developing an ear for inquiry in preservice elementary teachers through a discussion in science

640

Developing an Ear for Inquiry inPreservice Elementary TeachersThrough a Discussion in ScienceLarry FlickTeacher EducationUniversity of OregonEugene, Oregon 97403-1215

The one-on-one, clinical interview technique pioneered by Piaget (1967) hasbeen used for decades as a research tool for investigating children’sunderstanding of science concepts. This article is concerned with using theclinical interview context as a framework for developing inquiry teaching skillswith preservice elementary teachers. The one-on-one context provides anonthreatening environment for both the teacher and the student to thinkabout science concepts.The results of research on children’s thinking using clinical interviews have

focused international attention on the knowledge children bring to a sciencelesson (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Novak & Gowin, 1984; Osborne& Freyberg, 1985). Through their own experience, children construct reasonedand stable concepts about many natural events which are subsequently thesubjects of school lessons. These concepts, however, often conflict withaccepted scientific principles. The clinical interview setting reveals theseconflicting ideas to the teacher in training and makes the research results inthe assigned readings more meaningful. During the interview, the preserviceteacher is also practicing inquiry teaching skills by probing the child’s inquiryinto those concepts through carefully designed activities. The preserviceteachers also gain an appreciation for the variety of ways in which contentknowledge must be understood for effective teaching (Wilson, Shulman, &Richert, 1987).

Discussion in Science

A one-on-one, clinical interview is described to preservice teachers as adiscussion between a teacher and a student. Discussion is used to emphasizethat they are practicing classroom teaching techniques where there is anexchange of information for educational purposes and not simply conductinga survey. In designing a Discussion in Science, the teacher gains access to ahighly positive side of children in an environment which is nonthreatening forboth the teacher and the student. This is particularly important for prospectiveelementary teachers who typically enter the profession with an uneasinessabout, if not a fear of, science content.The instructor determines the content of the Discussion. Course time is

School Science and MathematicsVolume 89 (8) December 1989

Discussion in Science 641

spent reviewing appropriate science content while engaging in activitiessuitable for including in the Discussion protocol. The direct engagement ofpreservice teachers in these science activities causes them to probe their ownthinking about the science topic. Their questions provide the instructor withinput for writing the protocol.The teachers are not expected to perform in the typical classroom sense and

the child is not put on the spot for specific correct responses. The preserviceteachers have commented that they find themselves doing what they enteredelementary education to do: structure and facilitate learning in children. Theirwritten reports indicate that the project boosts morale about their ability tohandle student responses and science activities. A classroom full of childrenwill still be a challenge, but conducting a Discussion in Science develops anear for the curiosity and uncertainty which often lies just beneath the surfaceof student comments and questions.The teacher’s mind set in a Discussion is similar to the mind set for an

inquiry lesson in a classroom. The objectives are more process than contentoriented with the teacher taking a facilitator role. There is an exchange ofinformation and debate with another person on equal terms. These similaritiesto inquiry teaching make a Discussion in Science particularly promising as atool for developing and practicing inquiry teaching skills.

Context of a Discussion in Science

The specific context for a Discussion may vary from the hallway in a schoolbuilding to a kitchen in a home, but experience has shown certain features tobe important for conducting a successful Discussion with children.

1. The Discussion should be tape recorded so that the teacher can examinethe dialogue in depth later. Analyzing inquiry requires following patterns ofquestions and trains of thought. There is so much selective listening andinterpretation which takes place at the time of the Discussion that relying onmemory can lead to the often erroneous assumption that what was said by theteacher is learned by the child. In order to reflect on the subtleties in languageused by both the teacher and the child, there must be an opportunity toexamine the dialogue in an objective manner.

2. A Discussion with a single child is preferable although successful sessionshave been conducted with a small group of children (3-4). The recordingconditions must be such that all children can be clearly heard. Using only onechild reduces the risk that extraneous activity will disrupt the interview.Conducting a small group Discussion is a logical next step toward transferringinquiry skills to a regular classroom setting.

