College Science Teachers Views

of Classroom Inquiry
PATRICK L. BROWN, SANDRA K. ABELL, ABDULKADIR DEMIR
Science Education Center, University of MissouriColumbia, Columbia,
MO 65211, USA
FRANCIS J. SCHMIDT
Department of Biochemistry, University of MissouriColumbia, Columbia,
MO 65211, USA
Received 18 November 2005; revised 15 February 2006; accepted 24 February 2006
DOI 10.1002/sce.20151
Published online 15 May 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT: The purposes of this study were to (a) gain an understanding of the views of inquiry held by faculty members involved in undergraduate science teaching and
(b) describe the challenges, constraints, and opportunities that they perceived in designing and teaching inquiry-based laboratories. Participants included 19 college professors,
representing both life and physical science disciplines, from (a) 2-year community college,
(b) small, private nonprofit liberal arts college, (c) public masters granting university, and
(d) public doctoral/research extensive university. We collected data through semistructured
interviews and applied an iterative data analysis process. College science faculty members
held a full and open inquiry view, seeing classroom inquiry as time consuming, unstructured, and student directed. They believed that inquiry was more appropriate for upper level
science majors than for introductory or nonscience majors. Although faculty members valued inquiry, they perceived limitations of time, class size, student motivation, and student
ability. These limitations, coupled with their view of inquiry, constrained them from implementing inquiry-based laboratories. Our proposed inquiry continuum represents a broader
view of inquiry that recognizes the interaction between two dimensions of inquiry: (a) the
degree of inquiry and (b) the level of student directedness, and provides for a range of
C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:784 802, 2006
inquiry-based classroom activities. 

INTRODUCTION
College science courses in the United States all too often are taught as a litany of facts,
leading many science students to not understand the role of scientists and the scientific
Correspondence to: Patrick L. Brown; e-mail: plbtfc@mizzou.edu
Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation.
Contract grant number: DUE 0230779.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
This paper was edited by former Editor Nancy W. Brickhouse.

C

2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

785

community in doing science (Longbottom & Butler, 1999) and diverting many away from
majoring in science. In a study by Seymour and Hewitt (1994), the number one complaint
of 90% of former science majors who switched to a nonscience major, as well as 75% of
those who persevered in science majors, was poor teaching. In particular, these students
complained that their courses lacked studentteacher dialogue, were overfocused on memorization, and lacked illustrations, applications, and implications of the material covered.
This situation has been accompanied by a decrease in laboratory-based science instruction
at the college level. From the 1970s to the 1980s, the number of laboratory offerings in
colleges fell by 20% (National Science Foundation [NSF], 1996). In a survey from fall,
1992, only 10% of students were enrolled in the 20% of physical and biological sciences
courses that were laboratory centered (NSF, 1996). Furthermore, when laboratories are
implemented, they often are used to verify lecture material by asking students to follow
a recipe, instead of engaging students in problem finding and problem solving. The issue
of poor instruction in undergraduate science in the United States has been recognized as
a national problem, resulting in insufficient numbers of U.S. students who enter graduate
schools to become scientists as well as dismal statistics on public understanding of science
(National Science Board, 1996).
Recommendations for improving undergraduate science instruction focus in part on
demonstrating that science is a human enterprise.
Covering the history of the field, demonstrating the process of discovery, or presenting other
stories as examples of how scientists workwhile clearly illustrating why the knowledge
that has been gained is relevant to the lives and surroundings of the studentsis an excellent
way to engage undergraduates. (Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare
Research Scientists for the 21st Century, 2003, p. 3)

One suggestion for meeting this instructional goal is to improve laboratory instruction
through inquiry, where students use scientific methods to investigate phenomena and solve
problems (Hodson, 1993). Some institutions of higher education have devoted resources
to improving science instruction for both science and nonscience majors via inquiry-based
instruction (McNeal & DAvanzo, 1997). Inquiry-based activities have been used to encourage students to immerse themselves in the project, giving them a more active role
in their science education (Tolman, 2001, p. 12). However, for many other institutions,
the constraints of multicourse teaching loads, large lecture courses, and competing faculty
responsibilities such as research and outreach, work against the reform of undergraduate
science instruction.
Improved undergraduate science courses and laboratories can serve two main purposes:
(a) illustrate to majors and nonmajors both science processes and products, leading to
improved understanding of science and (b) help future scientists develop the interests,
skills, and understandings necessary to conduct scientific research, leading to increased
numbers of students in science career paths. The reform of science instruction at any level
depends on teachers (Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, 2001).
Understanding teachers views about perceived innovations in science teaching increases the
chance of success in implementing changes in curriculum or instruction. However, college
science teachers views of inquiry have not been well studied. We begin to address this gap
in the literature through the present study. The purposes of this research were to (a) gain an
understanding of the views of inquiry held by faculty members involved in undergraduate
science education and (b) describe the challenges, constraints, and opportunities that college
science instructors perceive in integrating inquiry into laboratory instruction.

786

BROWN ET AL.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

According to the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council
[NRC], 1996a), inquiry is both a teaching approach and a learning goal. Inquiry learning
goals include abilities to do inquiry and understandings about inquiry. Views of classroom
inquiry are grounded in understandings of how science is practiced (Anderson, 2002).
Inquiry refers to diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world, propose ideas,
and explain and justify assertions based upon evidence derived from scientific work. It also
refers to more authentic ways in which learners can investigate the natural world, propose
ideas, and explain and justify assertions based up evidence and, in the process, sense the
spirit of science. (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003, p. 30, emphasis in original)

