Öğrencilerin Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi Ödevlerine Yönelik Tutumlarının Ölçülmesi: bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması

www.sosyalbilgiler.org

Journal of Social Studies Education Research
Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi

2013: 4(2), 1-26

Hidden in Plain Sight: Preservice Teachers’ Orientations Toward Inquiry-

Based Learning in History

Anthony M. Pellegrino1 and Jessica Kilday2

Abstract In order to implement models of reform-based history education in the classroom there is a
fundamental need to address preservice and practicing teachers’ understanding of learning and teaching
history, mindful of the role inquiry must play in the process. The project described in this paper employed a
comparative case design to explore how prospective social studies educators perceived inquiry-based
instruction and the extent to which it aligned with relevant history education for middle and secondary
students. Results suggest that the process undertaken by the independent inquiry group may have an implicit
impact on shaping how preservice teachers understand inquiry. Yet these preservice teachers included more
inquiry-based activities in lesson plan products analyzed as part of this project. After the implementation of
both means of learning about historical inquiry, many remained conflicted about what the ideal model of
inquiry represents for student learning and at what ability level students are capable of engaging in inquiry
in social studies.

Keywords: Preservice teacher education, Inquiry-based instruction, History education, Teacher education

Over the last half century, social studies pedagogy has evolved to reflect ways of
knowing and thinking in the disciplines (Farley, 2009; VanSledright, 2009), to support
literacy skills that promote historical thinking (Wineburg, 2001; Wineburg, Martin &
Monte-Sano, 2011), and as an opportunity to incorporate a process of inquiry that will
sustain multidisciplinary learning beyond secondary school (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2010; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012 National Center
for History in Schools, 1996; National Council for the Social Studies, 2013). Inquiry has,
in fact, become the central theme anchoring The National Council for the Social Studies’
(NCSS) C3 Framework (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013). An inquiry
approach in social studies helps teachers to, as Freire notes, “provoke the discovering of
need for knowing and never to impose the knowledge whose need was not yet perceived”
(Bell, Gaventa, & Peters, Eds., 1990, p. 66). Of course, in the process of pedagogical
evolution, however effective or necessary, a number of challenges manifest and must be
negotiated to facilitate theory into practice.
In order to implement models of reform-based social studies education in the
classroom there is a fundamental need to address preservice and practicing teachers’
understanding of learning and teaching history, mindful of the role inquiry must play in the
process (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013). In recent decades, research has
provided rich qualitative descriptions of students’ abilities to think historically (Lee &
Ashby, 2000; Wineburg, 2001; VanSledright, 2000) and case studies offer evidence of
successful implementations of inquiry-based projects (Ching Yang, 2009; Guccione, 2011;
Hernandez-Ramos, 2009). Lacking however, is sufficient research on developing teacher
candidate capacity for making informed instructional decisions in social studies (Adler,
2008), which are grounded in what we know about teaching and learning (Williamson
McDiarmid & Clenvenger-Bright, 2008), and supportive of the NCSS Framework. The

1 George Mason University
2 George Mason University

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

project described in this paper contributes to social studies teacher education scholarship
by exploring how prospective social studies educators perceived inquiry-based history
instruction and the extent to which it aligned with relevant history education for middle
and secondary students.

Conceptual Framework and Review of Literature

Framing our study was the conceptual nature of inquiry and how teacher
development in the area of inquiry facilitates exploration and utilization of inquiry as an
instructional method. We looked to the National Research Council (2000) which, in their
report titled How People Learn, emphasized that:

Teachers must come to teaching with the experience of in-depth study of the
subject area themselves. Before a teacher can develop powerful pedagogical
tools, he or she must be familiar with the progress of inquiry and the terms
of discourse in the discipline, as well as understand the relationship between
information and the concepts that help organize that information in the
discipline. (p. 20)

The preservice teachers with whom we worked in this project were simultaneously
engaging in the study of history content through inquiry while learning about instructional
design models to incorporate in their teaching for middle and secondary social studies
students. From this project we call attention to preservice teacher education in the
transition from learner to instructor specific to inquiry-based instruction.

Theoretical Perspectives on Teachers’ Conceptions of Inquiry Pedagogy

Preservice teacher education is often used as a setting to understand changes (or
lack thereof) in teacher beliefs about good instruction (Gregoire-Gill, Ashton, & Algina,
2004; Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Salisbury-Glennon & Stevens, 1999). Holt-Reynolds (1992)
investigated the interactive role of preservice teachers’ pre-existing beliefs, referred to as
lay theories about teaching and learning, which were firmly grounded in students’ own
experiences as students in K-12 classrooms. From in-depth interviews with these
preservice teachers, she elaborated on the likelihood of students’ personal experience to
preempt research pedagogical based practices. Students’ firmly believed that a single case
analysis of their own experience was more generalizable to teaching practice than the
empirically derived theories with which they were presented.
This finding provides a rationale from which to investigate preservice teachers’
domain-specific beliefs regarding teaching practices in the social studies. In order to
support teacher change in instructional practice, it is first necessary to recognize their
initial and mis-conceptions to more effectively refute existing beliefs (Holt-Reynolds,
1992; Salisbury-Glennon & Stevens, 1999). Salisbury-Glennon and Stevens (1999) for
example found that a historically progressive refutation of preservice teachers’ conceptions
of intrinsic motivation had a more long-term effect on their knowledge and practice. Yet
still, much of the research on preservice teachers’ conceptions stems from preservice
teacher education in math (Gregoire-Gill, et al., 2004) or science (Windschitl &
Thompson, 2006).
Wineburg (2001) was one of the first theorists from a cognitive psychology
perspective to recognize the very process of historical inquiry as an unnatural act. In his
qualitative investigations of teacher and student beliefs about history instruction, he found
the strongly embedded belief that knowing and learning history fundamentally entails
memorization of facts (Wineburg, 2001). Preservice teacher educators, particularly in the

