inquiry, and the challenges of teaching inquiry. For our pre-service teachers, the perspective stresses their engagement with the continuum from confirmation level work through the structured and guided levels to open inquiry. In line with the work of Rezba et al. (1999), we define the levels of inquiry in an ascending order of complexity, and in order to exemplify this continuum, we have developed a unit on current electricity. In addition, we have developed an open inquiry unit in which pre-service teachers develop their interests in any field of science. These units are briefly described below. According to the Ontario grade 9 science curriculum, students are to “investigate, through inquiry, various aspects of electricity, including the properties of … current electricity, and the quantitative relationships between potential difference, current, and resistance in electrical circuits.” (Ontario of Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 56) In our classes, the specific series of activities that make up this unit require about 4 h of class time, but many of the conversations and associated teaching strategies are practiced throughout the year. These include individual reflection, using the National Science Teaching Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Ontario College of Teachers (2006) Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession; group and class discussions; and formative assessment. A range of teaching strategies is employed through the unit: lecture, collaborative learning, laboratory work, and role-play. The basic structure of the unit is to have the pre-service teachers work through an introduction to the topic and then conduct a series of four labs that develop a scaffolded understanding of series and parallel circuits. The introduction covers the history of electricity, apparatus, the main terms (and their derivations), the drawing and labeling of circuit diagrams, and correct placement of voltmeters and ammeters. This is lecture-based presentation. The first lab is an instructor-led confirmation activity, which incorporates the necessary technical skills; organization of groups and classroom management; safety; and the collecting, analyzing, and presenting data. The instructor focuses on using formative assessment to promote understanding. The second lab, a structured inquiry, involves the

1264


provision of the research question (investigating voltage in a series circuit), the materials, and the method. Working in groups, the pre-service teachers are responsible for providing, and justifying, a hypothesis (in the form of an if … then … statement), carrying out the lab and collecting, analyzing, and presenting their data. The results that they collect are also discussed and related back to the hypothesis. How the results are presented, graphed, and analyzed becomes the focus for an instructor led discussion on the importance of formative assessment and practice in using a rubric for improving the quality of work. The third lab is a guided inquiry involving the provision of the research question (investigating current in a parallel circuit) and the materials. Working in groups, the pre-service teachers are to develop and refine their own procedure and then collect, analyze, and present the data. An important consideration is the provision of time to develop and refine their procedure and data collection strategies. After groups have written their procedures, the instructor required each group is asked to exchange their procedure with another group and attempt to replicate the new procedure. The exchange of procedures highlights the importance of a clear, accurate procedure to experimental repeatability. Many of our pre-service teachers have never had to write their own procedure before. This lab gives them that opportunity and also explores the notion of repeatability. The pre-service teachers also formatively assess the procedure that they have been given, using the rubric that they used in the second lab. The assessment is discussed with the writers of the procedure. The final lab is an open inquiry involving voltage in parallel circuits, from which a complete investigation is created. Each group’s report is assessed summatively, using the same rubrics that guided the earlier formative assessments. This gives pre-service teachers practice at summative assessment and a chance to gauge the impact of formative assessment on improving outcomes. In addition to this scaffolded exercise, pre-service teachers also complete an open inquiry as part of their course. At the beginning of the academic year, they are asked to prepare an open inquiry on a topic of their choice. In introducing this activity, the instructors highlight the challenges that will be encountered such as the development of a question, the shaping of a testable method, and the identification of variables, data collection and analysis, presentation, and assessment. These conversations continue throughout both semesters. The inquiry is presented toward the end of the course and formatively assessed by the instructors. The pre-service teachers then have the opportunity to refine their inquiry, before it is subjected to another formative assessment, this time by their colleagues. This assessment is by interview, with pre-service teachers questioning both the process and the


1265

product. At the end of this process, the instructors then summatively assess the inquiry. Toward the end of the course, the conversations are drawn together around the nature of science and their understanding of the processes of science.

