Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

The Right Answer for the Wrong Reason: Preservice Science and Mathematics Teacher Preferences and Explanations of Inquiry-Based Teaching

Elizabeth R Goldberg 1 2 * ,
Taylor Darwin 3
1 Texas Tech University2 University of Texas Rio Grande Valley3 Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 8, Issue SI, June 2025, pp. 1-25
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 54 DOWNLOADS: 60 Publication date: 15 Jun 2025
ABSTRACT
Inquiry in science and mathematics education has a long and established history within the student-centered teaching movement because it can positively impact student learning, retention, and engagement. Yet few teachers have embraced these practices in the classroom. Potential reasons include misalignment of teachers’ attitudes about inquiry and a lack of understanding of what inquiry is and how to implement it in the classroom. This mixed-methods study compares these claims by examining preservice teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about inquiry-based teaching. Eighty-seven discussion posts were analyzed on preservice science and math teachers’ preferences for inquiry-based versus teacher-centered instruction at the beginning and end of their introductory methods course. While the novice science and math preservice teachers in this study overwhelmingly claimed to prefer inquiry-based instruction to teacher-centered, few were able to identify and articulate features specific to inquiry when asked to explain their preference. Most preservice teachers described other student-centered strategies, such as collaboration and active learning, or general teaching strategies, such as questioning, hands-on activities, and creating a fun and engaging environment. Implications and suggestions for the field are discussed.
KEYWORDS
preservice math and science teachers, inquiry-based teaching, misconceptions, student-centered instruction
CITATION (APA)
Goldberg, E. R., & Darwin, T. (2025). The Right Answer for the Wrong Reason: Preservice Science and Mathematics Teacher Preferences and Explanations of Inquiry-Based Teaching. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(SI), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.411SI
REFERENCES
  1. Acosta, A., & Slotta, J. D. (2018). CKBiology: An active learning curriculum design for secondary biology. Frontiers in Education, 3(52). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00052
  2. Addido, J., Burrows, A. C., & Slater, T. F. (2022). Addressing pre-service teachers’ misconceptions and promoting conceptual understanding through the conceptual change model. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 80(4), 499-515. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.499
  3. Agresti, A. (2018). An introduction to categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  4. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
  5. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479
  6. Bowker, A. H. (1948). A test for symmetry in contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 43(244), 572-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1948.10483284
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition (Vol. 11). National Academy Press.
  8. Brown, S., & Melear, C. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry‐based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 938-962. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20110
  9. Bybee, R. W. (2011). Inquiry is essential. Science and Children, 48(7), 8-9.
  10. Capps, D., Crawford, B., & Constas, M. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2
  11. Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1175306
  12. Chiappetta, E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction: Understanding how content and process go hand-in-hand with school science. The Science Teacher, 71(2), 46-50.
  13. Chin, E.-T., & Lin, F.-L. (2013). A survey of the practice of a large-scale implementation of inquiry-based mathematics teaching: from Taiwan’s perspective. ZDM, 45(6), 919-923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0546-y
  14. Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314-332). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837290
  15. Chinn, C. A., & Iordanou, K. (2023). Theories of learning. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. III, pp. 222-301). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758
  16. Choi, S., & Ramsey, J. (2009). Constructing elementary teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and practical knowledge through an inquiry-based elementary science course. School Science and Mathematics, 109(6), 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb18101.x
  17. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
  18. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045-1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00196
  19. Crawford, B., & Lunetta, V. N. (2002). Promoting the development of a personal philosophy of teaching in prospective secondary science teachers. Pennsylvania Teacher Educator, 1, 68-74. https://view.publitas.com/p222-9062/journal-2002-crawford-lunetta/page/1
  20. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
  21. Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267-36
  22. Cribbs, J. D., Day, M., Duffin, L., & Cowley, K. (2020). Mathematics and science teacher training program improves inquiry practices for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 120(8), 443-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12437
  23. Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction with Technology: A Signature Pedagogy for STEM Education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.658733
  24. Cuban, L. (2009). Hugging the middle: How teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. Teachers College Press.
  25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Jossey-Bass.