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

social studies, may do well to refer to conceptual change research to examine the pathway
by which teachers may attempt to reevaluate their understanding of history teaching.
In alignment with the Piagetian theory of assimilation and accommodation, Posner,
Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) posited a four-component model for conceptual
change, which they tested regarding college physics students’ understanding of scientific
theory. According to this model, one must first be dissatisfied or recognize some cognitive
discord in his or her present beliefs. Once this is recognized, there must be an alternative
that is comprehensible, reasonable, and have lasting potential benefits and opportunities for
extension (Posner et al., 1982). Adding to this model of conceptual change, Pintrich, Marx,
and Boyle (1993) proposed that one’s cognitive conceptions are equally preceded by
individual motivation and one’s interaction with the classroom context (e.g. teacher and
peers), which mediate his ability to accommodate new with existing ideas.
In this context, research in social studies teacher education must be attentive to
these conditions when examining the perspectives of preservice teacher educators. Further,
the conceptual framework detailing the state of research on historical inquiry sets the stage
from which to compare preservice teachers’ perspectives and motivations regarding
inquiry instruction. Such an exploratory analysis with this juxtaposition may delineate
conditions or barriers to preservice teachers’ conceptual and practical inclinations toward
inquiry pedagogy.

The Process of Inquiry in Pedagogy and Design

Pedagogically speaking, inquiry has modern curricular roots in learning theory
from Dewey’s (1910) reflections on systematic thinking and inductive reasoning to
Bruner’s (1961/2006) and Vygotsky’s (1962) ideas about purposeful, self-directed
discovery. Broadly, inquiry-based learning emerged from research which suggests that
learning by seeking information through questioning heightens student interest and allows
for creative investigations and deep analysis (Rone, 2008). Kuhn, Black, Keselman, and
Kaplan (2000) defined inquiry as “an educational activity, in which students individually
or collectively investigate a set of phenomena –virtual or real – and draw conclusions
about it” (pp. 497-498). Inquiry-oriented curricula have been incorporated into the schools
and classrooms for several decades, and much of the research that has come from these
classrooms suggests greater student engagement and learning as a result of inquiry-based
instruction (Foster & Padgett 1999; Fragnoli 2006). In his synthesis of meta-analyses of
teaching approaches for example, Hattie (2008) found that inquiry-based teaching practices
in science positively affect student learning of processes and skills.

Inquiry-based learning in history and social studies classrooms.

Situated within this context, the framework for inquiry in the social studies as
recently outlined by the National Council for the Social Studies C3 Framework (2013)
focuses on an “inquiry-arc” whereby teachers construct lessons and activities around
“compelling questions.” Acknowledged in the NCSS Framework are the connections this
focus on inquiry in social studies makes to four specific dimensions that define the process
of investigation. These include “(1) Developing questions and planning investigations, (2)
applying disciplinary concepts and tools, (3) gathering and evaluating evidence, and (4)
working collaboratively and communicating conclusions” (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2012, p. 5). Although these guidelines are associated with the recent NCSS C3
Framework and the Common Core standards, like other disciplines, history classrooms
have known inquiry models for several decades (Fenton, 1991) and have employed

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

processes akin to these in an effort to engage students in learning social studies content in
ways that are more relevant and consequently more meaningful in the minds of learners.
Beginning in the 1960s, federally funded social studies projects, which were
grounded in inquiry, proliferated (Evans, 2011). Even while many of these programs were
unable to demonstrate impact on student outcomes and were in part flawed in their
adherence to inquiry-based learning, their legacy continues to affect research on student
learning in social studies (Evans, 2011). One prominent example was the Nutfeld
Foundation sponsored experimental inquiry-based social studies curricula, which allowed
students opportunities to investigate historical evidence and practice inductive reasoning
skills as they examined primary and secondary source evidence such as images and
cultural artifacts to draw inferences and conclusions about the past. Students in these
classrooms not only demonstrated more nuanced understanding of the past but also
achieved higher scores on fact-based knowledge assessments (Fenton 1991; Rogers 1968).
The pedagogy that grounded the Nutfeld Foundation’s work aligns closely with elements
of historical thinking which more recently has focused on students’ development of habits
of mind that propel them into issues-analysis and decision making, often stemming from
student queries (Drake & Nelson, 2005). In current history education scholarship, inquiry
is characterized in part as “doing” history where students develop and respond to queries
about people, events and phenomena of the past through a cyclical process that engages
primary and secondary sources to formulate evidence-based interpretations (Barton &
Levstik, 2001; Doolittle, Hicks, & Ewing, 2004).
As a means to facilitate student learning, Husbands (1996), asserted that inquiry-
based historical analysis ought to be central to any historical examination allowing students
to discern from multiple perspectives the nature of historical events or eras. Bain (2005)
further suggested that instead of eschewing inquiry-based approaches in history
instruction, “placing inquiry in the heart of education” was the most appropriate way for
students to learn about the past (p. 180) and encourage them to more expertly access and
apply knowledge to novel situations (Bransford, Brown & Cocking 2005).
Although inquiry-based instruction offers compelling opportunities for students to
learn history in ways that are more relevant and applicable to their lives and prior
knowledge, it poses significant challenges to teachers and their students. Kirschner,
Sweller and Clark (2006) lambasted inquiry related instructional practice as unfounded in
terms of how students learn best. In their review of “human cognitive architecture” (p. 76),
these researchers noted that minimal guidance exerted by a teacher may not have any
desired learning effect for students whose prior knowledge and experience is limited.
Specifically too, developing lessons where student inquiry is employed requires more
adept and frequent assessment to monitor and measure student learning—a paradigm with
which many teachers struggle (Lesh & Doerr, 2003). As well, students learning in a
standards-based environment are often far more familiar with convergent thinking rather
than interpreting and formulating responses to queries which have no “right” answer
(Abrams, Southerland & Evans, 2008). Challenging students to put aside those
expectations takes patience and practice. Likewise, since teachers are increasingly
evaluated on their students’ performance on standardized assessments, which to this point
require little higher-order thinking skills, there might be less appetite to employ inquiry-
based practice. And finally, since most teachers learned history through traditional teacher-
centered instructional models, their familiarity with inquiry-based learning is likely
minimal. To them, direct instruction is what they commonly saw as history students and is
what they continue to see in their field experiences (Levine, 2006). As teacher educators
consider the extent to which inquiry-based learning should be part of their methods

