Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum reform emphasizes the importance of inquiry instruction for learners. For inquiry-oriented curriculum to occur, attention must be focused on teacher education. Using a mixed-methods design, I investigated if and how groups of student teachers who receive different types of exposure to inquiry differ in their understanding of inquiry instruction. Preservice teachers' descriptions of inquiry experiences in their teacher-preparation program contextualized the results. Considerable effort was given in the first phase of this study to establish the reliability and validity of the Strategic Demands of Inquiry questionnaire. Participants were from McGill University, Montreal, and included preservice teachers in the Bachelor of Education program, Continuing Education students enrolled in an inquiry-based course, and Honours Psychology students engaged in research. Data sources included the Strategic Demands of Inquiry questionnaire and an interview schedule. Groups who had different types of exposure to the inquiry approach varied in how they understand inquiry instruction. Fourth-year Elementary preservice teachers held more sophisticated conceptualizations of the inquiry approach and greater appreciation for the components involved in carrying out an inquiry curriculum compared to first-year Elementary preservice teachers. After the completion of an inquiry-oriented course, Continuing Education students (including experienced teachers) were similar to fourth-year Elementary student teachers in conceptualizing and identifying important components of inquiry instruction. First-year Elementary and Secondary student teachers were different in their views of inquiry instruction. Finally, Honours Psychology students, who were engaged in scholarly research, held sophisticated conceptualizations of the inquiry approach. However, they did not use this knowledge of the inquiry method as extensively as fourth-year preservice teachers to identify important aspects of inquiry instruction. Therefore, although experience with the inquiry method may be necessary for conceptualizing inquiry as a pedagogical approach, it is not sufficient to enable undergraduates to identify important aspects of planning, enacting, and evaluating an inquiry curriculum. These findings point to the importance of the Bachelor of Education program in advancing knowledge about inquiry instruction. Fourth-year student teachers reported experiences with the inquiry approach that influenced their understanding of this method. This study also provided evidence for the construct validity of the Strategic Demands of Inquiry questionnaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".