Impact of Including Authentic Inquiry Experiences in Methods Courses for Pre-Service Elementary and Secondary Teachers Timothy F. Slater, Lisa Elfring, Ingrid Novodvorsky, Jo Quintenz, Stephanie J. Slater, Vicente Talanquer University of Arizona – College of Science – Science Teacher Preparation Program CONTEXT Science education reform documents universally call for students to have authentic and meaningful experiences using real data in the context of their science education. Such experiences potentially can: prepare students to address real world complex problems; develop students’ ability to use scientific methods; prepare students to critically evaluate the validity of data or evidence and of the consequent interpretations or conclusions; teach quantitative skills, technical methods, and scientific concepts; increase verbal, written, and graphical communication skills; and train students in the values and ethics of working with scientific data. However, it is unclear what the broader pre-service teacher preparation community is doing in preparing future teachers to promote, manage, and successful facilitate their own students in conducting authentic scientific inquiry. Surveys of undergraduates in secondary science education programs suggests that students have had almost no experiences themselves in conducting open scientific inquiry where they develop researchable questions, design strategies to pursue evidence, and communicate data-based conclusions. In response, the College of Science Teacher Preparation Program at the University of Arizona requires all students enrolled in its various science teaching methods courses to complete a semester-long open inquiry research project and defend their findings at a specially designed inquiry science mini- conference at the end of the term. End-of-term surveys reveal that students report that making a scientific poster presentation is a rather unique event in their undergraduate education and believe that this experience enhances their ability to facilitate their own future students in conducting open inquiry. WORKING DEFINITION OF INQUIRY Students are: Engaged in answerable questions Collecting/organizing evidence Communicating/defending conclusions PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ MISCONCEPTIONS Research poster is just an illustrated book report Rejecting a hypothesis is bad Science requires exotic lab equipment Inquiry requires hands-on data collection and on-line databases (e.g. weatherunderground.com) doesn’t count There is a set linear method of scientific inquiry and there strict rules for conducting experiments with control groups Generating scientific questions is the easy part; whereas, analyzing and graphing scientific data is the hard part INQUIRY MINI-CONFERENCE CALL FOR PAPERS THEME: It’s About Time: Change in Natural Systems This announcement calls for contributed poster presentations describing an original and never before published inquiry research study. Inquiry research teams of no more than two authors can present posters as large as 4’ x 4’. Your participation requires prior approval by submitting to the Science Organizing Committee: (i) a description of your research question with a maximum length of 30 words by September 12; (ii) a completed sample graph or data chart that you will be using in your presentation by October 15; and (iii) a near final draft of a conclusion paragraph by November 15. Presentations will be December 1 from 5-7pm in the Exhibit Hall. GUIDELINES: Create a 4’ X 4’ “poster” describing a data-based conclusion to your research question. Your poster should be attractively illustrated and include the following components: 1.Research Focus: Present your research question. 2.Context: Describe why this is an interesting question and/or what is already known about this topic. 3.Method: Describe how you went about answering your question, what data did you collect and why is this the best data to answer your question? 4.Data Summary: Describe and include the graphs, tables, or figures you created to organize your data and what the data reveals. 5.Conclusion: Concisely describe the insight the data provides to illuminate and answer your research question. 6.Implications: If you had more time to work on this project or if someone were to pick up where you left off, describe what else would you do or what additional questions would you pursue if you had more time, resources, and data available. EVALUATION CRITERIA 1.Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously? 2.Does the project show creativity and originality of the question(s)? 3.Was there an appropriate procedural plan for obtaining a solution? (Does the tightly plan match the question being asked?) 4.Does the presentation clearly explain the purpose, procedure, and conclusions? 5.Is the data presented clearly? 6.Was the data presentation selected the best of possible alternatives? 7.How completely was the problem covered? (For example, are the conclusions based on sufficient experimentation?) 8.Are there adequate data to support the conclusions? 9.Is the conclusion stated clearly and unambiguous? 10. Does the report describe what further research is warranted?