Most of the research on science classroom inquiry has focused on inquiry as a teaching approach, an approach which typically has produced positive results (Anderson, 2002). What
makes this research difficult to understand is the lack of agreement about what constitutes an
inquiry-based approach. The bulk of the research has taken place in precollege classrooms
examining the outcomes of various blends of inquiry-based instruction. These studies are
hard to compare given the differing meanings for inquiry that have been employed. Several studies examined the constraints that precollege teachers face in implementing inquiry
(Adams & Krockover, 1997; Loughran, 1994; Roehrig & Luft, 2004; Trautmann, MaKinster, & Avery, 2004). These researchers found that the barriers to implementing inquiry included logistical constraints, lack of administrative support, teacher knowledge, and teacher
perceptions of students.
Turning to the literature on college science teaching, the number of publications related
to inquiry-based instruction decreases considerably. Although a host of publications describe ongoing efforts to implement inquiry in college science classrooms (Crandall, 1997;
Glasson & McKenzie, 1997/1998; Harker, 1999; Stukus & Lennox, 1995; Sunal, Wright, &
Day, 2004; Tichenor, 1996/1997; Tolman, 2001; Weld, Rogers, & Heard, 1999), including
how to use inquiry-based instruction in nonlaboratory settings (Ingram, Lehman, Love, &
Polacek, 2004; Reeve, Hammond, & Bradshaw, 2004), little empirical work exists.
A few researchers have studied the dilemmas that college level instructors face when
implementing inquiry-based instruction in college science courses. For example, Smith and
Anderson (1999) investigated a university physics course for elementary education majors.
The dilemma they faced was how to engage two groups of students, whom they labeled as
the knowers and the wonderers, in learning physics through inquiry. The knowers had been
successful in science and valued right answers, while the wonderers doubted their ability
to learn science. Yet in the course, both groups resisted making sense of science through
personal experience and collective dialogue. Southerland, Gess-Newsome, and Johnston
(2003) examined how three scientists designed and implemented a new university science
course. Two physicists and one ecologist faced a major dilemma in their collaboration.
The physicists wanted to implement inquiry-based activities, while the ecologist wanted
to use classroom time to tell students the important information. Throughout the planning
sessions, he vocally opposed the physicists inquiry-oriented approach. The resulting course
had limited amounts of inquiry-based instruction. Volkmann and Zgagacz (2004) teamed
up as faculty member and graduate student to implement an inquiry-based physics course
for elementary education majors. They faced conflicts between their respective beliefs
about teaching, learning, and assessing as they negotiated with students throughout the
course (Volkmann, Abell, & Zgagacz, 2005). The professors view of inquiry included not
only collecting data, but also developing and defending explanations. Much of the conflict

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

787

among the players revolved around the question of whose job it was to explain physics
(p. 862).
These studies illustrate that the success of inquiry-based instruction is influenced, in
part, by the understandings, values, and beliefs that instructors hold about classroom inquiry. However, little research exists in this area. Harwood, Reiff, and Phillipson (2002)
interviewed 52 science faculty members about their conceptions of scientific inquiry. The
researchers found that scientists considered the review and understanding of published literature surrounding their questions to be the most important aspect of scientific investigations.
The scientists described another key characteristic of scientific inquirythat it is fueled
by questions which drive investigations, moving from the known to the unknown. These
conceptions of scientific inquiry were common across scientific disciplines. Yet how do
conceptions of scientific inquiry transfer to views of classroom inquiry? We believe that the
next logical step in the research is to understand scientists conceptions of science classroom
inquiry. That is the focus of this study.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study was guided by the following research questions: What are the views of inquiry
held by life science and physical science faculty members at various types of institutions
of higher education? What do they perceive to be the benefits of and challenges to inquirybased instruction? Do these college teachers views differ by institutional type or science
discipline?
METHODOLOGY
This study is grounded in the research tradition of phenomenography. Phenomenographic
research focuses on developing, recognizing, describing, and understanding the qualitatively
different ways in which people experience certain phenomena (Breen, 1999; Hasselgren &
Beach, 1997; Limberg, 1999; Marton, 1981, 1992, 1994, 1996; Marton & Booth, 1997;
Marton & Fai, 1999; Trigwell, 2001; Uljens, 1996). Phenomenographers seek to understand
individuals conceptions of a particular phenomenon, not the reality of the phenomenon.
Interview is typically the primary data source (Booth, 1997; Hasselgren & Beach, 1997;
Limberg, 1999; Marton, 1994; Svensson, 1997; Trigwell, 2001). By uniting data from more
than one individual, researchers uncover different ways of thinking about the phenomenon.
The phenomenon of interest to this study was views of inquiry in the college science
classroom.
The participants were 19 college science professors, 11 women and 8 men. Nine were
from life science (biological science, biochemistry, fisheries and wildlife) and ten from
physical science (chemistry, geology, and physics) disciplines. We purposefully selected
these participants based on their active involvement in teaching introductory science courses.
The sample included faculty members from four different types of institutions: (a) public
doctoral/research extensive university, (b) public masters granting university, (c) small
private nonprofit liberal arts college, and (d) 2-year community college.
We conducted one semistructured interview (Patton, 2002; Seidman, 1998) with each
participant at his/her home institution. The interviews lasted approximately one hour. Interviewees were asked a series of questions about their beliefs and practices in laboratory
instruction, including their best and worst experiences as a laboratory instructor and their
experiences with and meanings for inquiry. Given the phenomenographic foundation of
the study, we started with a basic protocol, but approached the interviews as a dialogue to
explore the interviewees meanings and experiences of inquiry.

788

BROWN ET AL.

In phenomenography, the central focus of data analysis is on differentiating parts of

the data in terms of their internal consistency (do the elements show consistency in the
referential and structural aspect), and the relations between them (do they together provide
full coverage of variations in the total data) (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997, p. 194). In order
to determine the phenomenographic categories of description and their internal consistency,
we applied an iterative data analysis process. First, we independently read and analyzed a
subset of interviews. Collectively we reached consensus on a set of analysis codes and their
definitions. Individually each researcher applied the codes to a set of interviews using NVivo
qualitative research analysis software. After coding an interview, the researcher created a
profile of that individual. This provided both data reduction and synthesis for each interview.
Once the coding and profiles were complete, we met to determine the patterns and themes
across the data set and generated a set of tentative assertions. Individually we returned to
the data to test the claims and find supporting evidence. Finally, we performed a cross-case
analysis by institution type and science discipline.
In this study, our understanding of inquiry was guided by NRCs (2000) five essential features of inquiry. The five essential features include (1) learner engages in scientifically oriented questions, (2) learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions, (3) learner
formulates explanations from evidence, (4) learner connects explanations to scientific
knowledge, and (5) learner communicates and justifies explanations (p. 29). We used this
meaning of classroom inquiry as a point of departure to understand and compare the meanings of inquiry held by science faculty of various disciplines at various institutional types.
FINDINGS
We present our findings in two ways. To examine college science teachers views and
practices of inquiry, we present five profiles. These profiles provide a context in which
to understand the views and practices of individual faculty members. We selected these
individuals because they represent the range of institutional types and science disciplines
in our data set. Second, to capture the broader data set, we present our assertions along with
evidence from the interviews related to participants views of inquiry, perceived constraints
to implementing inquiry, and benefits of using inquiry-based instruction.
Profiles of College Science Instructors
Bob Larson is a science faculty member at a masters
granting institution located in a small midwestern town. His teaching experiences include
but are not limited to liberal arts chemistry for nonmajors, general chemistry, quantitative
analyses of chemistry, instrumental analyses of chemistry, advanced analytical chemistry,
and sophomore chemistry seminar safety and ethics. In a typical general chemistry class,
he has approximately 70 students and in an upper level chemistry class such as instrumental
analysis he has 1015 students. Larson does not design his own labs. For general chemistry,
all the chemistry faculty at his institution use the same lab manual that they have revised
over time. Larson views classroom inquiry as students using skills to solve science problems
in real-life or a laboratory setting.

