Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The teachers' conceptions of classroom inquiry had been acquired informally.
Vygotsky (1987) made an analytical distinction between
everyday
and
scientific
(or spontaneous) concepts. Everyday concepts are acquired casually and sponta-
neously during social interaction, while scientific concepts are acquired through
experience and reflection, and most typically through instruction. Scientific con-
cepts are more abstract and more general than everyday concepts. They serve as
tools for investigation and conceptual development. Everyday concepts, on the other
hand, are connected to experience in a direct and relatively ad hoc manner. Dewey
(1916) characterizes a scientific concept as a “system of attributes, held together
on the basis of some ground, or determining, dominating principle” (p. 148). The
teachers' pre-understandings can be characterized as informal, rather than scien-
tific knowledge. This is consistent with Bruner (1996) and Windschitl (2004) views
about how teachers acquire knowledge in practice. The professional development
course was essential to clarify their thinking and begin to move them toward a sys-
tematic view of classroom inquiry. Mark's contribution captures the essence of the
teachers' more comprehensive perspective that emerged from the course. He wrote:
It is important that inquiry is not looked at in the small sense as an isolated activity and is
viewed more in a curricular perspective as being integrative and comprehensively sustained
by both traditional and inquiry-based teaching methods.
Teachers' Self-Understandings as Agents of Change
A commitment to inquiry entails embracing changes in roles and functions for both
teachers and students. Success will depend on teachers who understand the mean-
ing and rationale for inquiry and who are also willing to make commitments to the
changes that it entails. Concerns about change may hinder reform, even when prac-
titioners understand its meaning and rationale. The teachers concerns about inquiry
were of two kinds. They did not believe that classroom inquiry was a priority in
their districts. Laura, for instance, noted: “I still don't feel like there is a big push
for teachers to use inquiry-based methods in my district. This is mostly due to our
obsession with aligning curriculums across our district.” They were under intense
pressure from their school districts to raise and maintain high test scores. Trisha
(2005) remarked: “I know you shouldn't teach to the test. However, our scores are
consistently high and our district's philosophy is 'you don't screw with results.”
Erin (2006) believed that classroom inquiry would undermine her capacity to cover
the curriculum. “If we don't cover everything in the curriculum the kids won't do
well on the test,” she wrote. Laura (2006) contributed to the same theme, writing,
“Committing a large chunk of time to an inquiry based unit, where there may be
many dead ends explored is no less than terrifying.” Jack believed that classroom
inquiry might “burn up precious time” (Jack, 2006).
The teachers were also anxious about their knowledge base for implementing
classroom inquiry. Mariya (2004), for example, wrote: “There are some areas of
science that I know little about and I find myself teaching in these areas sometimes.