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

curricula, both the intriguing potential of inquiry-driven learning and the contextual
challenges therein must be taken into account.

Inquiry and Teacher Development

Providing understanding of and experiences with inquiry-based practice is critical
to teacher development particularly when beginning teachers are challenged to engage
students in the content in which they specialize while ensuring that students, who are not
likely disposed to enjoying history, are successful on standardized assessments. Teacher
educators must be aware that most prospective teachers will begin their careers in those
circumstances. They will have to navigate the challenges of balancing the theory and
scholarship of social studies education that typically exalts a constructivist approach to
learning with the political realities of a school system focused on student assessment data
as a means to demonstrate student and teacher achievement. That tension is played out
often in teacher preparation classrooms where teacher candidates note a persistent disunion
of coursework and what they encounter in clinical practice (Levine, 2006).
Likewise, this discord is evident in researchers’ attempts to provide rich
descriptions of preservice teachers’ transition to their first years teaching and to design
interventions that support inquiry-based instruction. Kang, Bianchini, and Kelly (2013)
recently explored this transition from a sociocultural perspective, which they referred to as
“border crossing” (p. 428). Using this framework, they asserted that preservice teachers
move between two cultures (student and teacher) with distinctly different ways of
approaching and understanding their discipline. Further, they describe the complexity of
this transition. Kang et al.’s (2013) case study, incorporating a 10-week science inquiry
investigation in a methods course, followed the transition of eight preservice teachers. In
their analysis, four themes emerged to categorize teachers involved in this transition,
including: (1) traditional teachers, (2) teacher of inquiry in theory rather than practice, (3)
teacher of inquiry but with questions, and (4) inquiry-oriented. All of the teachers from the
intervention were placed in categories 3 and 4. The researchers discovered that specific
aspects of inquiry did not strongly crossover from student to teacher of inquiry. That is, the
peer review component was least mentioned in their ideas about teaching inquiry. These
findings are specific to preservice teachers’ understanding of inquiry in science. However,
it is also important to recognize that, regardless of teaching domain, there may be
differences in how preservice teachers “cross the border” between theory and practice.
Longitudinal studies likewise highlight the transitional role of teacher preparation
coursework in developing preservice teachers’ understanding and application of historical
inquiry and social studies methods in their teaching. A program design that incorporates
adolescent development, for example, has revealed significant long-term differences in
teachers’ beliefs about their students’ ability to think critically (Conklin, 2010) – a belief
that is fundamental to the teaching of inquiry. Yeager and Wilson (1997) found, however,
that even when preservice teachers’ are exposed to the nature of historical inquiry in
methods courses, there is great variance in how they understand its application given
students’ maturity level and the perceived need for classroom control in clinical practice.
These cases highlight the significance of teachers’ pre-existing beliefs in their
incorporation of theory to instruction.

Research Design

Attending to the stark contrasts in preservice teachers’ experiences from learner to
instructor, as well as the empirical theory-based practices that are encouraged throughout

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

their college education coursework, there is an immediate challenge for those involved in
preparing social studies teachers. Preservice teacher educators must enjoin the scholarship
of inquiry-based instruction with the practical possibilities of doing so in K-12 classrooms.
Given the broadly defined scope and application of inquiry in learning and teaching,
systematic research that explores how methodological means of instruction shapes
teachers’ understanding and approach to inquiry models in their teaching may serve to
provide insight on how teachers form beliefs about the practice of inquiry instruction. Such
comparative analysis is generally lacking in social studies education literature, though the
transition period is documented across disciplines (Kang, et al., 2013; Yeager & Wilson,
1997).
In some cases, preservice teachers have not been exposed to a variety of inquiry
models in their own learning, and their teacher education programs may be their first
formal experience with instructional design that incorporates inquiry. It is, therefore, the
responsibility of teacher preparation programs to expose teacher candidates to such models
as part of teacher development in ways that address implementation in K-12 classrooms. In
exposing these models, preservice teachers will accommodate new instructional strategies
based on their current conceptions of inquiry pedagogy. If preservice teachers are not
dissatisfied with how they have come to understand history, then an integration of these
theories in practice is far less likely (Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Salisbury-Glennon & Stevens,
1999). To that end, the purpose of this research is to elucidate teachers’ perceptions and
inclinations toward inquiry-based learning in the middle and secondary history classroom
given contrasting instructional methodologies to compare how preservice teachers make
adaptations to their beliefs.
Specifically, we examine how two groups in a social studies teacher preparation
course viewed inquiry-based instruction as effective for middle and secondary students.
We chose two modes of inquiry by which to compare preservice teacher beliefs in order to
be able to contrast the likelihood of activating cognitive discord regarding teacher beliefs.
Preservice teachers’ also were asked to align these approaches with their own goals for
history instruction by elaborating on how these models have applications for their own
teaching. Including comparative cases increased the likelihood of detecting how preservice
teachers’ calibrated contrasting ideas with their existing conceptions and goals. The
division of the two groups is detailed in the following methods section. However, a core
component to the study design was the inclusion of online modules designed to induce
historical inquiry by presenting an unidentified object in U.S. history. The modules were
selected from an online course, Hidden in Plain Sight. Although the course was designed at
the researchers’ university affiliation, it was created independently from the college of
education. Rather, it was designed in collaboration among history professors, social studies
education researchers, and with pilot test feedback from practicing teachers in the interest
of making historical inquiry strategies more accessible to practicing K-12 educators. This
overall conceptual frame and research design, including the process of inquiry incorporated
in Hidden in Plain Sight, is outlined in Figure 1.