Profile 1: Bob Larson, Chemistry.

I look at that as this concept [inquiry] as using your skills or your tools to solve a problem. I
want people to be able to read an article in the newspaper or think about some element they
may be voting on and use what theyve taken out of this course to make wise decisions. . . I
think about a lot is how do we teach problem-solving enough so that students understand
what science is all about.

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

789

His teaching practices vary from teacher directed with lower level students to more student
directed with upper level students. With nonmajor and introductory students, he uses structured activities that have been framed in a relevant context. He feels that with introductory
science majors, the role of a laboratory is to confirm lecture material. Confirmation is important because this knowledge is a prerequisite for subsequent coursework. He also uses
confirmation labs to emphasize critical thinking by asking students to draw conclusions
from data. He tries to show nonmajors how science relates to their everyday experiences.
To do a real context-based experiment we need to realize that students in that class are not
going to go on and do science for the rest of their life career. They may not even take any
more courses afterwards. So we are not really training scientists at that stage, were training
people to make wise decisions.

Contrary to his practices with introductory and nonmajor students, Larsons practices with
upper level students include more inquiry-based activities where he provides less guidance.
With upper level students he sees his role as a facilitator, so that after two or three years
students can build the abilities to conduct scientific inquiry. He believes he can use inquirybased strategies with upper level students because these students are dedicated to learning
science and have developed science process skills to be able to perform more studentcentered research.
Theyve already gone through a couple semesters of laboratory, so students are at the point
where they need to be able to rely on their self and knowledge. . . . In an upper level class
having them have a sample, towards the end of the semester to investigate and question on
their own. . . . You have to have a reasonable amount of time and expectations for students
[to do inquiry]. . . . In the upper level courses, there are sort of some independent projects
to varying levels of success where students are expected to come up with their own project
in class and execute the plan but they dont have the chance to repeat the experiment.

Bob Larson perceives logistical constraints to using inquiry-based approaches with introductory and nonmajor students, including class size and facilities.
We can only put 24 people in a lab so thats basically kind of a challenge. We try and work
people in small groups, two or three where the laboratory is not particularly scripted. . . .
Its a logistics issue. . . . [With] too few instruments you have two groups of students that
use the same measurement when you only have one version of them, of the instrument they
need, that forces you to figure out a way to work around that.

Additionally, he believes student factors are a barrier to using inquiry; in particular students
often lack motivation to carry out inquiry activities.
I mean thats probably the one characteristicthat students dont like it if theyre in the
laboratory for three or four hours. And we try and keep their motivation for the whole time,
but the quicker they lose a purpose the quicker you lose them.

In Larsons view, students benefit from inquiry by becoming better at problem solving and
critical thinking. He believes that inquiry-based activities require students to use what they
know to solve a problem. By doing so, they can understand that science is a process of
gathering evidence to understand results and recognize how they can use science to make
wise decisions in their lives.

790

BROWN ET AL.

Alex White is a faculty member at a research extensive

institution where he has taught the following courses: geology, principles of geology, igneous and metamorphic geology, petrology, geochemistry, and structural geology. Currently
he teaches nonmajors geology, a course with about 300 students. For this course he uses a
traditional text that he believes adequately illustrates geological concepts. White does not
design his own labs; he modifies existing labs to emphasize the content covered in lecture.
Given the large number of students, graduate teaching assistants (TAs) instruct the laboratories, where there are only 24 students to a section. White views inquiry as active learning
that is initiated by students asking and answering questions. He feels students have better
chances to learn through inquiry in the laboratory, where class size is smaller than in the
lecture setting.

Profile 2: Alex White, Geology.

The class sizes are smaller, so you actually have chances of personal interaction. Unless
you learn really well by listening and put a lot of effort in drawing nice pictures in the
lecture class, it is still a very stationary, immobile kind of thing. Unless you learn well by
reading and listening, lab is much better. I am sure more learning comes from lecture, but
understanding what those facts mean come from lab as far as Im concerned.

Whites teaching practices fluctuate from teacher guided with nonmajors and introductory
students to more student driven with upper level science majors. In introductory courses,
he uses traditional lecture/lab activities because he feels the students need a base of content
knowledge. White tries to show these students how science is relevant to their everyday
experiences.
At the undergrad level, geology majors, there are a lot of worries that they need to get a
certain amount of content. It is hard not to focus on the content. I try not to focus on it
too much, but if not focusing on it at all, they will never learn the content. . . .The most
important thing for them to realize things like the where the earth is in the solar system,
what controls the earth surface processes, where earthquakes/volcanoes occur, and why the
future economy of America is deathly because of the over-reliance on oil.

White believes that, in both inquiry and problem-based learning, students analyze questions.
In his view, inquiry is different from problem solving because inquiry involves students in
independent investigations. White uses problem-solving activities rather than inquiry with
upper level science majors. He believes students at this level should develop research skills
and have background knowledge to solve scientific problems, but not necessarily be able
to investigate their own questions.
You could quite easily do inquiry-based learning, and to some extent with a graduate class,
it ought to be. We tailor the materials covered to the audience. In a graduate class, I pose
a couple of problems and [students] have to give you the answer, and they have some
information as to how to do that. It is more of a problem solving thing; it depends on the
outcome, rather than complete freedom [to investigate].

