Teacher practices of inquiry

Teacher practices are essential for supporting learners in scientific inquiry practices of framing research questions, designing and conducting investigations, collecting data, and drawing conclusions (Dudu & Vhurumuku, 2012). Given the centrality of investigations in school science teaching and the importance of investigations in nurturing learners’ ideas about the NOSI, it is critical to understand teachers’ practices and perspectives when teaching investigations. Such an understanding is essential for the development of both pre- service and in-service science teacher education programmes that are responsive to classroom challenges (Wu, 2009). An understanding of teacher practices when teaching investigations can be useful in the crafting of constructivist-oriented pedagogies aimed at explicitly developing learners’ understandings of the NOSI.

In this study, teacher practices was about both what the teacher did and what the learners were doing during teaching and learning of scientific investigations (Vhurumuku, et al., 2006). In other words, practices of inquiry are the extent to which investigations are more or less open-ended (Hegarty-Hazel, 1986). Establishing practices of inquiry aimed at determining the extent to which the practices were open-ended. Open endedness is measured here by the degree or latitude given to learners by the teacher to ask or frame questions for investigation; design and conduct investigations; collect their own data;

17

interpret results; and draw their own conclusions (Dudu & Vhurumuku, 2012). Teaching of investigative activities is described as closed or low-inquiry-oriented if the teacher asks learners to follow step-by-step instructions; answer specific questions; be passive recipients of information; and use teacher and textbook explanations for observed phenomena (Vhurumuku, 2011). Closed-inquiry lessons are also characterized by teacher lecturing to the class or to groups of learners; low levels of learner– learner and learner–teacher argumentation; and having the outcome of experiments known prior to the investigation (Vhurumuku, 2010b).

To the contrary is open ended inquiry, which is learner-centred and associated with such activities as: learners formulating their own problems and questions for investigation; seldom following step-by-step instructions from the teacher or laboratory guide; investigating problems that come up in class; offering alternative explanations to phenomena; high levels of learner-learner and learner-teacher argumentation; and outcomes of experiment being unknown prior to the experiment (Domin, 1999; Shiland, 1999). In general, the greater the latitude given to learners to practice the above activities, the more open-ended the inquiry, i.e. the larger the extent of inquiry. Determining the extent of open- endedness of investigations became an important theoretical construct in this study methodologically, analytically and interpretively because very few studies have specifically focused on determining the extent to which teacher practices of inquiry are open-ended (Keys & Bryan, 2001).

Some reflections on the South African teacher education context suggest that teachers find it difficult to implement open-ended inquiry in science classrooms. According to Kriek and Grayson (2009), the state of science education in South Africa is a cause for concern. This situation can be attributed, in part, to many science teachers’ limited content knowledge, ineffective teaching approaches, and unprofessional attitudes. However, content knowledge alone is not enough, as indicated by Adler and Reed (2002, p.25), who write, “The issue is how to integrate further learning of the subject with learning about how students in school acquire subject knowledge”. They

18

suggest that teachers need to learn “subject knowledge for teaching”. This kind of knowledge is acquired during teacher training and to the South African science teachers; this is obtained during pre-service or in-service programmes at universities since they are the only institutions of teacher training. Teacher training colleges were long shut down. Robinson (1999) elaborates troubles of South African science educators by saying that they are confronted with learners from different racial and economic backgrounds who speak different home languages. The teachers do not know how to teach them. This is impounded by the new curriculum which demands that teachers should use learner-centred or cooperative teaching methods. No-one has ever shown these teachers how to use these methods. Teachers are told to do continuous assessment instead of regular tests. But what exactly is continuous assessment, and why should they do it? Teachers are asked which textbooks they would like to order for their subject. They have never thought about this before and do not know how or what to choose. The principals say there will be an appraisal process at the school and the teachers must give other teachers feedback about their teaching. What should they say? And teachers are not sure whether to study further as it is not clear if this will be recognized for salary purposes. Clearly there are vast and complex challenges for those in South Africa who would wish pre-service and in-teacher education to be a strategy for educational reconstruction. There are countless issues on which have not even begun to be touched, for example, the acceptance that classes of 40 learners is a reality which is here to stay; not to mention the budgetary constraints that make it unlikely that most schools will be able to purchase apparatus and chemicals for scientific investigations to allow teachers to practice inquiry.

1.5 Delimitations

For both teachers’ and learners’ conceptions, the study limits itself to understandings of the nature of scientific inquiry (NOSI). The focus of this study is on NOSI and not on NOS. Additionally, the study specifically focuses on how teacher instructional practices when teaching investigations relate to teachers’ and learners’ understandings of the nature of scientific inquiry. For instructional practices, the specific point of interest was what happens during science lessons in which practical investigations are involved.

19 1.6 Overview of the methodology

An explanatory mixed methods design was utilized, and it involved collecting qualitative data after a quantitative phase in order to explain or follow up on the quantitative data in more depth. In the first quantitative phase of the study, the Learners’ Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (LUSSI), Probes, Learner Perceptions of Classroom Inquiry (LPCI) and Teacher Perception of Classroom Inquiry (TPCI) instruments were used to collect data from both learners and teachers at five schools to determine their NOSI understandings. An interpretative framework which is also organizational known as the multidimension (MD) framework was adapted and used as the lens of analysis. The framework for analyzing probes’ open-ended responses followed a hybrid model produced after fusing the Ibrahim, Buffler and Lubben’s (2009) coding model with Liang et al.’s (2009) rubric for scoring Students’ Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry open- ended responses as described in Chapter 3. The second qualitative phase was conducted in order to explain the quantitative results in more depth with qualitative data (e.g., statistical differences among groups and individuals who scored at extreme levels). In this exploratory follow-up, learners and teachers’ NOSI conceptions and teacher practices were tentatively explored with 23 learners and 5 teachers using interviews and classroom observations at all the five research sites. The study initially intended to use 25 learners for interviews but two of them pulled out leaving 23. The reason for the exploratory follow-up was to help explain or build upon initial quantitative results. The LPCI was adopted as the lens of analysis for teacher practices.