Beginning Secondary Science Teachers Conceptualization and Enactment

of Inquiry-Based Instruction
Murat Ozel

Julie A. Luft

Nigde University

University of Georgia

This study investigates the conceptions and use of inquiry during classroom instruction among beginning secondary
science teachers. The 44 participants were beginning secondary science teachers in their first year of teaching. In order
to capture the participants conceptions of inquiry, the teachers were interviewed and observed during the school year.
The interviews consisted of questions about inquiry instruction, while the observations documented the teachers use of
inquiry. All of the interviews were transcribed or coded in order to understand the conceptions of inquiry held by the
teachers, and all of the observations were analyzed in order to determine the presence of inquiry during the lesson. The
standard for assessing inquiry came from the National Science Education Standards. A quantitative analysis of the data
indicated that the teachers frequently talked about implementing scientific questions and giving priority to evidence. This study found a consistency between the way new teachers talked about inquiry and the way they practiced
it in their classrooms. Overall, our observations and interviews revealed that the beginning secondary science teachers
tended to enact teacher-centered forms of inquiry, and could benefit from induction programs focused on inquiry
instruction.

Over the years, science education reform has emphasized the importance of incorporating inquiry into the
school science curriculum (National Research Council
[NRC], 1996). The science teacher plays a key role in
helping students learn about inquiry and building their
content knowledge. However, the science education literature reports that science teachers do not frequently enact
inquiry-based science instruction. This lack of inquiry
instruction has been attributed to the varied orientations
that teachers hold about inquiry practices (e.g., Crawford,
2000; Ireland, Watters, Brownlee, & Lupton, 2011; Keys
& Bryan, 2001; Koballa, Dias, & Atkinson, 2009; Wallace
& Kang, 2004). Inquiry-based instruction includes projects (Demir & Abell, 2010; Windschitl, 2002), hands-on
activities (Crawford, 2000; Windschitl, 2002), authentic
problems (Kang & Wallace, 2004), problem-solving
activities (Demir & Abell, 2010), or classroom discussions
and debates (Carnes, 1997). While the potential to enact
inquiry in each of these approaches is evident, the studies
suggest that science as inquiry is only partially
enactedif at all.
Many scholars have reported that teachers conceptions
of inquiry guide their use of inquiry in the science classroom (Breslyn & McGinnis, 2011; Crawford, 2007; Kang,
Orgill, & Crippen, 2008; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner,
2007; Wallace & Kang, 2004). For instance, Lotter et al.
(2007) reported that teachers conceptions of inquiry
influenced the type and amount of inquiry instruction
enacted in their high school classrooms. Similarly,
Crawford (2007) showed that beginning teachers views
308

about inquiry were the most critical factor in determining

whether or not they embraced and implemented inquirybased practices in their classrooms. Teachers conceptions
are deeply held constructs composed of knowledge about
inquiry and ways to enact inquiry (e.g., Kang et al., 2008;
Lotter et al., 2007; Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor,
2007; Windschitl, 2003). Ultimately, teachers with a thorough understanding of inquiry and instruction are likely to
engage in more inquiry-oriented practices.
In this study, teachers conceptions will have similar
qualities as beliefs, which are described by Richardson
(1994) as psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be
true (p. 103). Conceptions, like beliefs, are personal
constructs as they guide instructional decisions and
impact the representation of the content. Yet conceptions
are unlike beliefs in that they are concept-centered and
can be modified with additional information that adds to,
challenges, or clarifies the conception. This orientation
toward conceptions is evident in scholars who study
teachers use and knowledge of inquiry (Crawford, 2000;
Kang et al., 2008; Lotter et al., 2007; Wallace & Kang,
2004; Windschitl, 2003).
Beginning secondary science teachers are in a unique
position to implement inquiry in their classrooms.
They are enthusiastic to implement science-as-inquiry
approaches and may have studied inquiry in their methods
courses or field experiences. However, they may lack
experiences with students or knowledge about inquiry
that ultimately constrains their use of inquiry in their
Volume 113 (6)