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

Figure 1: Conceptual frame and research design

Instructional Design
Teacher Directed Student Directed

More specifically, the following research questions will be explored:

1. How does methodological means of instruction in teacher preparation coursework
impact preservice teachers’ ideas about inquiry learning as instructional practice in
history?

2. What patterns emerge in preservice teachers’ discussion of the challenges and
utility of inquiry instruction in history?

Methods

Participants
This study is a mixed-methods action research project using comparative cases. The
participants were purposefully sampled from a social studies methods course that was part
of a large mid-Atlantic university graduate program for secondary (grades 6-12) education
in which candidates are prepared for 6-12 social studies licensure. The course in which the
investigation took place is the first course in the graduate program that links theories of
learning and instruction with history content for middle and secondary classrooms. This
sample and context allowed the investigation to focus specifically on inquiry as it related to
social studies teaching. Participation in the study was voluntary and fifteen of the sixteen

Process of historical
inquiry

Directed Inquiry Group
(B) Instruction

Independent Inquiry
Group (A) Instruction

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

students registered for the course agreed to participate. In this sample, 36% were female
and 64% were male. Forty-three percent of these students were between the ages of 26 and
35, while 38% were between 21 and 25 years old, and 21% between the ages of 36 and 45.
Since the course was part of a licensure program, only one student had any full time
teaching experience, while others had experience as substitute teachers or teaching
assistants. All of the participants had undergraduate degrees in the social sciences. Eleven
majored in history, four in government and one in international affairs.
In the project, one researcher also served as the course instructor. This researcher
was responsible for the delivery of procedural instructions for assignments, obtaining
consent, and leading direct instruction about inquiry methodological content to students in
the comparison group. A second researcher, uninvolved with course instruction or
administration, orchestrated student access to the online inquiry modules, collected student
data from surveys, student responses in modules, and recorded observations in class
discussions. This researcher also coded all of the identifying information so that the course
instructor was not bias to student responses. Students did not know the research questions
at the outset of the project, and the researchers took care to ensure all participants that
responses would not affect course grades or status in any way. This was done verbally as
the project was introduced and included on consent forms.
As we approached the project commencement, the class was randomly divided into
two groups in order to investigate how methodological means of instruction elicited
preservice teachers’ ideas. The independent inquiry group (A) learned about inquiry
instruction through their own research, participation in an online historical inquiry module,
their own presentation on inquiry instruction to peers, and a concluding module with
accompanying reflection on inquiry instruction. The directed inquiry group (B) learned
about inquiry through direct instruction from the course instructor and from peers via class
discussion. In the week following direct instruction, these students also completed the
same online historical inquiry module with a final reflection on inquiry instruction. And as
a comparative data source, we examined student lesson plan products produced by all
students in both groups. The lesson plan assignment included no explicit direction of
instructional strategies to employ. Rather teacher candidates were tasked to develop
lessons that addressed state and local standards and themes, and were grade-level
appropriate in terms of content and complexity. The lesson plans were submitted near the
end of the semester and were content analyzed— after final course grades were
submitted—for inclusion of inquiry-based strategies.

Instructional Procedures

Inquiry instruction was introduced in the second half of the semester. Therefore,
students had equal grounding in social studies teaching methods, the ideas of historical
thinking, and the general tenets of historical cognition based on course readings of Barton
(2011), Wineburg (2001), Stearns (1998), VanSledright, and others. Furthermore, students
had some (<15 hours) practicum experience in secondary social studies classrooms by this
time. However, each group of students learned about inquiry as an instructional approach
in a fundamentally different way. The following is a description of the instructional
methodologies implemented with the two groups of preservice teachers.
Independent Inquiry (A): Hidden in Plain Sight. Group A consisted of seven
preservice teachers who researched inquiry instruction and who participated in two online
modules from a course designed for social studies teachers called Hidden in Plain Sight.
This course was chosen specifically for its inquiry-based design and content aligned with
state standards and the NCSS Framework—both of which are familiar and important to