3. The Discussion must include materials and activities to highlight theconcept under discussion and provide a concrete medium for the expression ofideas. The Piagetian tradition has focused on physical science conceptsexplored through some sort of manipulative activity. More recent techniqueshave used pictures and drawings to facilitate the exchange of information


642 Discussion in Science

between the interviewer and the child (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Onepreservice teacher had the child construct a drawing of the internal organs ofthe digestive system during a Discussion about digestion.

4. From the teacher’s perspective there are two levels in inquiry operatingduring the Discussion. First, there is the child’s inquiry into a science conceptwhere the child tries to make sense out of experience by putting it intopersonal terms. In the second, the teacher inquires into what the childunderstands by trying to make sense of what the child says. The teacher mustremain skeptical of any assumption about the knowledge of the child. Theprocess should be one of getting the child to clarify and demonstrate personalmeaning.

5. Children between 8 and 13 years of age have made good subjects forpreservice elementary teachers. Successful Discussions have been conductedwith children younger than 8, but the teacher often has to work harder andmore skillfully to get the child to clarify and demonstrate. The verbal andsocial skills of the child need to be such that the teacher can maintainmaximum concentration on both the content of the Discussion and the child’strain of thought.

6. The more familiar preservice teachers are with the content of theDiscussion, the better they will be at making sense out of what the child saysand does. Through a wide variety of associations and the use of inappropriatescientific terms, the child floods the Discussion with a sea of relatedknowledge. The preservice teacher must navigate through these ideas withquestions which respond to what the child is thinking. In order to accomplishthis, the teacher cannot be spending a large amount of time untangling his orher own thoughts.

Elementary Teacher Preparation

From the standpoint of teacher preparation in science, a Discussion inScience has at least three important features.

1. The atmosphere of the Discussion and the review of the tape promoteshigher level thought about science and about teaching. The teacher’s probingof the child’s comments stimulates analysis and synthesis as the teacher triesto consider the science concept from the child’s point of view. The reports andjournals required by the Discussion project indicate that the preserviceteachers can recognize from the tape recordings when important comments bythe child have been missed which could have led to further exploration andlearning. The science units due at the end of the class often employ Discussiontechniques as a preassessment tool as well as a means of checking for studentunderstanding.

Preservice teachers informally measure their own wait-time behavior. Thetapes make explicit how much a teacher’s pattern of talk can influence what issaid or not said by the child. The teachers can point to places on thetranscript where longer wait-time led to longer, more informative responses



and shorter wait-time cut off the inquiry.2. The orientation of the teacher-student interaction is one of inquiry rather

than information giving. Many of the preservice teachers are struggling withtheir own understanding of science concepts, perhaps the very ones included inthe Discussion. An inquiry mode places the teacher in a more honest andtherefore open relationship to the content.

For example, a preservice teacher (T) was interviewing a 13-year-old aboutthe nature of gas (air). He had the student suck on a straw in water todemonstrate the meaning of something the student (S) had said:

S: ... if you take all the air pressure out of something then the airpressure on the outside makes it not able to come apart.

T: So what do you think is making the water go up the straw?S: Having no pressure there.T: Do you think that there might be something pushing on that water

(pointing to the water in the glass)?S: That’s right. There is more compression on the outside than on the

inside. ... If you take the air out it has to fill up with something orthe sides of the straw will cave in. It fills up with something, [longpause] That’s weird! I’ve never thought about how a straw works!... I know! If you take the air out the water will float up like inouter space.

The teacher reported upon reviewing the tape: "[The student] knew [thewater rising in the straw] had something to do with ’balance* [equilibrium]between air pressure and the weight of the water. He finally says that air isholding the water down. When the air is removed, it will float up like in outerspace. This is an interesting idea, but I’m not sure how gravity fits in."The teacher is simultaneously analyzing what the student is thinking as well

as its relationship to the teacher’s own understanding of the science concept.It is significant to note that the analysis came as a result of transcribing thetape. Teachers experienced with using inquiry are more likely to capitalize onthe outer space comment at the time of the discussion to promote clarificationabout the role of gravity and the meaning of float. Novice teachers in awhole-class situation are too conscious of extraneous activity or maintainingtheir own train of thought to deal with or even notice the injection of a newidea. The taped recording permits the inexperienced teacher to focus attentionon critical aspects of the dialogue. Developing an ear for these kinds ofstudent statements will be useful when conducting inquiry with an entire class.

