First-Year Teachers’ Uphill Struggle to Implement Inquiry Instruction

Abstract

This longitudinal study of six first-year teachers focused on conceptualizations of inquiry-based pedagogy, self-efficacy for inquiry-based teaching, and its actual enactment. Data included a self-report survey of self-efficacy for inquiry-based instruction, individual interviews at the beginning and end of the year, and five distributed classroom observations. At year's end, selfefficacy for inquiry teaching declined, as did frequencies of concepts teachers used to describe inquiry enactment. Inquiry descriptions reflected a set of interrelated procedures more than inquiry as conceptual knowledge. Novice teachers were observed least enacting pedagogical actions that required enabling students to communicate findings and the most in student engagement; however, over time frequencies of student engagement declined. Consistent patterns were observed between shifts in self-efficacy and inquiry enactment and shifts between self-efficacy and conceptualizations of inquiry enactment. We found beginning steps toward links between teacher's conceptualizations and classroom practice.

Staff goals, challenges, and use of student inquiry in undergraduate bioscience teaching laboratories

“…A unique aspect of teaching labs is the unique opportunities for student active inquiry [ 10 ], which has been reported as conducive to positive outcomes [ 24 , 25 ], but can be challenging to implement [ 28 ]. Staff were asked about the percentage of labs in which students must make decisions in different parts of the lab experience, in alignment with adapted literature rubric levels [ 36 , 39 ].…”

“…In interviews, teaching labs were seen as having the potential to be first steps for student inquiry. Many interviewees said they hoped or intended to incorporate more of these elements, referencing frustrations with ‘cookbook’ labs [ 86 ], but were often limited by the common concern of time constraints [ 28 ].…”

“…This widespread format provides large cohorts some practical experience in a fairly resource‐efficient way, but there are concerns it requires mainly lower‐order procedural thinking [ 27 ] over full engagement with the larger purposes of their investigation and the steps required to achieve it [ 9 ]. On the contrary, inquiry‐centric sessions involve more complexity and uncertainty by nature, requiring a shifting of roles and requirements for both staff and students [ 28 ]. They can be time‐consuming to implement and run [ 27 ], and may induce anxiousness, reluctance [ 29 ] and a need for additional support [ 26 ].…”

What Makes Inquiry Stick? The Quality of Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Inquiry

“…Richer data could be available from a longitudinal design more like Crawford's (1999) or Windschitl's (2002), but with a purposeful sample that includes student-teachers with a range of experiences in terms of research and research-related courses. We did not follow their progress from acceptance into university to graduation as a teacher and into professional practice, as done by Chichekian, Shore, and Tabatabai (2016), who also triangulated other data, such as interviews and focus groups.…”

“…Rather, the distinction might especially help describe the trajectory from novice to expert inquiry teacher. Chichekian et al (2016) specifically addressed this progression, but with regard to self-efficacy for inquiry instruction rather than understanding of inquiry.…”