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

these preservice teachers. The focus of the intervention was on preservice teachers’
practice of historical inquiry through this online experiential model. Although students also
conducted independent research on inquiry instruction, this was part of a separate project
that was regularly incorporated in the social studies methods course. Members of this
group were tasked with developing a presentation to the class on inquiry-based instruction.
This presentation was assessed on content presented and presentation effectiveness. For
their part in this assessment, the remaining members of the class researched instructional
strategies including cooperative learning and direct instruction and were similarly assessed.
Central to Group A’s participation in the project was their exposure to the Hidden
in Plain Sight course, which currently includes 13-modules that span different periods in
U.S. history beginning in the 17th century and continuing through the 20th century. Each
module centers on an everyday object that is “Hidden in Plain Sight” and requires that
users hypothesize and investigate how this object is significant to U.S. history. On closer
examination, connections between these objects with broader themes in American history
become evident. For this project, we selected two modules, chosen for their attention to a
wide range of U.S. history topics and time periods. Preservice teachers in this group first
completed a module on the invention of the dishwasher and its role in contemporary U.S.
history. Following group presentations, in a later class session, these preservice teachers
completed an additional module on the significance of the manufactured nail to U.S.
history, which emphasized early U.S. expansion.
Each module in the Hidden in Plain Sight course is built with the same structural
design and follows a model of inquiry consistent with social studies and Common Core
standards and the scientific method of generating a hypothesis and accumulating data to
“test” that hypothesis before reaching an evidence-based conclusion. At each module,
students are first presented with an image of an object and asked to craft a short hypothesis
that notes observations and predicts the broader contributions of the object to history (see
Figure 2). Next, students proceed to a resources page containing twelve supplementary
items, which they are able to explore to the extent that serves their interest. These include
primary and secondary source documents, images and multimedia enrichments. These
resources help to place the object in historical context. To review background knowledge,
students are asked to complete a five-question quiz before proceeding to a “rethink” page.
On this page, students are given the opportunity to review their initial hypotheses and
reflect on how their ideas about the object may have changed. Students are also asked to
write a revised hypothesis that incorporates the knowledge they have gained from the
supplemental resources before reading the conclusions about the object’s role in history.
Finally, students write about how they will apply what they have learned from the process
or content in their teaching. On the wrap-up page, students have the option to read one
another’s revised hypotheses and ideas about classroom applications that were drawn from
the content of the module and the model of historical inquiry.

Teacher-Directed Inquiry (B): Eight preservice teachers were assigned to Group
B and learned about inquiry largely through direct instruction. The teacher-directed
instruction was incorporated into a class session that lasted approximately thirty minutes.
The idea of inquiry learning was introduced through an initial presentation of a well-
known painting from the period of Westward expansion – “American Progress,” (Crofutt,
1872). Through a teacher-led lecture, inquiry learning was described as a constructivist
approach based around a question, artifact or source in which learning is built on a process
similar to the scientific method. Preservice teachers in this group learned that the
expectations for students in this model are to form hypotheses, collect data, analyze and
interpret data, and draw conclusions, while the role of the teacher is as coach and

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

facilitator. The final segment of this instruction included focus on historical analysis and
connections to tenets of historical thinking. During this initial class session, preservice
teachers described what they saw in the painting and were occasionally prompted to reflect
on what is needed for teachers to employ inquiry-based learning and what examples
support student inquiry. The questions presented were largely convergent in nature, but
often prompted students to reflect on their experiences in history classrooms. The
responses revealed some of these preservice teachers’ perceptions regarding inquiry
instruction that had been formed through prior experience and in direct instruction.

Figure 2: Hypothesis page from the historical inquiry module

In a subsequent class session, preservice teachers’ peers from the Independent
Inquiry Group (A) presented their ideas about inquiry in a similar direct instruction format.
This presentation included various inquiry models, information about the spectrum of
inquiry from open-ended to teacher-guided and the centrality of investigation and research
to the inquiry process. There were no opportunities for preservice teachers in the Teacher-
Directed Inquiry Group (B) to participate in an inquiry model prior to completing the post
surveys. In the final class session, all preservice teachers completed a Hidden in Plain
Sight module on the role of the manufactured nail in history before writing reflections on
inquiry instruction and their inclinations to incorporate this method of instruction in their
own teaching.

Data Collection

Data were collected in the fall 2012 semester. First, all students completed a pre-
survey to obtain demographic information, quantitative ratings, and qualitative descriptions
of teachers’ ideas about the utility and challenges of inquiry learning. Near the end of the
next class session, students assigned to the Independent Inquiry Group (A) were dismissed
to complete an online module from Hidden in Plain Sight, while those in the Teacher-
Directed Inquiry Group (B) remained for the aforementioned period of direct instruction on
historical inquiry. Following this introduction, and in the following week, preservice