METHODOLOGY AND METHOD This article utilizes a narrative methodology to understand the influence of scaffolding the inquiry continuum on the constitution of pre-service teachers’ identities as teachers of inquiry. The use of narrative is appropriate, given that narrative descriptions “exhibit human activity as purposeful engagement with the world. Narrative is the type of discourse composition that draws together diverse events, happenings and actions of human lives into thematically unified goal-directed purposes” (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 5). To develop the narrative, we have relied on semi-structured interviews for our data. The use of these interviews provided a method for understanding the constitution of the pre-service teachers’ identities, both “personal—reflecting a person’s life history [and] social—reflecting the milieu, the contexts in which teachers live” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999, p. 2). The key questions for these interviews were developed from the work of Luehmann (2007), who has identified two principles for constituting teachers’ identities: the provision of scaffolded participation in reform-based teaching and learning and ongoing opportunities to interpret those opportunities in light of experience. A total of 31 interviews were conducted with pre-service teachers from the 2008 (11 interviews), 2009 (nine interviews), and 2010 (11 interviews) classes. This sample is approximately 25 % of our students in these 3 years. Participation in these interviews was based on a purposive sampling strategy in order to consider gender (17 females/14 males), science teaching specialization (12 biology, 10 general science, 5 chemistry, and 4 physics) (note these numbers are indicative of declining physical science enrollments in education courses; see Harris, Jensz & Baldwin, 2005), and life experiences (13 limited experience with inquiry in their science education/ 17 some experience of inquiry). The questions were provided to the participants before the interviews in order to give them an opportunity to consider their responses. The interviews were conducted by the third author, who, as an external researcher, could not be perceived to be in a conflict of interest with the pre-service teachers. The interviews for each year were scheduled over 2 days, with each individual’s interview lasting approximately 35 min. In order to clarify any issues that were raised, all participants

1266


were provided with the interview transcripts, and opportunities were made available for further discussion. All required ethical clearances were obtained from the Research Ethics Board of the authors’ universities. Pseudonyms are used throughout this article. The data were analyzed with the aim of developing a narrative that interpreted how scaffolding the inquiry continuum could contribute to the constitution of pre-service teachers’ identities as teachers of inquiry. This analysis was guided by the understandings we have developed from Zembylas’ work on discourse, experience, and emotion. Narrative cognition “consists of organizing experience with the help of a scheme assuming the intentionality of human action” (Czarniawska, 2004, p. 7). In this case, the scheme was the potential contribution of the electricity unit and the open inquiry in helping shape pre-service teacher identities. From this analysis, the over-arching narrative that was developed appeared to emphasize the importance that the pre-service teachers attached to engaging with the continuum at multiple levels and times and in ways that allowed them to conceptualize how inquiry may be enacted in the classroom. This was an important stage in our analysis, as it provided insight into the processes of identity constitution across all 3 years and all demographic groups that were sampled. This narrative of engagement and conceptualization was then used as the plot for a further analysis. Plots act as a “type of conceptual scheme by which a contextual meaning of individual events can be displayed [providing a structure] through which people understand and describe the relationship between the events and choices of their lives” (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 7). Or, as Czarniawska (2004) expresses it, the development of plots within a narrative provides the narrative with a sense of causality. Such an approach to the pre-teachers’ constitution of identity also allowed us to move beyond “questions of who one is to new questions of when, where, and how one is” (Zembylas, 2003, p. 215, emphasis in original). Consequently, from the initial over-arching narrative, the two themes that are described in the “ANALYSIS” section were developed. Further, the development of the over-arching narrative allowed us to select salient interview responses that, while personal for each individual, are also representative, we believe, of the experiences of all the participants.

ANALYSIS Our analysis of the over-arching narrative raises two major themes. The first is the importance of scaffolding inquiry as a strategy for