White perceives logistical and student factors as constraints to using inquiry approaches.
With nonmajors and introductory students, he finds his class sizes are too big to allow
students to ask or answer questions; in the laboratory his TAs do not have the necessary
background or teaching skills to guide students in inquiry learning. Moreover, he believes
student factors also impede the use of inquiry approaches. He finds many students are not
motivated to be doing college level work and do not have the foundational mathematics
abilities required of inquiry.

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

791

In a class of 300, I am comfortable asking questions of students and of them asking me

questions. . . However, it is very hard to encourage questions. I will stop and ask students
basic questions, not really having them inquire. . . . The first couple of times you teach, the
reflex is to teach as you were taught, to get your words in the right order, and not to get
things mixed up. Consequently, because we have TAs that come from all different places,
it makes it difficult. . . . In my big auditorium classes, we have some problems that there
are students in there who, honestly, should not be in the university. . . . The main problem
there is basic math. Were not talking about whether theyve done a calculus class or not,
were talking about whether they can multiply by 1000 and come up with the right number.

White believes that students benefit from inquiry by developing critical thinking skills and
a better understanding of science. In his introductory course, he uses an Internet-based
discussion board to promote conversations about the topics covered in class: We try to
make a point that geology is useful and that some knowledge of science in todays world
makes sense. . . . I am really impressed with the quality of the class, they are using WebCT,
and have some really good questions for discussion.
Melinda Howard is a science faculty member at a
liberal arts institution and has experience teaching the following courses: general chemistry,
organic chemistry, quantitative analysis of chemistry, environmental chemistry, and physical
science. She does not design her own labs and uses a traditional text, selected based on her
experiences at another institution. Howard believes inquiry is largely unstructured, student
driven, and original research. Howard does not use inquiry activities with her nonmajors
or introductory students. She feels that inquiry is appropriate for upper level classes only,
where students have a lot of background knowledge. She provides laboratory activities for
nonmajors and introductory students that are relevant to their everyday lives to keep them
motivated to learn science.

Profile 3: Melinda Howard, Chemistry.

I think it [inquiry] is a horrible buzzword. I dont put an introductory student in the lab and
say go figure something out, and not give them any background. Sure you can ask them to
read, but they still dont know what a stirring rod is or an Erlenmeyer flask is. I think it is
a bad word. I do think, you are right though, learning is not, you know, you sit and share
and I lecture and you suck it up. You cant do that, and that is definitely true. But I dont
like the idea of putting somebody who doesnt have a background in a situation where they
have to figure something out. . . . [If ] students feel like you are doing something [during
laboratory] that applies to their life, that is what youll probably get from my lab.

Even though Howard views inquiry as more appropriate with upper level science majors,
she is concerned that they too may lack the necessary background knowledge. With these
students, she prefers to have them carry out library inquiry rather than laboratory investigations.
Inquiry is certainly for the upper level courses, but I think at the beginning you need to start
them [upper level students] out with some background. . . . So they actually have to go to
the library and to the literature and look up how do you do anything. That part is good, I
definitely think that library inquiry is great.

Howard feels constrained to using inquiry-oriented activities with nonmajors and introductory students because of student and logistical factors. She perceives students as lacking
motivation and having limited knowledge background in mathematics and science. Additionally, she feels her class sizes are too large and she has inadequate facilities.

792

BROWN ET AL.
Many students got an A in high school because they sat in their desk, they came to class and
they filled out the worksheet. I dont know if they were actually able to get their answers
correct from the worksheet or not, but they got graded for being there and being wellbehaved and they think they are going to get these grades in college and they have to learn
the material and they dont grasp it very well. . . . I think that inquiry would be appropriate
if I had time for a one-on-one basis to work with students. If you have got 22 students in
lab, you dont have time for all of them to pose questions or even in groups, and try to
research. It takes more than how labs are broken up into hour and 45 minute labs. It cant
be an advantage for questions if it takes several lab periods. . . . And here we dont have the
facilities for students to do individual research projects.

Howard perceives inquiry to be most beneficial when it involves students who are motivated
to learn for the sake of gaining knowledge. In this case, she finds that some of her science
majors are so focused on fine details that they miss the larger science concepts. She feels
that nonmajors, who have limited background knowledge, are more open to understanding
science phenomena.
Physical sciences students do better in lab; the science majors tend to get so wrapped up
in the details that they cant see the big picture. Nonscience majors come in there like, I
dont know anything, teach me something. And they are more likely to see the big picture,
so they do a pretty good job. You know, before they hadnt particularly noticed maybe that
the moon rises and sets, and they dont think about that fact that it isnt always in the same
position in the sky, and they also dont think about the fact that maybe it is going to be out
during the day and not in the evening, so it makes them at least aware of the moon change,
in a way that they havent been.

Matt Ryle is a fisheries and wildlife faculty member at a research extensive institution. His course experiences include, but are not
limited to senior wildlife conservation, ornithology, conservation biology, environmental
research for journalists, professional development in writing, and college teaching. Ryle
feels that the most effective labs are those he has spent time designing by creating unique
contexts from his own experiences and collaborations with professionals in wildlife conservation. According to Ryle, inquiry is a process of guiding students in problem solving
and having students generate relevant questions.

Profile 4: Matt Ryle, Fisheries and Wildlife.

The first step in any inquiry is that you have to define what question what problem am I
dealing with, you have to think about what information will I use or create to begin to solve
it. . . . You want [students] to learn how to ask any kind of question, but they need to be able
to look at a question and say what underlies here or where does this lead. These are basic
skills that scientists or non-scientists need to have.

Ryle guides his nonmajor and introductory students in learning and helps them generate
authentic questions and develop conceptual understandings of science content. To facilitate learning with nonmajors and introductory students, Ryle uses problem-based wildlife
scenarios. He has created a curriculum that provides students with real-life scenarios and
instruction based on the problem-based learning strategies used in many medical schools.
Most of them [students] are very enthusiastic about [problem-based learning] because they
see that this is a real-world scenario. And I usually write these with characters with jobs
with different agencies that they would know and they like the reality.