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

classrooms (Luft, 2009; Simmons et al., 1999). New

teachers occupy a unique position in that they have just
completed their preservice program and they are starting
their teaching career. By understanding beginning secondary science teachers conceptions and use of inquiry,
science teacher educators can better understand how to
craft robust preservice and induction programs for science
teachers that support the vision of the National Science
Education Standards [NSES] (NRC, 1996). Science
teacher educators can also better understand how to
support science teachers who want to use inquiry, but may
not have well-developed conceptions of inquiry.
This study specifically investigates the quality of beginning secondary science teachers conceptions of science
as inquiry (NRC, 1996) and the level of inquiry used in
their classrooms. The findings add to a growing body of
knowledge about beginning science teacher development,
contribute to our understanding about supporting new
science teachers, and help guide the design of preservice
programs. The following questions frame the study:
1. How do first year secondary science teachers conceptualize and use science as inquiry?
2. How do first year secondary science teachers conceptions and use of science as inquiry change as they
teach?
Related Literature
Since the NSES (NRC, 1996) were published, researchers have investigated various aspects of inquiry-based
instruction among in-service teachers. Most of the studies
have focused on science teachers knowledge, their experiences, and the constraints they encounter with inquirybased science teaching (e.g., Keys & Kennedy, 1999;
Moseley & Ramsey, 2008; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). More
recent studies have investigated teachers conceptions of
inquiry in the context of the NSES (NRC, 1996) (e.g.,
Asay & Orgill, 2010; Demir & Abell, 2010; Kang et al.,
2008; Koballa et al., 2009). Generally, these conceptions
guide the structure of the inquiry activity, the interaction
between teacher and the students, or the type of the questions that teachers ask students (e.g., Lotter, Harwood, &
Bonner, 2006; Lotter et al., 2007). Often the enactment of
the inquiry activity varies by teacher, as each teacher is
guided by his/her own conception of inquiry and the
content area of instruction (Breslyn & McGinnis, 2011).
Recent studies on teachers conceptions of inquiry indicate that there is variation among teachers in their understanding of inquiry (e.g., Demir & Abell, 2010; Kang
et al., 2008; Koballa et al., 2009; Windschitl, 2002). For
instance, Kang et al. (2008), in a study of 45 experienced
School Science and Mathematics

teachers, found that teachers conceptions of inquiry

emphasized certain features more than others. When presented with teaching scenarios, teachers discussed their
conceptions of inquiry, which included engaging in scientifically oriented questions; giving priority to evidence;
and formulating explanations based on evidence. Yet in
their discussions, the same teachers rarely mentioned
evaluating or communicating explanations in connection
with scientific knowledge. The researchers concluded that
these missing components indicate a gap between the
teachers conceptions of inquiry and the ideals of the
reform movement.
Koballa et al. (2009) interviewed eight presenters at a
statewide science conference in the Southern United
States. The presenters included a chemistry professor, a
science education professor, two high school science
teachers, and four former high school science teachers
currently employed as curriculum developers. The presenters conceptualized inquiry as various instructional
strategies, including activity-oriented, differentiated,
student-centered, and student-led questioning. The discourse of the interviewed presenters revealed the inclusion
(or the perceived inclusion) of evidence and explanation in
their classroom instruction.
In another study, Breslyn and McGinnis (2011) investigated secondary science teachers conceptions and enactment of inquiry across different disciplines, including
biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. Their findings indicated that there are disciplinary differences
between teachers conceptions and enactment of inquiry.
They concluded that the discipline in which teachers
taught had a major influence on their conceptions and
enactment of inquiry.
Although these studies give insights into teachers conceptions of inquiry, currently a few studies address beginning science teachers conceptions and enactment of
inquiry. Beginning teachers offer the best hope for implementing inquiry in the classroom, as they have participated in an educational system guided by the NSES (NRC,
1996). With this experience, they should enact some elements of inquiry even in the midst of the pressures of the
first year of teaching. The more we can learn about the
teaching practices and conceptions of inquiry among
beginning science teachers, the better we will be able to
support science teacher development through preservice
and induction programs. These programs ultimately can be
structured to ensure that early career teachers receive
adequate knowledge about inquiry, and adequate support
to ensure that they can translate inquiry instruction into the
classroom environment.
309