1267

engaging in the discourses, experiences, and emotions that are foundational to the constitution of identity from the post-structural perspective. The second theme is closely allied to the first: the importance of pre-service teachers having experience of the inquiry continuum in order to appreciate the benefits of inquiry for the teaching and learning of school science. Discourses, Experiences, and Emotions Having graduated with a bachelor’s degree in science, it is reasonable to claim that our pre-service teachers have been successful in science. This success, however, has generally been within the traditional discourse of science education. Constituting an identity as a teacher of inquiry is, therefore, a challenge for our pre-service teachers—for they are being asked to move beyond the traditional image of science education that they have been successful with. The unit on electrical circuits appears to have been of benefit in helping pre-service teachers meet this challenge: In 20 of the 31 interviews, the electricity unit was explicitly named as being instrumental in developing an understanding of inquiry. An important step in that developing understanding was a realization that science is not as apparently objective, mechanistic, and decontextualized as it is often portrayed. Given the hegemony of the traditional discourse of science education (see Tytler, 2007), an important starting point in constituting an identity as a teacher of inquiry is to challenge that discourse, as these excerpts appear to highlight: It was definitely useful, I thought that it was a great idea to help us develop the idea of how really science works (Peter, 2008). The (traditional discourse) was drilled into my brain from grade school into the last year of my undergrad … whereas [I now know] we must constantly question and revise (Andrew, 2009). I now know that the ‘scientific method’ does not accurately represent how scientific knowledge is produced. The process is never linear as scientists encounter challenges and need to review their methods or predictions (Cheryl, 2010). The unit shaped my views on teaching inquiry, by setting the foundation as to its significance in the classroom (Michael, 2010).

While it important to engage in discourse to set the foundation for constituting a new identity, experience with inquiry is also a crucial consideration. Our analysis indicates that the unit provides a structure of inquiry that allowed pre-service teachers to “explore

1268


the possibilities inherent in it” (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982, p. 214): The first lab was a verification lab … as we went on it became more and more open. We had to develop our ideas, requiring higher levels of interpretation and understanding of things, and being able to explain what was happening (Simon, 2008). We did a series of exercises on collecting data, writing methods and writing up results. They were excellent exercises, because it made me realize the steps that we often skip and how to teach the students to be meticulous (Jenny, 2009). There was a gradual withdrawal of teacher input, starting from the cookbook, and then you withdraw various steps. The unit opened my eyes as to how inquiry can be applied in a structured way to a classroom setting (Leslie, 2010).

Finally, the pre-service teachers indicated that the opportunity to engage with a scaffolded inquiry was beneficial in shaping a positive disposition toward inquiry. Importantly, several pre-service teachers reported how the unit had influenced their classroom practice when they were on their first practicum: I thought I could say ‘This is what I expect from you, here are the materials, here is the method, go for it.’ I now realize why that doesn’t work (Ryan, 2008). It’s been really interesting to see how you have to train your students up, the idea of scaffolding. When I started my practicum I thought that I could just give them questions and they could just figure them out. But it wasn’t the case (Jenny, 2009). It (the unit) provided a basis for how I could teach the kids to design their method, how to lay out their data and then draw conclusions from it. I feel that if you just said ‘go’ from the start there would be major confusion and learning. If you are spoon-fed the whole way through, they would not know how to do anything without direction. [Scaffolding] helps students gain the skills needed to conduct an inquiry (Josh, 2010).

In summary, the data indicate that pre-service teachers discourses, experiences, and emotions around the electricity unit are important in understanding how they may come to constitute identities as teachers of inquiry. We now turn our attention toward the open inquiry. Appreciating the Continuum Alongside the electricity unit, pre-service teachers also undertake an open inquiry into a science topic of their choice. This open inquiry is couched in terms of the pedagogy that must accompany it: Our pre-service teachers are constantly challenged as to the teaching implications of their work. From the development of a scientifically testable question, through the conduct of the inquiry and the importance of managing group dynamics, to the assessment (both formative and summative) of the inquiry, our pre-service teachers consider how the open inquiry relates to both their own understanding of


