In this paper, we describe an innovative course that attempts to meet the guidelines proposed by AETS. Although taught in the College of Education, Inquiry Empowering Technologies for Supporting Scientific Inquiry<\/i> is a science content course with the focus on science learning, rather than a science “methods” course. The instructional team selected science topics in which alternative conceptions abound. The computer-based tools selected for use in the course, referred to as “inquiry empowering technologies” (Zembal-Saul, 2002; Zembal-Saul, Munford, & Friedrichsen, 2002), were specially designed to support scientific inquiry by providing access to complex databases and powerful tools for organizing and analyzing data, visualizing complex scientific phenomena, and constructing evidence-based arguments (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Reiser, Tabak, & Sandoval, 2001). The use of electronic journals and the development of web-based science teaching and learning philosophies were essential components of the course, allowing students’ views to be made public. Through public sharing of ideas, students were able to compare and contrast their views with those of the scientific community. Additionally, the web-based philosophies and class discussions were designed to support the students’ developing understandings of the relationship between technology and science.<\/p>\n
The Context of the Secondary Science Teacher Education Program<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The course, Inquiry Empowering Technologies for Supporting Scientific Inquiry, is the first course in a three-semester sequence of science teaching and learning courses. This first course is designed to provide reform-oriented science learning experiences early in the program. The second and third courses in the sequence focus on science teaching<\/i> (i.e., methods courses). At the end of the third course, prospective teachers enroll in a 5-week practicum in which they observe and teach in secondary schools. As part of this practicum experience, prospective teachers design and teach an inquiry-based science unit. After the completion of these three courses and practicum experience, prospective secondary science teachers enter their student teaching semester.<\/p>\n
Description of the Course<\/p>\n
Course Goals<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The design of the course was informed by three central goals: (a) engage prospective science teachers (PSTs) in authentic science experiences in a technology-rich environment designed to promote and support scientific inquiry; (b) situate science learning within a social context; and (c) promote reflection on learning. In reference to “authentic” science experiences, the instructional team wanted prospective teachers to participate<\/i> in practices and discourses that parallel those taking place in “formal science” (Brown, Collins, & Duiguid, 1989). For instance, an essential aspect of scientists’ work involves investigation in a rich and complex context to reach conclusions based on evidence (Hogan & Maglienti, 2001). By engaging students in authentic science experiences, the intent was to promote a shift from a discourse centered in authority to a discourse centered on interpretation of evidence (Osborne, Erduran, Simon, & Monk, 2000). In addition, the instructional team selected a set of inquiry empowering technologies as an essential component of creating authentic science experiences. “The successful adaptation of scientific practice for learning will place the tools and techniques of scientists into the hands of students in a context that reflects the characteristics of science practice” (Edelson, 1998, p. 319). Furthermore, by engaging students in authentic science experiences, the instructional team expected that prospective teachers’ knowledge about the natural world would become less inert and could be used by these learners in realistic situations (Edelson, 2001).<\/p>\n
The second goal was to challenge traditional conceptions of science learning, which are centered on factual information and individualistic sense-making (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996). The instructional team’s goal was to promote a notion of scientific knowledge as socially constructed, an idea that has became increasingly prevalent in science education and teacher education literature (e.g., Putnam & Borko, 1997; Roth, 1995). Thus, in this course, the instructional team designed opportunities for students to work collaboratively to construct scientific understanding. The third goal was to promote PSTs’ reflection on their science learning experiences. This goal derives from the perspective that the learner is the one who actively constructs knowledge, instead of being a passive receptor of information. Thus, opportunities for PSTs to reflect on their experiences and construct new understandings included peer review sessions, class discussions, and the ongoing development of a web-based philosophy of science teaching and learning.<\/p>\n
Course Structure: Three Discipline-Specific Modules<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The instructional team, consisting of a professor and three graduate students, worked collaboratively to design, implement, and revise the course. Each of the graduate students served as the lead instructor for a module, drawing on their expertise as former secondary science teachers. The 15-week course was comprised of three modules, with each module focusing on a difference science discipline: life, physical, and earth science. The course was designed to engage learners in multiple science disciplines for several reasons. First, the instructional team wanted the prospective teachers to experience at least one of the modules as learners. Secondary science teachers major in a specific science discipline, and the instructional team expected that the prospective teachers would have more content knowledge in some modules (those most closely connected to their major) and less in other modules. Findings from a pilot study indicated that some prospective teachers resisted engaging as learners in a module in their content area, in an attempt to avoid opening themselves up to the possibility of revealing a lack of robust subject matter knowledge (Zembal-Saul, Munford, Crawford, Friedrichsen, & Land, 2001). By designing the course with modules in multiple disciplines, the instructional team’s intent was to engage the prospective teachers as science learners, rather than perceived content experts.<\/p>\n
Second, by representing multiple disciplines in the course, the instructional team’s intent was to address an aspect of the nature of science frequently neglected in school science \u2014 the common misconception of a single scientific method. This misconception is rarely challenged in classrooms (Driver et al., 1996; Rudolph & Stewart, 1998), despite the extensive evidence derived from science studies (Hess, 1997). For example, in the life science module, students analyzed a dataset of observational field data, whereas in the physical science module, students collected and analyzed experimental data. The course design reflected the instructors’ goal of challenging PSTs’ preconceived notions of a single scientific method.<\/p>\n
Module Structure: Pedagogical Approaches Illustrated with the Life Science Module<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Consistent pedagogical approaches were used across the three modules (see Table 1). Within each module, a problem context and a driving question were used to focus the students’ inquiry. Evolutionary biology was the focus of the life science module. At the beginning of each module, students’ prior knowledge was assessed. Throughout the module, students used inquiry empowering technologies to build evidence-based arguments. The students engaged in peer review, and class presentations and electronic journals were used for assessment purposes. At the end of each module, students revised their web-based science teaching and learning philosophies. In the following sections, these pedagogical approaches are elaborated and illustrated with examples from the life science module.<\/p>\n
Table 1<\/p>\n
Overview of Modules<\/p>\n
![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v3i2currpracfig1.gif\")
<\/p>\n