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

Methods
Study Design
In order to investigate the study questions, we designed
a quantitative study that drew upon quantified interviews
and classroom observations. The process of quantification
of the qualitative data followed procedures outlined by
Miles and Huberman (1994). The quantitative analysis
consisted of a goodness-of-fit test.
Context and Participants
This study used data from 44 teachers, who came from
five states in the United States. During the first year of the
study, the teachers were selected to participate in the study
if they were engaged in their first year of teaching. This
initial selection process aligns with purposeful sampling,
which entails identifying individuals based on specific
questions and the purpose of the research (Henry, 1990).
For this study, data were used from teachers who were
teaching in their first year in the classroom, teaching
primarily science, and teaching grades 612. Table 1
illustrates the basic demographic background of the
participants.
Data Collection
In order to identify the teachers conceptions of inquiry,
data were collected from multiple sources including
semistructured interviews, classroom observations, and
researchers field notes. During the data collection
process, different strategies were employed in order to
contribute to the validity of this study. For instance, during
the data collection process, research assistants were
assigned to different teachers so that no individual collected all of the data from one teacher (Mathison, 1988). In
addition, research assistants were trained in collecting data
that pertained to science as inquiry. That is, they learned
about different variations of inquiry that are outlined in the
NSES (NRC, 1996). This resulted in the research assistants
prompting teachers to talk about different dimensions of

inquiry, and recording the different classroom practices

related to inquiry. By establishing a common understanding among the research assistants, the descriptions collected from the teachers were valid representations
(Maxwell, 1992).
Teacher interviews comprise the majority of the data in
this study. One set of interviews was conducted at the
beginning of the first school year, and a second set at the
end of that year. The first interview was conducted before
the teachers began their first year of teaching, and
extended into their first month in the classroom. The first
part of the first interview consisted of questions that captured information about the teachers educational background, his or her new school and district, reasons for
teaching science, and expectations about teaching science
as a new science teacher. The first part of the second
interview (after the school year) collected information that
pertained to experiences and expectations as a beginning
secondary science teacher.
The second part of the first and second interviews
stayed consistent and focused on the teachers view of a
good inquiry lesson and how the teacher envisioned
enacting inquiry-based instruction in his or her classroom. During this interview, the beginning teacher was
asked to describe a good lesson in science, and then thoroughly discuss the teaching, planning, and enactment of
this lesson. At points during the interview, the teacher
was asked to expand upon his or her discussion of the
lesson by providing details about decisions in planning
and enacting the inquiry-based lesson. Following guidelines suggested by Seidman (1998), the interviewers
asked beginning teachers to give relevant examples to
support their answers to questions in the interview protocol. These questions come from Lee, Brown, Luft, and
Roehrig (2007), which describes the use of these questions with science teachers.

Table 1
Demographics of Teachers in the Study

Area
Gender
Type of school
Degree
Teaching assignment*
Region
Preparations

Distribution
Male (18)
Middle (10)
Urban (15)
Bachelor (41)
In field (42)
Southwest (9)
More than one science
method course (25)

Female (26)
High (27)
Suburban (20)
Masters (3)
Out of field (2)
Midwest (34)
One science method
course (18)

Other (7)
Rural (9)
Other (1)
No science method
course (1)

* In fieldTeaching 50% or more of the classes in degree area; Out of fieldTeaching in less than 50% of the classes in degree
area.
310

Volume 113 (6)

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

All interviews were audio-taped and then transcribed.

Each interview lasted about 4560 minutes. Graduate
research assistants and a science education faculty
member were responsible for the data collection. All
research assistants were trained to follow the interview
protocol, and in the process of interviewing, to use the
guidelines suggested by Seidman (1998).
Teachers classroom practices were captured through
observations and interviews. The observations of teachers
were conducted four times (once in September, December, February, and April or May) during a specified twoweek period. If an observation was missed during this
time, a make-up observation was scheduled in May. Prior
to visiting a classroom, the teacher was contacted by a
research assistant to confirm when the class was being
conducted and to ascertain the nature of the lesson. If the
beginning teacher was not holding class, if a video was
shown all period, or if a test was being administered
during the class hour, the observation was scheduled for
the following day.
During the observation, field notes were taken regarding the lesson. The process of recording field notes followed guidelines taken from Bogdan and Biklen (2006).
This resulted in the observer sitting in the back of the
classroom and documenting the salient events that
occurred during the lesson. The interactions between
teacher and students, the actions of the students, the discussion among students, and the format of the lesson
were the focus of the observation. It was the goal of the
observer to capture enough of the lesson that a researcher
could examine the practices of the teacher, and the experiences of the students.
In addition to the observations, there were interviews
about one week of instruction each month during the
school year. These eight interviews were conducted over
the phone and resulted in over 40 days of data for each
teacher. A digital recording was made of the interview
and the interviewer documented the types of instructional
activities that the teacher reported. The instructional
activity checklist consisted of several items found in
the observational protocol by Lawrenz, Huffman,
Appeldoorn, and Sun (2002), and additional items of
open inquiry, guided inquiry, direct inquiry, verification
laboratory, and process laboratory. In an open inquiry
laboratory/activity, the students developed their own
questions to explore, and also determined the experiment
and modes of data collection. In a guided inquiry/activity,
the teacher provided the question, and the students were
free to answer the question as they felt was appropriate.
In the directed inquiry laboratory/activity, the teacher
School Science and Mathematics