  26. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The Holy Grail of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009
  27. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
  28. DiBiase, W., & McDonald, J. R. (2015). Science teacher attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching and learning. The Clearing House, 88(2), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.987717
  29. Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Widodo, A. (2013). Teaching science for conceptual change: Theory and practice. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 629-646). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154472
  30. Duncan, R. G., Av-Shalom, N. a. Y., & Chinn, C. A. (2021). Inquiry and learning in science. In R. G. Duncan & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of inquiry and learning (pp. 325-344). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685779
  31. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 1-37). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911453_002
  32. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203497012
  33. Fazio, X., Melville, W., & Bartley, A. (2010). The problematic nature of the practicum: A key determinant of pre-service teachers’ emerging inquiry-based science practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(6), 665-681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9209-9
  34. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141
  35. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Gradual release of responsibility instructional framework. IRA E-ssentials, 1-8.
  36. Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: Perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9623-5
  37. Furtak, E. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20130
  38. Furtak, E., & Penuel, W. (2018). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands‐on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21488
  39. Furtak, E., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
  40. Goodwin, J. R. (2024). What’s the difference? A comparison of student-centered teaching methods. Education Sciences, 14(7), 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070736
  41. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In H. Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174-199). Cambridge University Press.
  42. Kali, Y. (2021). Guiding frameworks for the design of inquiry learning environments. In R. G. Duncan & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of inquiry and learning (pp. 39-59). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685779
  43. Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
  44. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
  45. Karakaya Cirit, D., & Aydemİr, S. (2020). The effect of self-reflection activities on preservice science teachers’ classroom teaching practices. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 8(15), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.636037
  46. Kim, S. (2015). An analysis of teacher question types in inquiry-based classroom and traditional classroom settings [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.ah4k7h3s
  47. Kirkup, L., Varadharajan, M., & Braun, M. (2016). A comparison of student and demonstrator perceptions of laboratory-based, inquiry-oriented learning experiences. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(2), 1-13.
  48. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  49. Lee, C. K., & Shea, M. (2016). An analysis of pre-service elementary teachers' understanding of inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education International, 27(2), 217-237.
  50. Levy, B. L. M., Thomas, E. E., Drago, K., & Rex, L. A. (2013). Examining studies of inquiry-based learning in three fields of education: Sparking generative conversation [Essay]. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 387+. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113496430
  51. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
  52. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?: The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
  53. McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569.
  54. McNeil, N., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701593899
  55. Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
  56. Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
  57. Moyer, P. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596316942
  58. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. N. A. Press.
  59. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.17226/9596
  60. Nelson, L., & Crow, M. (2014). Do active-learning strategies improve students’ critical thinking? Higher Education Studies, 4. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n2p77
  61. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). PISA 2003 technical report. PISA OECD Publishing.
  62. Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280-1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21543
  63. Öztürk, B., Kaya, M., & Demir, M. (2022). Does inquiry-based learning model improve learning outcomes A second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(4), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202217481
  64. Panaoura, A. (2017). Inquiry-based teaching approach in mathematics by using the history of mathematics: A case study. CERME 10, DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
  65. Parsons, E. R. (2019). Why not an integrative and inclusive approach—hands on and “minds on?” A lesson for mentoring 21st century science education researchers. Science Education, 103(5), 1284-1288. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21540
  66. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
  67. Ross, D. K., & Davidson, A. (2020). Integrating the five practices and model-based inquiry to facilitate meaningful science discourse. Science Scope, 44(1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08872376.2020.12291360
  68. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Shepard, L. A. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science, 331(6022), 1269-1270. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198976
  69. Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis strategies. In P. Leay (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 877-911). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb%2F9780190847388.013.33
  70. Saleh, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Glazewski, K. D. (2021). Collaborative interactions in inquiry learning. In R. G. Duncan & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of inquiry and learning (pp. 239-255). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685779
  71. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
  72. Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B. E., Draijer, J. M., & Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19, 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.003
  73. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025140
  74. Stull, A., & Mayer, R. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808-820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808
  75. Wale, B. D., & Bishaw, K. S. (2020). Effects of using inquiry-based learning on EFL students’ critical thinking skills. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00090-2
  76. Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3), 263-267. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16558680
  77. Wallace, C. S., Prather, E. E., Milsom, J. A., Johns, K., & Manne, S. (2021). Students taught by a first-time instructor using active learning teaching strategies outperform students taught by a highly regarded traditional instructor. Journal of College Science Teaching, 50(4), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.09684
  78. Wang, J. (2020). Compare inquiry-based pedagogical instruction with direct instruction for pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(6), 1063-1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10010-7
  79. Webb, N. M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 19-40). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837290
  80. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10044
  81. Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2020). Relationship between pre-service mathematics teachers' knowledge, beliefs and instructional practices in China. ZDM, 52(2), 281-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01145-x
  82. Zhang, L. (2016). Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort?: Some thoughts worth considering. Science & Education, 25, 897-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9856-0
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.