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

793

Matt Ryle perceives some logistical and student factors as constraints to using problembased approaches. He believes that many students do not have enough time or the background
knowledge to research new information and make connections with their prior conceptions.
Additionally, he feels constrained because he does not have enough time to continually
create and revise wildlife scenarios.
Unlike the graduate level or medical school model, I provide [undergraduate students] with
a set of resources associated with the learning objectives. I dont feel like the undergrads
have time to dig out the key materials and actually as the semester evolves they get more
and more independent. . . . At the undergraduate level I dont really just turn them lose to
find resources. At the graduate level I do that; at the undergraduate level its a little more
spoon-fed. . . . If I am teaching nonmajors it is going to be a lot more challenging.

Ryle finds that student engagement and long-term learning are benefits to using inquiry
and problem-based approaches. Students are more motivated to learn when activities are
framed in a relevant context.
Student engagement is higher when the science content is relevant to their interests and
learning is applicable to their everyday activities. . . . They will remember more from this
[inquiry] experience than [the cookbook] four years out. If you want them to have a deeper
understanding of gravity, then [inquiry] is definitely the way to go.

Stacy Foster is a life scientist and assistant professor

at a masters granting institution. Her course experiences include: general biology, genetics, evolution, restoration ecology, and conservation biology. Foster designs most of her
courses to be intellectually challenging for her students. In her general biology classes, she
usually has 60 students and in an upper level course, such as evolution, there are fewer than
20 students. Foster believes that inquiry is when students ask questions and investigate their
scientific interests, whether by investigating phenomena or doing library research.

Profile 5: Stacy Foster, Biology.

Inquiry is where you ask the questions and you seek answers. I dont think today, with our
databases, all scientific research out there, that it necessarily has to be wet to do research.
It could be asking questions, going and pulling [literature], and then synthesizing it.

Fosters views about inquiry change to meet the needs of a maturing science student. With
introductory level science students, she uses guided inquiry because students have not yet
developed science background skills. With upper level majors, Foster uses student-centered
investigations and allows students to test their own questions because they have the necessary
science process knowledge to carry out an independent research project.
Each table of four gets a different plant species. They have to learn about their plant species,
so that means library research. And they give a presentation about their species and then
[generate] a scientific question that they think they can answer using molecular markers.
Then they write a manuscript, recording whether or not the molecular technique they used
provided them with molecular markers that they could use to address their question.

Foster believes there are benefits to inquiry learning. When students use inquiry, they
develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills and learn about the processes and
nature of science. Foster believes that the motivation to learn science starts at an early age
and grade level. Therefore, young learners need inquiry activities that will spark their desire

794

BROWN ET AL.

to learn science. According to Foster, the benefits to inquiry learning are so valuable that
elementary and high school teachers should have more research experiences so that they
can fully appreciate and teach using scientific inquiry techniques.
Stacy Foster perceives both student factors and logistical factors as constraints to using
inquiry. She believes inquiry investigations become difficult at her institution because of
limited space for students to conduct research.
We expect a lot from out students here, and it is obvious that there are some students in
our population that are more than ready for that, but we also have a population of students
or a group of students in that population that are not ready, developmentally they are not
ready. . . . Id love to take my Ecology class out to Union Ridge, but that is a 30-minute,
one-way drive. And then we have to park the car and hike, and there is a limitation right
there because I dont know if youve noticed, but students dont like to walk. . . . The class
size, or your building space, and your set up, limit your expectations for inquiry-based.

Assertions: College Science Teachers Views of Inquiry

Based on these five profiles and the full data set, we generated assertions that describe
the major themes common among our participants views of inquiry. Our participants believed that (a) inquiry instruction involves students in generating authentic questions and
carrying out independent research; (b) implementing inquiry is constrained by student characteristics and logistical factors; (c) inquiry instruction is more appropriate for upper level
science major students who have the prerequisite background knowledge or skills; and
(d) inquiry benefits students in terms of motivation, thinking skills, and understanding.
These views were present regardless of the institutional type or science discipline. In the
next section, we make present these assertions and provide supporting evidence from the
data.
Assertion 1: College Science Instructors Believe That Inquiry Instruction Involves Students in Generating Authentic Questions and Carrying Out Independent Research.

Bob Larson, Melinda Howard, Matt Ryle, and Stacy Foster acknowledged that an essential
feature of classroom inquiry is for students to formulate questions. Other faculty members
held similar beliefs. When we examined representatives from different science disciplines
and institutional types, we found that, regardless of their context, faculty perceived studentgenerated questions as a vital component of inquiry-based instruction.
Well, I guess it is getting students to sort of formulate questions or think about what we
are doing in terms of how are we going to answer the questions or actively answer the
questions. . . . rather than being told answers. (Houska, life science, masters granting)

Several faculty members reasoned that student questions are important in classroom inquiry
because questions are a key component in scientific inquiry.
I think it is difficult to teach students that the most important concept you do in science is
to know what question to ask. When you get to the place where you can ask a question you
are beginning to understand some of science. And to know when to ask the right question
can get you the Nobel Prize. (Gardner, physical science, 2-year)

Like Melinda Howard and Alex White, a sizable number of our participants described
classroom inquiry as full and open inquiry (NRC, 2000), where individual students generate

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

795

questions and plan and carry out investigations on their own. Holding this all-or-none view
of classroom inquiry, they focused on the overt actions of science investigations, such as
experimental design and data collection.
I really try to [have the students] design from scratch . . . let them decide what they want to
study and what they, what research question they want to answer. (Kelley, physical science,
research extensive)

This view of inquiry as a totally student-directed process corresponds with the belief that
inquiry is largely unstructured. Like Melinda Howard, Professor Meyer (life science, liberal
arts) described her experiences with the unstructured nature of inquiry: The major problem
with inquiry is that it is really unstructured, or at least I think it needs to be unstructured.
Other interviewees agreed.
The disadvantage, to me, seems like [inquiry] is an open box so it seems like the students
are not given any guidance. It makes me wonder, how easily would students be able to read
through science material and decide exactly what they need to do? (Gillespie, life science,
liberal arts)