provided the question and the mechanism for the student

to answer a question. In a verification laboratory/activity,
the students were told or knew the concepts they explored
during the activity. In a skill-based laboratory/activity, the
focus of learning was on a process or skill. As the teacher
reported his or her practices, the occurrence of the practice was indicated on the instructional checklist. Prior to
using this protocol to document practices, research assistants were trained in collecting data, and interrater consistency was established.
Data Analysis
Features of inquiry rubric. In this project, a rubric
was created to analyze the beginning science teachers
conceptions of inquiry. The rubric came from the essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations
(NRC, 2000, p. 29). The features (rows) within the rubric
consisted of the teacher creating an opportunity for the
learner to: (a) engage in scientifically oriented questions,
(b) give priority to evidence in responding to questions, (c)
formulate explanations from evidence, (d) connect explanations to scientific knowledge, and (e) communicate and
justify explanations. Within these features, variations were
described that ranged from teacher-directed to studentdirected. These variations took into account the amount of
structure a teacher gave to an activity, or the extent to
which students initiated and designed an investigation. The
right side of the rubric demonstrated a more teachercentered orientation, while the left side of the rubric demonstrated a more student-centered orientation. This rubric
can be found in Table 2.
Coding process with rubric. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. As Creswell (2005) suggested, the analysis of the qualitative data began with an initial reading of
the transcripts. After the initial reading, two research assistants independently read each transcript and coded the
transcript with the Features of Inquiry Rubric using a
content analysis method (Patton, 2002). After each transcript was coded, the research assistants met and compared
their codes. During the comparison process, the research
assistants discussed their interpretations of the interview
and their rationale for their codes. Conclusions about the
codes were reached through a process of consensus that
followed guidelines suggested by Hill, Thompson, and
Williams (1997).
During the analysis, the research assistants looked for
explicit expressions regarding the use of certain features.
For instance, a beginning teacher had to state that a question was used during instruction in order for the scientific
question feature to be acknowledged by the research assistants. Then the research assistants would determine the
311

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

Table 2
Features of Inquiry Rubric

Essential Features of
Inquiry

Variations
A

Learner sharpens or
clarifies question
provided by teacher,
materials, or other
source
Learner given data and
asked to analyze

Learner engages in
question provided by
teacher, materials, or
other source

Learner guided in
process of
formulating
explanations from
evidence
Learner directed
toward areas and
sources of scientific
knowledge

Learner given possible

ways to use evidence
to formulate
explanation

Learner provided with

evidence

Learner given possible

connections

Learner told what

connections to make

Learner coached in
development of
communication

Learner provided broad

guidelines to use
sharpen
communication

Learner given steps

and procedures for
communication

1. Learner engages in
scientifically
oriented questions

Learner poses a
question

Learner selects among

questions, poses new
questions

2. Learner gives
priority to evidence
in responding to
questions
3. Learner formulates
explanations from
evidence

Learner determines
what constitutes
evidence and
collects it
Learner formulates
explanation after
summarizing
evidence

Learner directed to
collect certain data

4. Learner connects
explanations to
scientific knowledge

Learner independently
examines other
resources and forms
the links to
explanations
Learner forms
reasonable and
logical argument to
communicate
explanations

5. Learner
communicates and
justifies
explanations

Learner given data and

told how to analyze

Note. This rubric is based upon the Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards book (NRC, 2000, p. 29).

quality of the scientific question, which could result in a

beginning teacher providing a question to the students. In
this type of coding process, repetitive illustrations of one
essential feature and its variation within a lesson were
grouped as one occurrence. This final evaluation of the
feature was recorded on a spreadsheet. It should be noted
that if the essential feature and/or the variation were not
present, a notation of NA (non-applicable) was put in the
spreadsheet.
Analysis of the observational and practice
data. There were two different analyses conducted pertaining to the observed practices of teachers and interviews about practice with the teachers. Both analyses were
done by the first author of this paper. The first analysis
consisted of identifying the type of inquiry reported by the
teacher during the pre- and postinterview. These were
compared with a goodness-of-fit test.
The second analysis was drawn from the classroom
observation data. When inquiry was identified as happening in the class, the quality of inquiry was recorded
according to the Features of Inquiry Rubric as described
above. These data were recorded in a table in order to see
the trends over time.
312