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

teachers in Group A presented their research on inquiry instruction to those in Group B.
The co-researcher recorded qualitative field notes from each of these class sessions,
totaling approximately 120 minutes. The field notes were used to record preservice
teachers’ statements regarding inquiry instruction, as well as describe reactions and
interactions between students discussing the utility and challenges of instructional
methodologies for teaching social studies. Observer comments also reflected on individual
variations in preservice teachers’ ideas about inquiry instruction. All preservice teachers
then completed an identical concluding survey as a post-assessment that was administered
prior to Group B completing an online module from Hidden in Plain Sight. The preservice
teachers composed reflective journal entries following these experiences. The lesson plans
were submitted during the penultimate week of the course and subsequently analyzed
attentive to learning objectives, instructional activities and assessment frameworks.
Quantitative measures. The pre- and post-survey contained items that were
divided into three sections to assess preservice teachers’ ratings on the frequency they
would plan inquiry lessons, the utility of inquiry lessons, and how challenging they
perceive inquiry instruction to be (see Appendix). Questions in each section asked teachers
to provide ratings for each of the following categories: for middle school students, for high
school students, for student engagement, for student learning, for their own learning, and
for developing historical thinking. All quantitative ratings were assessed on a 4-point scale
to encourage participants to take a less neutral stance (Creswell, 2008) and because
preservice teachers are less likely to have fully developed ideas about instructional
practice. In rating the frequency of incorporating inquiry into instruction, preservice
teachers selected between 1 (Never) and 4 (Often), while utility was measured in a similar
direction, between 1 (Not at all) and 4 (Very). When rating challenges however, a lower
score indicated a more positive response with 1 anchored at “Not challenging” and 4
anchored at “Very challenging.”
Qualitative analysis. The qualitative data were derived from preservice teachers’
responses to open-ended items on the pre- and post-survey, field notes from observations
of class sessions, student work in the online modules, reflective journal entries and lesson
plan content. The data were approached inductively; with the purpose of the study to
capture preservice teachers’ ideas about instructional practice based on their own learning
experiences. Therefore, organization codes for all data excluding the lesson plans were
generated from the data to categorize various influences on teachers’ instructional practice
related to inquiry learning (Maxwell, 2005). In doing so, the data were spliced into a total
of 251 “data bits” (Dey, 1993) and emic codes were identified in the subsequent content
analysis (Creswell, 2008; Maxwell, 2005). Analytic memos were used throughout the
process to explore patterns as well as areas of divergence between the preservice teachers’
ideas in the independent and teacher-directed inquiry groups. This opportunity for
comparison helps to highlight discrepant cases to draw out the interpretation of preservice
teachers’ perceptions both related and unrelated to the instructional methods. Finally,
quasi-statistics from these coding procedures accentuated areas to enrich with details from
the participants’ perspectives (Maxwell, 2005).
Content analysis (Patton, 2002) was employed in the examination of lesson plans to
describe and make inferences about the characteristics of the language used in the lesson
objectives, instructional activities and assessment frameworks. Since this assignment was
common to all students in the course, data examining the instructional strategies, objectives
and assessments served as an important comparison for both groups in terms of their
perceptions of inquiry as effective practice. In addition to looking for certain terms
associated with inquiry found in the lesson plans, we also looked more holistically at each
lesson plan and its components for evidence of inquiry. This process was employed to

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

better capture student intentions in their planning strategies. Taken together, these data
sources allowed us to compare how these preservice teachers perceived inquiry-based
instructional practice for social studies and sought to include inquiry-oriented activities in
their instructional planning.

Limitations

The limitations of this research derive from the research design. Patterns found
among preservice teachers’ in the Independent Inquiry Group A cannot be attributed to any
specific component of the instruction, but rather the overall process of independent
research, participation in an historical inquiry model, and presentation to the group. Some
differences in ideas may have been associated with different components of the instruction.
For example, preservice teachers’ group presentation may have included research as an
explicit example because that is how they gathered data about inquiry instruction.
Meanwhile statements in the post-reflections may have been more immediately prompted
by their work in the historical inquiry modules, rather than their overall understanding of
inquiry learning. There is less information about how these ideas merge to be adapted in
different contexts. Likewise, the relationship between one of the researchers and the
teacher candidates should not be overlooked. Although it was made clear participation in
this study would not affect assessment in the course, there are risks associated with such a
relationships. Students may seek to present perspectives aligned with the instructor to gain
academic advantage in the course or teacher preparation program. Furthermore, the
intervention and data collection took place over a relatively short period of time. We relied
on preservice teachers’ survey responses, class discussions, work in the inquiry module,
and final reflections that may have been more limiting in providing more rich individual
details.
With data collected for this project it is not possible to make generalizations about
preservice teachers’ practice writ large. After the implementation of both means of
learning about historical inquiry, many remained conflicted about what the ideal model of
inquiry represents for their students’ learning and at what cognitive level students are
capable of inquiring. And although lesson plans included instances of inquiry-oriented
activities and ideas, which helped us see the extent to which these preservice teachers are
willing to use inquiry-oriented activities in lessons, these products were not employed with
secondary students and as such cannot be seen as evidence of inquiry-based instruction
finding its way into social studies classrooms.

Findings

The quantitative results from this project can be used to address the first research
question regarding the differences in preservice teachers’ ideas about inquiry instruction
between groups. The means for preservice teachers’ ratings at pre- and post- survey are
presented in Table 1, as well as differences in preservice teachers’ ratings between groups.
The differences in preservice teachers’ ratings at pre-test indicate that there is some
variance, regardless of the intervention. However, eleven out of eighteen of these ratings
are closer to zero at pre-survey than at post-survey, suggesting that differences between
groups becomes slightly more pronounced and therefore trends can be interpreted relative
to post-survey findings. Of the seven that do not follow this pattern, many are categorized
as challenges of employing inquiry in instruction or are related to historical inquiry for
one’s own learning or developing historical thinking skills. For preservice teachers in both
groups, their ratings on the challenges of inquiry instruction suggest that they are becoming

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

more confident as they learn more about how to incorporate inquiry in their teaching. Yet
still, the concentration of negative numbers describing the differences between groups
shows that teaching inquiry appears to be somewhat less challenging for preservice
teachers more fully exposed to the online model of historical inquiry.