3. Using inquiry methods to learn about science concepts communicates thespirit of science. Inquiry is often poorly handled in elementary science due toinadequate teacher background in science. By working with one child, thepreservice teacher can concentrate on where the inquiry is headed and less ontypical classroom problems. In the above example, the teacher’s use of thestraw was used to further the process of inquiry. <(! let him test (his idea) bysucking on a straw. This wasn’t planned but seemed to work right in."


644 Discussion in Science

Benefits to Teacher Preparation in Science

Over 100 preservice teachers have completed this Discussion projectpredominantly in the area of science. The assignment involves careful planningof Discussion protocols and the generation of a complete transcript. Thetranscripts and accompanying reports provide rich sources of information forassessing both the child’s knowledge and the teacher’s inquiry skills.The benefits to elementary teacher preparation go beyond the promotion of

inquiry in science education. As a teacher tool, it is less expensive thanvideotaping microteaching lessons. Unlike microteaching to peers, theDiscussions involve interacting with elementary school children. The preserviceteachers keep a journal where they reflect on the implications theseDiscussions have for teaching science. They also submit reports summarizingthe thinking of the individual child as well as the transcript and tape. Aselection of tapes and accompanying transcripts from previous classes havebeen kept in order to communicate the nature of this project more clearly. Ananalysis of these products as well as informal discussions has suggested thatDiscussions in Science promote:

1. a willingness to engage in substantive self-evaluations of both contentand method;

2. a sensitivity to the role of dialogue in student-teacher interaction;3. an awareness of the variety of children’s responses;4. a deeper understanding of children’s thinking;5. an increased appreciation of the nature of inquiry and its relationship to

science instruction;6. an increased confidence in discussing science concepts with children;7. an increase in knowledge about selected science concepts; and8. an enthusiasm for thinking about science concepts in the context of

elementary education.

Summary

Through the translation of the clinical interview process into a Discussion inScience format, preservice teachers engage a child in an in-depth explorationof a science concept. This dialogue produces higher levels of thinking on thepart of both the teacher and the child. As a result, the teacher has anopportunity to gain experience in following children’s inquiry-orientedthinking. Developing this kind of skill must often wait until the teacher canhandle typical classroom distractions and has become familiar with the sciencecontent. Applying complex, inquiry teaching strategies may still have to waitfor more classroom experience, but a Discussion in Science introducespreservice teachers to the possibilities of capitalizing on the child’s natural,inquiry-oriented thinking.



References

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas inscience. England: Open University Press.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge,MA: Cambridge University Press.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications ofchildren’s science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Piaget, J. (1967). The child’s conception of the world. (J. & A. Tomlinson,Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd. (Original work published1929).

Wilson, S., Shulman. L. S., & Richert, A. (1987). 150 different ways ofknowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.),Exploring teachers’ thinking. London: Cassell.

Authors Sought for NCTM Yearbook onCalculators in Grades K-14

Potential authors are invited to submit manuscripts for the 1992Yearbook, Calculators in Mathematics Education: Impact and Potential.The Yearbook will address the influence of present and emergingcalculator technology on mathematics content, pedagogy, and assessmentmethods in grades K-14.

This Yearbook will provide a forum for discussion of how the universalavailability of calculators in schools brings a new order of priority andemphasis among traditional topics, leads to the inclusion of newmathematical content and methods, and also alters conventionalapproaches to teaching and assessment of student learning.The Yearbook Advisory Panel is interested in reviewing brief descriptive

accounts of successful calculator-based teaching and testing activities inaddition to longer position papers and reports. The Yearbook editor isJames T. Fey, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

Guidelines for authors, which include a more complete description of thetopics to be addressed and instructions for preparing manuscripts, may beobtained from:

Christian R. HirschGeneral Yearbook EditorDepartment of Mathematics and StatisticsWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, Michigan 49008

The deadline for submission of manuscripts is March 1, 1990.


developing an ear for inquiry in preservice elementary teachers through a discussion in science

Documents