Findings
In this section, teachers conceptions of inquiry are portrayed in terms of the characteristics they used to describe
their inquiry-based science teaching.
Table 3 presents the overall findings in terms of the
essential features of inquiry described by the teachers
during their pre- and postyear interviews about their teaching. In coding the data, we found that all of the beginning
teachers used more than one essential feature of inquiry.
From these data, it is evident that teachers described with
frequency the features of scientifically oriented questions
and priority to evidence, but rarely mentioned the features
of explanation with evidence, connection to knowledge,
and communicates explanation in descriptions of their
inquiry instruction.
When teachers talked about scientifically oriented questions, they described how they used questions in their
classrooms. The quantitative analysis indicated that there
were no significant differences in terms of the use of scientifically oriented questions between the pre- and postyear
interviews (X2 (4, N = 44) = 5.9, p = .6). Thus, teachers did
not significantly improve their conception of the use of
questions in their inquiry instruction over the year.
Volume 113 (6)

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

Table 3
Frequency of Features of Inquiry Based on Interviews Pre- and Postyear (N = 44)

Features of Inquiry

Preyear 1

Scientific question
Priority to evidence
Explanation with
evidence
Connection to
knowledge
Communicates
explanation

Postyear 1

NA

NA

0
0
1

0
10
1

9
19
5

28
5
7

7
10
30

1
2
2

1
7
4

8
20
3

29
2
4

5
13
31

43

42

44

42

More (A)Amount of learner self-directionLess (D)

Less (A)Amount of direction from teacher or materialMore (D)
Note. Descriptors for A, B, C, and D categories can be found in Table 2.
NA = non applicable.
Table 4
Frequency of Features of Inquiry Based on Observations Pre- and Postyear (N = 44)

Features of Inquiry

Observation 1
A

Scientific question
Priority to evidence
Explanation with evidence
Connection to knowledge
Communicates explanation

Observation 2
NA

Observation 3
NA

1 0 27 13
3 0 0 26 16
2 1 1 26 14
1 2 14
2 25 0 4 12
7 21 0 2 15
4
0 1
2
2 39 0 2
3
0 39 0 0
3
1
0 0
0
0 44 0 1
0
0 43 0 3
0
1
0 0
0
0 44 0 0
0
0 44 0 0
0
0
More (A)Amount of learner self-directionLess (D)
Less (A)Amount of direction from teacher or materialMore (D)

Observation 4
NA

NA

2
23
40
40
44

0
0
0
0
0

1
5
2
1
0

26
13
1
0
0

13
3
2
0
2

4
23
39
43
42

Note. Descriptors of the A, B, C, and D categories can be found in Table 2.

NA = non applicable.

The second most frequently discussed feature was that

of priority to evidence. When teachers described giving
priority to evidence, they did not report that students were
allowed to decide what to gather as evidence. Instead, they
described providing data for the students and allowing
students to analyze the data. When teachers provided students with evidence or data, they were characterized as
having a teacher-centered orientation. Similar to the first
feature, the follow-up analysis shows no significant difference between the pre- and postyear interviews (X2 (4,
N = 44) = 8.5, p = .1).
Teachers reported the explanation with evidence feature
with low frequency during both pre- and postyear interviews. That is, they rarely included the process of forming
an explanation based on evidence in their conceptions of
inquiry. The results also show that when they included
explanations, teachers told students how to make explanations. The pre- and postyear analysis was not significant
(X2 (4, N = 44) = 6.4, p = .2).
School Science and Mathematics

The last two features, connection to knowledge and

communicates explanation, were rarely discussed by
teachers as an aspect of inquiry in their classroom practices. Similar to the previous analyses, there were no significant differences between the pre- and postyear data in
the area of knowledge (X2 (4, N = 44) = .5, p = 1.0) or
communication (X2 (4, N = 44) = .5, p = 1.0).
During the observations of teachers practices, there
were few instances of inquiry in the classrooms. As can be
seen in Table 4, it appears that beginning teachers tend to
spend most of their time on the question and data collection
aspects of inquiry. When students engaged in these activities, they had little opportunity to create their own question
and examine their own evidence, and they spent little time
on the connection to knowledge and communication components of inquiry. As a result, most students experienced
directed or verification laboratories (see Table 5).
Table 6 shows the number of instances in which the
beginning teachers reported using inquiry in their
313