1269

science and their classroom teaching. The data indicate that this scaffolded approach is important in developing a sense of the importance of inquiry as a teaching strategy. Of the 31 interviews that have been conducted since 2008, 29 pre-service teachers have responded that the open inquiry gave them a greater appreciation of the inquiry continuum. Given the educational biographies of our pre-service teachers, it comes as no surprise that some struggled with open inquiry. To their credit, however, they worked through those struggles and came to see the rationale for the teaching of inquiry and the importance of scaffolding in that rationale: What I learned about inquiry this year is that it doesn’t mean you are seeking the right answer but rather seeking appropriate solutions to questions and issues. For educators, inquiry implies emphasis on the development of inquiry skills and the nurturing of critical thinking that will enable individuals to continue the quest for knowledge throughout life. Unfortunately, our traditional education system does not support this process. The project we worked on throughout the year was very informative in terms of learning about the inquiry process. Through the disagreements and discussions we were all able to expand our knowledge of the subject and process. I feel confident that I can now help students through this process in the classroom. I now believe in the benefits of this process and its necessity to aiding students in their learning of science (Leanne, 2010). I just wanted to be told what topic to research, how to do the research, and the exact steps I would need to take to succeed. I realize now that these thoughts and feelings are a product of a traditional education system that did not use the inquiry approach to teaching and learning. It is frustrating trying to unlearn the traditional ways … as a teacher I will need to find a balance between teacher-centered instruction and inquiry. I experienced the difficulties and rewards of inquiry learning and when I ask my students to go through the process, I will be able to relate and guide them through the experience (Anne, 2010).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Our analysis highlights two important themes around identity constitution and the scaffolding of inquiry. The first is that scaffolding can contribute to identity constitution if it is operationalized through discourse, experiences, and emotions. Second, the opportunity to pursue an open inquiry, framed in the context of teaching and learning, provides an opportunity to appreciate the value of inquiry as a classroom strategy. In making these statements, we are mindful of the important role of the pre-service placement in helping to shaping the nascent teachers’ identity (see Melville & Bartley, 2010). Luehmann (2007) argues that if pre-service teachers are to constitute identities as teachers of inquiry, then four foundational issues must be addressed. First, the new identity must be seen as a credible alternative to the individual’s extant identity. Scaffolding learning along the inquiry continuum appears to provide this credibility, as it provides a specific context for

1270


discourse, experience and emotion, with “new ways of understanding arise from ongoing activity” (Roth & Duit, 2003, p. 870). As Simon (2008) said: “We had to develop our ideas, requiring higher levels of interpretation and understanding of things, and being able to explain what was happening.” Second, scaffolding also appears to offer a context supportive of the forms of risk taking that accompany the constitution of a new identity (Luehmann, 2007). A context in which pre-service teachers can emotionally struggle with and negotiate between discourses is one in which identities can be constituted (Zembylas, 2003). As Leanne (2010) stated: “Through the disagreements and discussions we were all able to expand our knowledge of the subject and process.” Both the third and fourth issues identified by Luehmann (2007) have direct links to the importance of scaffolding inquiry. Participation in activities is not enough for identity constitution; pre-service teachers need to have feedback on their efforts and the opportunity to assume a central role in the activity (Luehmann, 2007). As Leslie (2010) explained: “There was a gradual withdrawal of teacher input … The unit opened my eyes as to how inquiry can be applied in a structured way to a classroom setting.” The assumption of more responsibility for learning gave Leslie the insight needed to understand how inquiry could work in her future classroom. Finally, participation is essential, but the constitution of an identity relies on the preservice teacher interpreting their engagement with inquiry. That some preservice teachers undertook inquiry activities on their practicum indicates that they actively constitute identities as teachers of inquiry: It provided a basis for how I could teach the kids to design their method, how to lay out their data and then draw conclusions from it … [Scaffolding] helps students gain the skills needed to conduct an inquiry (Josh, 2010).

Our analysis also suggests that the opportunity to conduct an open inquiry, while concurrently considering the pedagogical implications of inquiry, provides our pre-service teachers with an appreciation of the value of inquiry. Such an appreciation is important if teachers are to develop the “theoretical and practical knowledge and abilities about science, learning, and science teaching” envisaged by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996, p. 27). An appreciation of the value of inquiry by itself, however, is insufficient. Appreciation needs to be backed by the capacity to inquire, which brings us to the implications of scaffolding inquiry science teacher educators. Pea (2004) has identified four important defining characteristics of scaffolding: fading, channeling, focusing, and modeling. Each has a particular place in the development of an identity supportive to the teaching of inquiry. According to Collins et al. (1989), fading requires that a pre-