Table 1: Pre- and post- survey means for pre-service teachers’ responses, including
differences calculated between groups

Frequency

Independent Inquiry
(A)

Teacher-Directed
(B)

Difference1

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Middle school

students
3.00 2.67 3.38 3.00 -.38 -.33

High school
students

3.67 3.50 3.75 3.29 -.08 .21

Student
engagement

3.67 3.83 3.62 3.29 .04 .55

Student learning 3.33 3.50 3.38 3.00 -.04 .50
Own learning 3.33 3.67 3.50 3.86 -.17 -.19
Developing

historical thinking
3.17 3.67 3.88 3.43 -.71 .24

Utility
Middle school

students
3.50 3.33 3.50 3.14 0.0 .19

High school
students

3.83 4.00 3.62 3.43 .21 .57

Student
engagement

4.00 3.83 3.88 3.57 .12 .26

Student learning 3.50 3.83 3.62 3.57 -.12 .26
Own learning 3.67 3.83 3.88 3.86 -.21 -.02
Developing

historical thinking
3.67 3.60 3.88 3.71 -.21 -.11

Challenging
Middle school

students
3.17 3.33 3.38 3.57 -.21 -.24

High school
students

3.17 3.00 3.00 3.00 .17 0.0

Student
engagement

2.83 2.67 2.88 2.71 -.04 -.05

Student learning 2.83 2.67 3.00 2.71 -.17 -.05
Own learning 2.33 2.17 2.38 2.43 -.04 -.26
Developing

historical thinking
3.00 2.50 2.75 3.00 .25 -.5

1 Note: Negative numbers indicate that students in Group A (intervention group) reported
ratings lower than those in Group B (comparison group)

Results from the post-survey provide additional descriptive information about
preservice teachers’ ideas about inquiry instruction. Noting the brevity of the intervention,
these patterns are important given the relative stability in ratings. The means at post-test
(see Table 1) indicate that preservice teachers in Group B would more frequently use this
approach with middle school students than those in Group A. When assessing how useful
inquiry-based learning is, the ratings indicate that preservice teachers believed that it was
more useful for high school students than middle school students. These ideas are

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

supported in the qualitative data, where preservice teachers frequently mentioned age and
maturity-level of students to be an important perquisite for inquiry-based instruction. One
preservice teacher in Group A mentioned that “It is not useful in age groups where they
[students] have a hard time focusing and listening to others,” (A7). Another from Group A
suggested, “Students must have enough background knowledge for new information to be
pertinent” (A1).

Table 2: Chi-square analysis for independent samples, representing frequency counts for
changes in survey ratings.

Category P
Frequency
Increased ratings 1.72 .189
Decreased ratings 10.5 .001

Utility
Increased ratings 1.98 .160
Decreased ratings 2.55 .110

Challenging
Increased ratings 2.55 .110
Decreased ratings .476 .490

Patterns suggest that preservice teachers in the Group A generally would use
inquiry instruction more often than those in the Group B. Furthermore, these preservice
teachers reported that inquiry instruction is more useful for student learning and
engagement, regardless of grade-level. One important distinction to note between groups is
that preservice teachers in Group B rated inquiry to be more often incorporated in their
own learning and to be more useful for their own learning and development of historical
thinking. This finding suggests that the preservice teachers who did not participate in the
inquiry module could have a harder time envisioning how to facilitate inquiry, but perceive
it to be an important component to their own learning; a challenge found in research
focused on the transition from learner to teacher (Kennedy, 1997).
In order to capture differences in ratings between groups from pre-/post-tests,
frequencies were calculated to explore significant proportionate changes in ratings between
groups. Items assessing frequency, utility, and level of challenge were collapsed into one
category where the number of instances for preservice teachers to report increases or
decreases in ratings was equal to the number items (n = 6) multiplied by the number of
people who submitted both surveys (n = 13). Therefore, the proportional differences were
calculated based on n = 78, because one post-survey was not returned. The chi-square
statistics for independent samples are reported in Table 2.
Results in Table 1 indicate that the only significant difference was found in the
number of preservice teachers who decreased their ratings on how frequently they would
use inquiry instruction from pre- to post-survey. A higher percentage of ratings declined
among students in the Group B than would be expected by chance,

. More closely examining the means, it is clear that
preservice teachers in Group A started with much lower ratings on how frequently they
would incorporate inquiry instruction. Therefore, preservice teachers in the Group B may

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

have had a less clear understanding about inquiry instruction prior to coursework and
reported ratings overconfidently. Although these differences were present from the start, as
preservice teachers developed their understanding, direct instruction more significantly
impacted ratings in the negative direction than the historical inquiry modules supported
preservice teachers’ inclinations positively. The non-significant differences in the
remainder of the categories indicate that responses remained relatively stable between
groups at each survey administration. The most visible patterns however can be elaborated
on based on preservice teachers’ verbal discussions, written reflections about inquiry and
in the lesson plans they submitted. Central to this study, these qualitative elaborations
provide for further speculations regarding how these differences emerged.

The Idea of Inquiry

Broad categories emerged to group the kinds of ideas that preservice teachers’
talked about when referring to learning and teaching social studies from an inquiry model.
These categories served as organizational codes (Maxwell, 2005), which are summarized
in Table 3. Within these categories, a number of content codes were assigned to the data
using language that was common among preservice teacher responses. For example, when
discussing the prerequisites that preservice teachers perceived to be necessary in order for
inquiry to be successful, many often cited a strong “foundation” of knowledge, “maturity”,
or “motivation.” When referring to the effects of inquiry, preservice teachers most often
mentioned student “ownership” and “interest.” The process of assigning such content
codes brought attention to key ideas within and between groups.