Thus, participants described inquiry laboratories as being student driven and without teacher
guidance. They focused their descriptions of inquiry on asking questions, designing experiments, and collecting data. For the most part, they did not mention explanation or justification as essential features of inquiry (NRC, 2000). As a group, they believed that classroom
inquiry is unstructured. This view aligns with some of the constraints that they perceived
to implementing inquiry, described in the following section.
Assertion 2: College Faculty Perceive Student and Logistical Factors as Constraints
to Implementing Inquiry-Based Instruction. Bob Larson, Alex White, and Stacy Foster

mentioned that they were constrained in implementing inquiry by logistical issues, including
time, class size, and facilities. Alex White, Melinda Howard, and Stacy Foster believed that
student factors, including mathematical ability, science background, and motivation also
were barriers to teaching through inquiry. College science faculty interviewed from all science disciplines and institutional types recognized similar logistical and student constraints
(see Table 1).
TABLE 1
Faculty Perceptions of Constraints to Implementing Inquiry
Logistical Factors
Institution Type
2-year
(n = 1)
Liberal arts
(n = 6)
Masters
granting (n = 6)
Research
extensive (n = 7)
Total (n = 19)

Student Factors

Time

Class
Size

Physical
Facilities

Science
Math Laboratory
Motivation Knowledge Ability
Skills

16

10

15

11

10

796

BROWN ET AL.

Like Bob Larson and Alex White, a number of the participants perceived class size and
physical facilities as logistical constraints to implementing classroom inquiry, regardless of
the type or average class size of their institution.
The lab only has 24 students. We limit it to 24, but in my mind that is huge (laughs). So it
is still a challenge, you have to design it so that they get to the end point by the end of the
lab period. You also have to design it so you accomplish whatever you were trying to do.
(Nash, physical science, masters granting)

Like Melinda Howard and Alex White, many faculty interviewed perceived student knowledge, ability, and/or motivation as constraining factors (see Table 1).
Backgrounds of students [is a problem], because if they are not up to speed on the material,
then they cant benefit from trying to get some hands-on or problem-solving, if they dont
understand what you are talking about. (Gillespie, life science, liberal arts)

Like Bob Larson, several faculty members also saw lack of student motivation as a major
constraint to implementing inquiry teaching.
I also know of instances where, for whatever reason, the chemistry is not working, the
students arent interested and you know they just want out. They want out; they just dont
want to be there . . . . I think in that kind of situation, youll find that some people respond [to
inquiry] in what you call favorable ways and other people will respond, you know, wishing
they were somewhere else. (McDonald, life science, research extensive)

Given these constraints, the faculty placed some value on traditional cookbook labs. They
believed that traditional labs are more structured, more efficient, easier to plan and prepare,
and more accessible to nonmajors.
The students would like this [cookbook] much better because they dont have to necessarily
be prepared. They come in, they start with #1, and they go through it and check it off and
they get their data and then they compare with their lab partner and other people in the class
and make sure their data looks OK. And then they write their report. (Freeman, life science,
research extensive)
Assertion 3: College Science Instructors Believe That Inquiry-Based Instruction Is
More Appropriate for Upper Level Science Majors Than for Introductory Majors and
Nonmajors. Given the constraints due to student background described above, many

faculty members believed that inquiry is a more appropriate teaching strategy for upper
level students. For example, Bob Larson, Alex White, and Melinda Howard were reluctant
to use inquiry with lower level students because they thought these students did not have
the prerequisite science knowledge to investigate their own questions and structure their
own experiments. Other participants held similar beliefs.
The science faculty members perceived upper level students as dedicated to learning science and therefore more willing to engage in inquiry. Professor Dickson (life science, liberal
arts) teaches upper level students and, lets them (students) design their own ecology-based
experiment. Professor Kelley (physical science, research extensive) uses similar practices
with upper level students: I really try to [have the students] design from scratch . . . let them
decide what they want to study and what they, what research question they want to answer.
Thus, science faculty members viewed inquiry as more appropriate with students who have
the prerequisite skills and knowledge.

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

797

We found two exceptions who believed that inquiry is appropriate to use with introductory
major students. Matt Ryle and Stacy Foster used guided inquiry with introductory students
because they believed students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills as well
as learn about the processes and nature of science. Matt Ryle framed his teaching using
problem-based scenarios that cultivate student motivation thinking. Stacy Foster believed
that introductory science students do not have background knowledge and benefit from
experiencing science first and then later filling in their missing gaps of understanding.
Fosters view was unique among the sample.
Assertion 4: College Science Instructors Believe That Students Benefit from InquiryBased Instruction. Stacy Foster and Matt Ryle believed that students are more engaged

and develop problem-solving skills during inquiry investigations. Other faculty members
from different institutional types and science disciplines ascribed several benefits to inquirybased instruction. First, they believed that by engaging in inquiry students would learn more
about the nature of science and develop critical thinking skills.
I think [inquiry] teaches students critical thinking skills. It teaches them to learn about what
are good questions, and what are not good questions. Because they are interested in the
question, and because they have asked the questions, they are more likely to remember the
question. (Dickson, life science, liberal arts)

Second, they believed that inquiry was motivating. Professor Meyer (life science, liberal
arts) thought that active involvement in inquiry was motivating for students: We all think
[inquiry] is highly valuable because it is student engagement and the process is so much
higher when they are actively involved.
Matt Ryle provided a real-life context, involving relevant social issues, for his students
because he believed that would increase student motivation and student learning: If I want
them to understand how population growth happens and how the effect of density changes
reproduction, that is the concept I have to come up with a context in which they have to come
up with that. Like Professor Ryle, other faculty members, regardless of institutional type,
felt that they could interest students through context-based instruction. They frequently
connected inquiry-based instruction with the use of real-life contexts. Context, according
to these participants, is important in science instruction for two reasons: context increases
student motivation and student learning.
I think the inquiry labs really help them. I mean, I have had students tell me, you know now
when I go play soccer, all I can think about is what velocity am I kicking it at, how far is it
going to go, is it going to make it in the goal? (Birge, physical science, liberal arts)