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

Table 5
Frequencies of Inquiry Activities from the Observations of the Teachers

Open inquiry
Guided inquiry
Directed inquiry
Process/Skills
Verification laboratory
None
Total

Frequency

1
5
15
4
12
7
44

2.2
11.3
34.0
9.0
27.2
15.9
100

Table 6
Frequencies of Activities from the Weekly Updates (N = 1,760) of the Teachers
(N = 44)

Open inquiry
Guided inquiry
Directed inquiry
Process/Skills
Verification laboratory
Total

Frequency

18
95
213
84
187
597

3.0
15.9
35.7
14.1
31.3
100

classrooms from the weekly updates. During the first year,

teachers reported spending about a third of their time
doing investigations or laboratories. Similar to the observations, most of the experiences of students with inquiry
involved extensive directions that resulted in directed or
verification laboratories.
Discussion and Implications
In this study, we specifically investigated conceptions
and enactment of inquiry of beginning science teachers
during their first year teaching in the classroom. The findings indicate that, of the five essential features of inquiry
emphasized by the NSES (NRC, 1996), the features of
scientific questions and priority to evidence were evident
in the conceptions and practices of the first-year teachers
in this study. The features of explanation with evidence,
connection to knowledge, and communicates explanation
were rarely used in the teachers characterization or enactment of inquiry. Furthermore, the findings revealed that
teachers conceptions or enactment of inquiry did not
change over the year.
These results suggest that the beginning science teachers are limited in their conceptualization and enactment
of inquiry in the classroom. When these areas were
explained or observed, they tended to align with more
teacher-centered approaches. More importantly, the
beginning teachers did not emphasize in their descrip314

tions or lessons the last three features of inquiry, in which

students are expected to explain and extend their new
knowledge.
The findings from this study are important for a few
reasons. To begin with, it has been reported that what new
science teachers say and do are often at odds with each
other (e.g., Simmons et al., 1999). In this study, we found
agreement in the teachers use of the essential features of
inquiry and their reporting of the features in the classroom. Beginning teachers tended to conceptualize and
enact teacher-centered approaches when it came to questions (students were often provided questions) and analyzing data (teachers guided this analysis). Rarely did the
teachers discuss or enact inquiry lessons in which the
students focused on building arguments or sharing their
new knowledge. From our data, it appears that the new
teachers were consistent in their conceptions and actions
pertaining to inquiry.
Furthermore, previous research has suggested that experienced teachers emphasize certain features of inquiry
more than other features of inquiry (Breslyn & McGinnis,
2011; Kang et al., 2008). In this study, there were some
components of inquiry present in both the discussion and
enactment of inquiry among the new science teachers. It
seems that both new and experienced teachers tend to
emphasize certain features of inquiry, but the inquiry of
the new teachers tended to be directed inquiry.
This study also found that experience in the classroom
did not change the conceptions and enactment of inquiry
among the beginning teachers. Flick (2006) and others
have reported that over time, science teachers expand their
views of inquiry. However, these studies followed teachers
who were actively prompted to think about their use of
inquiry. Our study suggests that teaching experience (early
in ones career) does not guarantee ongoing growth in
ones conceptions of inquiry, at least in the first year of
teaching. Even though they had mentors that possibly
advocated for inquiry, or they had access curriculum materials that supported inquiry instruction, they simply did
not expand their conceptions of inquiry.
For those in science teacher education, this study suggests that preservice teachers need ample opportunities to
build their knowledge and practice pertaining to inquiry,
and they need explicit instruction about the different features of inquiry. It is important that new teachers have
access to well-designed science induction programs.
These programs should focus on all features of inquiry.
Clearly, more must be done to help new science teachers in
their enactment and understanding of inquiry during their
first year in the classroom. After all, this is the time in
Volume 113 (6)