1271

service teacher grasps a skill before the master begins to reduce their participation in the learning process. The clear implication is that science educators have a responsibility to provide a rationale and context for the practice of inquiry before they can begin to withdraw the supports that their students need to move along the curriculum. Similarly with channeling, science educators need to be mindful of the science education biographies of their pre-service teachers as they seek to make them more independent in their teaching and learning. Those pre-service teachers with more deeply ingrained traditional science backgrounds may well require more assistance in dealing with the uncertainties that inquiry will raise for them. Science educators also need to be prepared to allow their pre-service teachers time to “tinker” with inquiry, for it is through tinkering that teachers make sense of complex ideas. As Huberman (1992, p. 137) explains, it is through tinkering that: “an individualised embryo of knowledge creation [which if] more systematic, more collective and explicitly … is transformed into knowledge creation.” Such knowledge creation cannot be rushed. Focusing also has a vital role in developing new ways of knowing. If inquiry is to be scaffolded, then it is also necessary to constantly relate inquiry to classroom practices, for this models the entire process— effectively linking theory and practice. To be effective, this modeling needs to be based on the authentic experiences of the science teacher educator. Both the first and second authors taught in secondary schools from an inquiry perspective and continue to work closely with classroom teachers who practice inquiry (see Melville & Bartley, 2010). By being able to personally model, and relate, to the many benefits and difficulties of teaching inquiry appears to give our work greater credibility. As one of our preservice teachers wrote: “I now realize the process is harder than it seems, and much scaffolding must be done to ensure that students can achieve this goal”.

REFERENCES Bell, R. L., Smetana, L. & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33. Bencze, J. L., Bowen, G. M. & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote studentled science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90 (3), 400–419. Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Original work published 1990. Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning,

1272


and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity. New York: Teachers College Press. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narrative in social science research. London: Sage. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Avon Books. Davis, E. A., Petish, D. & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651. Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. Franzak, J. K. (2002). Developing a teacher identity: The impact of critical friends practice on the student teacher. English Education, 34(4), 258–280. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Harris, K., Jensz, F. & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified for science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Retrieved 3 October, 2008 from www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/Who'sTeachingScience.pdf. Helms, J. V. (1998). Science-and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811–834. Herrenkohl, L., Palincsar, A., DeWater, L. & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 451–494. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171–212. Huberman, M. (1992). Teacher development and instructional mastery. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 122–142). New York: Teachers College Press. Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to Settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 11–13. 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. Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91(5), 822–839. Maclure, M. (1993). Arguing for yourself: Identity as an organising principle in teachers’ jobs and lives. British Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 311–322. Melville, W. & Bartley, A. (2010). Mentoring and community: Inquiry as stance and science as inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 807–828. Melville, W., Fazio, X., Bartley, A. & Jones, D. (2008). Inquiry experience and reflection: Pre-service teachers’ capacity for teaching inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 477–494. Mule, L. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 205–218. National Research Council (1996). The 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.


1273

Ontario College of Teachers (2006). Standards of practice for the teaching profession. Available at: http://www.oct.ca/standards/standards_of_practice.aspx?lang0en-CA. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10, science. Toronto, ON: Queens Printer for Ontario. Available at: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/ curriculum/secondary/2009science11_12.pdf. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life, history and narrative (pp. 5–24). London: Falmer. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66 (2), 211–227. Rezba, R. J., Auldridge, T. & Rhea, L. (1999). Teaching & learning the basic science skills. Available online at: www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/instruction/TLBSSGuide.doc. Roth, W.-M. & Duit, R. (2003). Emergence, flexibility, and stabilisation of language in the physics classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 869–897. Ryder, J., Leach, J. & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461–467. Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytical tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, VIC, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. White, R. T. (1988). Learning science. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143. Windschitl, M. (2006). Why can’t we talk to one another about science education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 348–355. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100. Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 9, 213–238. Wayne MelVille and Anthony Bartley Faculty of Education, Lakehead University 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada( P7B 5E1 E-mail: [email protected] Xavier Fazio Faculty of Education, Brock University St. Catharines, ON, Canada