Like Alex White, most professors relegated learning content to fact-based lecture settings.
Inquiry-based instruction was, for the most part, seen as an approach for the laboratory, not
the lecture, that built process and thinking skills, not understanding. Two faculty members
expressed a less common view of inquiry as going beyond labs and aimed at developing
understanding, not skills
[Inquiry] doesnt have to be in the lab, it can be something you could do in the classroom.
For me, it gets the students involved with each other, interacting on the class material and
it has them do some kind of practical activity so they can relate biology to something that
is going on everyday. (Gillespie, life science, liberal arts)

798

BROWN ET AL.
I like inquiry where they have to kind of figure out what they are doing, but then tying it in
to very specific questions. What does this mean? . . . Really make sure they understand the
concepts. (Birge, physical science, liberal arts)

DISCUSSION
College science faculty members in our sample recognized a number of benefits to
inquiry-based instruction, including increased motivation, critical thinking, and, in a few
cases, science learning. Although they acknowledged the benefits of inquiry teaching, they
also perceived constraints to implementing inquiry-based teaching. These perceived constraints were similar to those found by researchers studying secondary science teachers who
implemented inquiry. These constraints included logistics of time and class size (Adams &
Krockover, 1997; Loughran, 1994; Trautmann et al., 2004), lack of administrative support
(Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Loughran, 1994), teacher knowledge (Brickhouse, 1990;
Roehrig & Luft, 2004), and teacher perceptions of student ability and motivation (Roehrig
& Luft, 2004; Trautmann et al., 2004).
However, we claim that the overriding constraint to implementing inquiry among the
faculty in our sample was not the logistical, nor even the perceived student factors, but
the instructors meaning of inquiry. College science faculty in our study held a full and
open inquiry view (NRC, 2000), wherein they thought inquiry-based instruction was totally
student driven, with students asking questions, designing investigations, and collecting data.
This full and open inquiry view reinforced perceived problems with inquiry teaching: that
inquiry is unstructured, time consuming, and difficult to enact with 20 or 200 students. The
full and open inquiry view was also reflected in their belief that inquiry instruction was more
appropriate with upper level science majors than with introductory students or nonmajors.
Students who have not yet developed science knowledge and skills could not be expected
to carry out independent research.
The scientists in the study by Harwood et al. (2002) held a rich view of scientific inquiry.
They valued the role of scientific literature, scientific questions, pattern finding, and puzzle
solving in scientific inquiry. Their views of scientific inquiry were consistent across scientific
disciplines. When considering classroom inquiry, the scientists in our study acknowledged
that classroom inquiry should reflect scientific inquiry. In particular, they emphasized the
role of questioning and collecting data. However, they often did not consider the role of
other essential features of inquiry, including explanation and justification, in their views of
classroom inquiry.
A few faculty members in our sample held a broader view of inquiry. Matt Ryle, a
fisheries and wildlife faculty member at a research extensive institution and Stacy Foster,
a biology faculty member at a masters granting institution, believed that inquiry-based
instruction could be accomplished with both nonmajors and introductory students. They
agreed that these students have not yet developed science background skills to be able to
carry out independent research. However, unlike others, they did not see that as a hindrance
to inquiry-based teaching. Instead they used guided inquiry approaches and problem-based
learning strategies in introductory courses to motivate students and help them learn. Our
sample also included two faculty members, Professors Birge and Gillespie, who recognized
that inquiry-based instruction could happen in lectures as well as laboratories, whenever
students interacted with each other and the material. They viewed the purposes of inquiry
as helping students understand science concepts as well as understanding the nature of
science and developing inquiry skills. According to Professor Birge, she had learned about
classroom inquiry through continuing interactions with a senior professor of science education at her college. They worked together for several years designing and delivering

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

799

Figure 1. The inquiry continuum.

professional development about inquiry to elementary and middle level teachers. Her views
were broadened by these experiences.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the full and open view of inquiry-based instruction is an incomplete view
that constrains college science faculty members from considering inquiry-based approaches
in their teaching. In order to promote inquiry-based instruction in undergraduate science
courses, we suggest a broader view of inquiry. In particular, we propose the continuum
of classroom inquiry (see Figure 1). Our model builds on the National Research Council
discussion of inquiry (2000). The NRC defined a continuum of student-directed inquiry
(see NRC, 2000, Table 2-6, p. 29). We label this dimension as degree of guidance in
inquiry, ranging from teacher-directed (or guided) inquiry to student-directed (or open)
inquiry. The NRC also defined inquiry as full or partial based on the proportion of the
essential features of inquiry included (NRC, 2000). We label this dimension degree of
inquiry. Students can be involved in full inquiry that is guided by teachers, partial inquiry
that is more student centered, or other variations depending on the instructional purposes
and procedures.
In Figure 1, we have noted different classroom inquiry possibilities that fall in different
locations on the inquiry continuum. For example, an instructor could structure and guide
a full inquiry for lower level introductory and nonmajor students in which she specifies
the questions and activities, with the emphasis on building a particular concept (point
A on Figure 1). The instruction might take the form of a learning cycle and be quite
teacher directed, yet still represent the essential features of inquiryquestions, evidence,
explanations, and justification. In another version of inquiry, a teacher could present a
question to study and the students could develop the investigations and make sense of their
findings (point B on Figure 1). All essential features of inquiry are included, and students
have less teacher guidance. In a lecture setting, an instructor might use partial inquiry by
presenting a research study that has already been conducted, but asking students to make
sense of data from the study (point C on Figure 1). The students engage in fewer essential
features of inquiry, directed by the teacher. In a laboratory setting, students might take

800

BROWN ET AL.