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

which new teachers are exploring and establishing their

ideas and methods pertaining to inquiry.
Summary
From this study, it is clear that new science teachers
need a deeper understanding about inquiry and how to
implement inquiry in the classroom environment. In order
to foster a deeper understanding of inquiry instruction,
preservice and new science teachers will need welldeveloped opportunities to practice and reflect upon
inquiry instruction. More importantly, if preservice and
induction teachers build their knowledge and skills pertaining to inquiry instruction, then as experienced teachers, they will continue to expand and enhance their use of
inquiry instruction. Ultimately, these knowledge and skills
in inquiry will result in early career and experienced
science teachers providing students with rich experiences
in science, creating opportunities that allow students to
construct their knowledge in science, and improving
student achievement in science.
References
Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry
found in articles published in the science teacher, 19982007. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 21, 5779. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9152-9
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. R. (2011). A comparison of exemplary biology,
chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers conceptions and enactment
of inquiry. Science Education, 96, 4877. doi:10.1002/sce.20469
Carnes, G. N. (1997, April). Teacher conceptions of inquiry and related
teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for
science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916937.
doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and
tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613
642. doi:10.1002/tea.20157
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Demir, A., & Abell, S. (2010). Views of inquiry: Mismatches between views
of science education faculty and students of an alternative certification
program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 716741.
doi:10.1002/tea.20365
Flick, L. B. (2006). Developing understanding of scientific inquiry in secondary students. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and
nature of science: Implications teaching, learning, and teacher education
(pp. 157172). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting
consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517
572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001
Ireland, J., Watters, J., Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2011). Elementary teachers conceptions of inquiry teaching: Messages for teacher development.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 159175. doi:10.1007/s10972011-9251-2
School Science and Mathematics

Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). Secondary science teachers use of

laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals and practices.
Science Education, 89, 140165. doi:10.1002/sce.20013
Kang, N.-H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers
conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario instrument.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 337354. doi:10.1007/
s10972-008-9097-4
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), 631645. doi:10.1002/tea.1023
Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in
context: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 10(4), 315333. doi:10.1023/A:1009406511999
Koballa, T. R., Dias, M. J., & Atkinson, J. L. (2009). Science conference
presenters images of inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7),
403414. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17871.x
Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., Appeldoorn, K., & Sun, T. (2002). CETP core
evaluation, classroom observation handbook. Minneapolis, MN: CAREI.
Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning
secondary science teachers PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and
Mathematics, 107(2), 418426. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb17768.x
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2006). Overcoming a learning
bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 185216. doi:10.1007/
s10972-005-9002-3
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core
teaching conceptions on teachers use of inquiry teaching practices.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 13181347. doi:10.1002/
tea.20191
Luft, J. A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction
programs: The first year of teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 31(17), 23552384. doi:10.1080/09500690802369367
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 1317.
doi:10.3102/0013189X017002013
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research.
Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279300.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moseley, C., & Ramsey, S. J. (2008). Elementary teachers progressive understanding of inquiry through the process of reflection. School Science and
Mathematics, 108(2), 4957. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17804.x
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards [NSES]. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science
education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Richardson, V. (1994). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102119).
New York: MacMillian.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning
secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 324. doi:10.1080/
0950069022000070261
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett,
D., & Labuda, K. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom
actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930954.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<930::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-N
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced
secondary science teachers beliefs about inquiry: An examination of
315

Science Teachers Conceptions and Use of Inquiry

competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9),

936960. doi:10.1002/tea.20032
Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning
about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 6389.
Windschitl, M. (2002, April). The reproduction of cultural models of
inquiry by preservice science teachers: An examination of thought and
action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What
can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual
classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112143. doi:10.1002/
sce.10044

Authors Notes
Murat Ozel, School of Education, Nigde University;
Julie A Luft, College of Education, University of Georgia.
The authors of this study would like to recognize Krista
Adams, Jonah Firestone, Ira Ortega, Taylor Mitchell, Sissy
Wong, Gillian H. Roehrig, and Derek Fay for their help
with this project. We would also like to acknowledge the
teachers in this study who participated enthusiastically in
the interviews and observations. This study was made
possible by National Science Foundation grants 0550847,
0918697, 0732600, and 0632368. The findings, conclusions, or opinions herein represent the views of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the view of personnel
affiliated with the National Science Foundation. This study
was also made possible by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey, which supported Ozel to
work with Luft.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Murat Ozel, School of Education, Nigde University, 51100 Nigde, Turkey. Email: mozeltr@gmail.com;
muratozel@nigde.edu.tr
316

Volume 113 (6)