Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Teachers and Museum Educators’ Views About Inquiry Practices:  The Aftermath of a Joint Professional Development Course

Maria Karnezou 1 * ,
Anastasios Zoupidis 2
1 NOESIS – Thessaloniki Science Center and Technology Museum2 University of Western Macedonia* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2020, pp. 3-14
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 792 DOWNLOADS: 363 Publication date: 15 Jan 2020
ABSTRACT
Current science curricula adopt inquiry as a basic component in their proposals, and at the same time they place emphasis on the non-formal aspect of education, due to the fact that inqui ry is easier to be implemented in science centers and museums. In this context, both teachers and museum educators’ roles are viewed with a common lens, as though both groups of professionals have critical roles in the success of a school museum visit,  they do not necessarily share the same agenda for the visit. In the present small-scale qualitative research, we studied two Greek science teachers and two museum educators who attended a joint professional development  course on the Tinkering approach in Milan in the context of an EU funded project. We looked into the impact of the joint course on their views about inquiry and specifically their views about inquiry before and after being exposed to inquiry based Tinkering activities. We also studied their view      s about the joint course per se. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews and the participants’ notes. The results point both to some different and common points between teachers and museum educators’ views. The opportunity to exploit the  results in a broader non-formal science education context is also being discussed.
KEYWORDS
Museum educators, Professional development, Teachers, Views about inquiry teaching practices.
CITATION (APA)
Karnezou, M., & Zoupidis, A. (2020). Teachers and Museum Educators’ Views About Inquiry Practices:  The Aftermath of a Joint Professional Development Course. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.311
REFERENCES
  1. Allen, L.B., & Crowley, K.J. (2014). Challenging Beliefs, Practices, and Content: How Museum Educators
  2. Change. Science Education 98, 84-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21093
  3. Astor-Jack, T., McCallie, E., & Balcerzak, P. (2007). Academic and Informal Science Practitioner Views About Professional Development in Science Education. Science Education, 91(4), 604-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20205
  4. Ash, D. B., Lombana, J., & Alcala, L. (2012). Changing practices, changing identities as museum educators. In E.
  5. Davidsson, A. Jakobsson, (eds.), Understanding Interactions at Science Centers and Museums: Approaching Sociocultural Perspectives, 23–44. Sense Publishers
  6. Buehl, M.M., & Beck, J.S. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In H. Fives & M.G. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs, (pp. 66-84). Routledge, NewYork. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203108437.ch3
  7. Bevan, B., & Xanthoudaki, M. (2008). Professional development for museum educators: Underpinning the underpinnings. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 107 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2008.11510592
  8. Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning Through STEM-Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120.
  9. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21151
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abington, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342
  11. th
  12. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1997). Research Methods in Education. 4 ed. London: Routledge.
  13. J. of Res. in Sci. Math. and Tech. Edu.|
  14. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A Short Review of School visits: Key Findings from the Past and
  15. Implications for the Future, Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355562
  16. Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2013). Examining the beliefs and practices of four effective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-0129297-y
  17. Gess‐Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.) Re-examining
  18. Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, 28-
  19. 42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158
  20. Janssen, F.J.J.M., Westbroek, H., & Van Driel, J.H. (2014). How to make guided discovery learning practical for student teachers? Instructional Science, 42(1), 67-90. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/167982/.
  21. Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing Future Teachers to Science Beyond the Classroom. Journal of Science Teacher
  22. Education, 24(1), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9288-x
  23. Kisiel, J. (2005). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural history museum. Science Education, 90(3), 434 – 452. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20117
  24. National Research Council (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, and M. A. Feder, (Eds.) Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social
  25. Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/12190
  26. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  27. Skayia, A., Avraamidou, L., & Evagorou, M. (2019). How Preservice Elementary Teachers Develop Their Personal
  28. Philosophies About Science Teaching: The Role of Informal Science Approaches. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 71-84. doi:10.31756/jrsmte.222
  29. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research, grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage publications.
  30. Τran, L.U. (2008). The work of science museum educators. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(2), 135153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770802012219
  31. Tsaliki C., Malandrakis G., Zoupidis A., Karnezou M., & P. Kariotoglou (2016). Science teachers’ profile changes concerning non-formal education design. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future, Part 14 Strand 14 In-service science teacher education, continued professional development, Co-editors: Amanda Berry & Digna Couso, (pp. 2370-2377). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. ISBN 978-951-51-1541-6.
  32. Tseng, C.H., Tuan, H.L., & Chin, C.C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165012-9292-3
  33. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.