charge of collecting evidence and building explanations from a question presented by the
teacher (point D on Figure 1). Again, they engage in fewer essential features of inquiry,
but this time there is less teacher direction. In only one quadrant of the inquiry continuum,
the upper right (see point E on Figure 1), would students take charge of all phases of an
investigation. This view of inquiry, the one that most of the faculty members in this study
held, would be the least structured and perhaps the most constraining to implement.
Our findings suggest several implications for practice. Because, based on our evidence,
college science faculty members hold an all-or-nothing view of inquiry, they could benefit
from faculty development opportunities in which a broader view of classroom inquiry
is built. Using the inquiry continuum, faculty could design laboratories and lectures that
encompass the essential features of inquiry with varying degrees of openness and amounts of
inquiry. Faculty members need to have access to field-tested examples of inquiry across the
inquiry continuum that are practical given the constraints of time, class size, and facilities.
They need to see examples of introductory and nonmajor classrooms where inquiry across
the continuum is being successfully implemented in both lecture and laboratory settings.
Thus, they can begin to build an understanding of how inquiry can be structured and how
students respond. Moreover, innovations in college science teaching need to be accompanied
by empirical studies of outcomes. Scientists value evidence in making decisions. Evidence
about the gains in student knowledge of science content, understanding of inquiry, and
ability to do inquiry as a result of innovations in instruction could help persuade faculty
members to change their practice.
In this study, we identified college science instructors meanings for inquiry-based
instruction and described the benefits and constraints they perceived for implementing
inquiry-based instruction. Recognizing common concerns and gaps in understanding about
classroom inquiry is critical in improving college science teaching. Indeed, such avenues
are important in refining inquiry-based pedagogy at all levels of education.
Feynman & Robbins (1999) proposed that we do science for the pleasure of finding
things out. However, traditional college laboratory exercises merely confirm ideas covered
in lecture. Converting from cookbook type activities to inquiry-based labs and changing
lectures from the presentation of facts to inquiries into phenomena will encourage student
reasoning and lead to higher quality learning (Kasl & Yorks, 2002). We believe that such
a process can be valuable in promoting introductory students and nonscience majors
understanding of science and retaining students in science-related majors. In an inquiry
setting, students will reason scientifically and be inquisitive about phenomena that occur in
their daily lives. This research is a beginning step in reaching these reform goals.

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Ken Stensrud during the data collection phase.

REFERENCES
Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29 50.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13, 1 12.
Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, learning, and teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 16,
135 159.
Breen, R. (1999). Using phenomenography to explore student motivation and learning experiences in four disciplines. Retrieved October 27, 2003 from http://www.shu.ac.uk/services/lti/ltri/abstracts/breen.html

VIEWS OF INQUIRY

801

Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice.
Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53 62.
Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and
constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471 485.
Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics,
and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century. (2003).
BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National
Research Council.
Crandall, G. D. (1997). Old wine into new bottles: How traditional lab exercises can be converted into investigative
ones. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 413 418.
Feynman, R. P., & Robbins, J. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard
P. Feynman. New York: Perseus Books.
Glasson, G. E., & McKenzie, W. L. (1997/1998). Investigative learning in undergraduate freshman biology laboratories: A pilot project at Virginia Technew roles for students and teachers in an experimental design
laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 189 193.
Harker, A. R. (1999). Full application of the scientific method in an undergraduate teaching laboratory: A
reality-based approach to experiential student-directed instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29,
97 100.
Harwood, W. S., Reiff, R., & Phillipson, T. (2002, January). Scientists conceptions of scientific inquiry: Voices
from the front. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenographya good-for-nothing brother phenomenology? Outline
of an analysis. Higher Education Research & Development, 16, 191 202.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science.
Studies in Science Education, 22, 85 142.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century.
Science Education, 88, 28 54.
Ingram, E., Lehman, E., Love, A. C., & Polacek, K. M. (2004). Fostering inquiry in nonlaboratory settings. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 34(1), 39 43.
Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2002). Collaborative inquiry for adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 2002(94), 3 12.
Limberg, L. (1999). Experiencing information seeking and learning: A study of the interaction between two
phenomena. Retrieved October 27, 2003 from http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper68.html
Longbottom, E. J., & Butler, H. P. (1999). Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education. Science
Education, 83, 473 492.
Loughran, J. (1994). Bridging the gap: An analysis of the needs of second-year science teachers. Science Education,
78, 365 386.
Marton, F. (1981). PhenomenographyDescribing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10,
177 200.
Marton, F. (1992). Phenomenography and the art of teaching all things to all men. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 5, 253 267.
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia
of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 4424 4429). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Marton, F. (1996). Phenomenographya research approach to investigating different understandings of reality.
Journal of Thought, 21, 28 49.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., & Fai, P. M. (1999, August). Two faces of variation. Paper presented at 8th European Conference for
Learning and Instruction, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden.
McNeal, A. P., & DAvanzo, C. (Eds.). (1997). Student-active science: Models of innovation in college science
teaching. Fort Worth, TX: Saunders College Publishing.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Science Board. (1996). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology. Arlington, VA: Author.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

802

BROWN ET AL.

Reeve, S., Hammond, J. W., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2004). Inquiry in the large-enrollment science classroom. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 34(1), 44 48.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3 24.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social
sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1994). Talking about leaving: Factors contributing to high attrition rates among
science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors. Boulder, CO: Bureau of Sociological Research,
University of Colorado.
Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 755 776.
Southerland, S. A, Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 669 691.
Stukus, P., & Lennox, J. E. (1995). Use of an investigative semester-length laboratory project in an introductory
microbiology course: Acquainting students with the research process and the scientific framed of mind. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 25, 135 139.
Sunal, D. W., Wright, E. L., & Day, J. B. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development,
16, 159 171.
Tichenor, L. L. (1996/1997). Student-designed physiology laboratories: Creative instructional alternatives at a
resource-poor New England university. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 175 181.
Tolman, D. A. (2001). A science-in-the-making course for nonscience majors. In B. Daniels, J. Cusick, J. Green,
& L. Oliver (Eds.), Practicing science: The investigative approach in college science teaching (pp. 12 17).
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004, April). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?).
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Trigwell, K. (2001, Summer). Phenomenography: Discernment and variation. Paper presented at the Phenomenography Research Seminar of the Institute for the Advancement of University Learning, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK.
Uljens, M. (1996). On the philosophical foundation of phenomenography. In G. DallAlba & B. Hasselgren
(Eds.), Reflections on phenomenographyToward a methodology? (pp. 105 130). Goteborg, Sweden: Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Volkmann, M. J., Abell, S. K., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). Teaching physics to preservice teachers: The challenges of
inquiry. Science Education, 89, 847 869.
Volkmann, M. J., & Zgagacz, M. (2004). Learning to teach physics through inquiry: The lived experience of a
graduate teaching assistant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 584 602.
Weld, J. D., Rogers, C. M., & Heard, S. B. (1999). Semester-length field investigations in undergraduate animal
behavior and ecology courses: Making the laboratory experience the linchpin of science education. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 28, 340 344.