Table 3: Organizational categories, perceived influences on the implementation of inquiry
instruction

Category Definition Sample data Code

Freq.
A B

Student
prerequisites

Describes the prerequisites, traits, or
behaviors that are needed for the
student to engage and learn from
inquiry instruction.

“It is not useful…when the student
does not know enough to ask a
question that necessitates inquiry.”

2
1 18

Teacher
prerequisites

Describes the prerequisites, traits, or
behaviors that teachers need to
exhibit or practice in order to use
inquiry in their teaching.

The teacher needs to trust the
students and be confident that
students are able to process this idea
(B5)

1 11

Students do
(roles/actions)

Describes what students do when
engaging in inquiry learning. This
could be a specific learning task,
characteristic that describes the
process, or products that may result.

“…Engaging with primary source
material. It requires students to
search for answers on their own, and
truly wrestle with a text or item.”
(A3)

1
2 23

Teachers do
(roles/actions)

Describes what teachers do when
utilizing inquiry-based instruction.
This could be regarding the teacher’s
general role in the process or
characteristics that describe the
process.

“To probe” and “to get middle school
students to think ‘outside’ the box.”
(A4)

1
7 6

Effects Addresses the outcome, effectiveness, or importance of
“Allows students to take charge of
his/her own learning.” (A2) 9 19

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

inquiry-based learning.

Classroom
context

Locus of control, elements of the
classroom environment or teacher-
student relationships that effect
inquiry learning.

“Inquiry based learning is sometimes
hard because you may not have a
class that likes to engage and speak
in front of one another.” (A7)

1
2 21

Academic
knowledge

Addresses the relation between
inquiry instruction and academic
knowledge.

“Inquiry based learning could also
result in students missing out on
some information that might be
acquired through a lecture or other
teaching method.” (A5)

1
3 9

Sources of
perceptions

Statements when teachers attribute
their beliefs to various aspects of
their educational experience.

“I’ve also noticed that in my own
educational experience growing up
that whenever I had more
involvement in the content, I was
much more eager to learn.” (B5)

4 15

Classroom
applications

Includes teachers’ descriptions of
how they would apply what they’ve
learned in their teaching.

“A nail is such a simple object and
something that we have many of
lying around at home, so to see it in a
historical sense makes a connection
between us and the people of the
past.” (B2)

1
6 11

Affect
General sentiments about
incorporating inquiry into social
studies instruction.

“I love the idea, but I’m not sure how
much you use it.” (B7) 4 9

Although the intervention was relatively short, the form of instruction experienced
by preservice teachers in each group revealed some qualitatively different patterns in how
preservice teachers focused their attention on the implementation of inquiry instruction in
the social studies. Differences may be due, in part, to their experience in course instruction
over this time. Those in Group A developed their own understanding of inquiry instruction
through research, group collaboration, and experience with the Hidden in Plain Sight
modules. Meanwhile, preservice teachers in Group B were told about inquiry instruction
both by the instructor and by their peers. This difference may have led Group B to develop
a more reactionary stance toward inquiry while the Group A may have had more
opportunities to assimilate the new information and thus share more classroom application
language. At the same time, most preservice teachers tended to have similar descriptions of
the challenges and utility of this form of instruction in the secondary classroom, as found
in the content codes within the organizational categories.
Analysis of the lesson plans produced as part of the course echoed suggestions from
quantitative data analysis that the preservice teachers with whom we worked on this
project were confident as they learn more about how to incorporate inquiry in their
teaching. Eight of the 15 participants included specific inquiry-based elements in their
lesson plans. Activating strategies were most the common places where participants
employed inquiry. Activities such as image or music analysis were employed by four of
the participants as part of the activating strategy. Four of the seven participants in Group A
also included inquiry as part of instructional activities or assessment framework, while two
from Group B did likewise. One Group A student, for example, included U.S. Census data
sets from the mid-twentieth century to guide students toward discovering how the growth
of the automobile market paralleled growth in suburban living. Another from that same

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

group asked students to examine maps, agricultural output data and climate data to infer
economic strengths of regions in Colonial America.

Independent Thinking vs. Independent Work.

Overall, preservice teachers’ responded positively to the idea of inquiry learning.
However, their descriptions of inquiry instruction and their discussion of what students do
when learning through their own inquiry offers some insight to subtle distinctions about
inquiry in practice. For example, preservice teachers in Group B described inquiry learning
as “self-directed,” “independent,” “student-based,” and as a student selection of “own
topics.” Meanwhile, preservice teachers in Group A described inquiry as “Student-
oriented,” allowing students to “draw connections,” and teachers to include students’ “own
conclusions.” Though the differences are subtle, the first set of descriptions seems to
associate inquiry learning more with a self-contained method of teaching where students
are working independently, an inclination aligned most closely with self-regulatory
behavior. These descriptions offer only a small portion of preservice teachers’ thinking, but
these are elaborated on further through qualitative survey responses and in the presentation
of inquiry instruction to the comparison group.
First, it is important to note that the analytical nature of inquiry learning is evident
through each lens – independent work and thinking. Preservice teachers mentioned the
opportunity for classroom discussion about primary and secondary sources to be an
important component for this approach to instruction. One student explained that
“…engaging with primary sources and material – It requires students to search for answers
on their own, and truly wrestle with a text or item” (A3). However, teachers in Group B
tended to also emphasize choice and independence in their ideas about what students do.
For example, inquiry instruction is useful in practice because “…the students got to choose
what they are studying” (B5) and not challenging because “students are eager for the
chance, many times, to work more independently.” They also mentioned the challenging
nature of inquiry learning projects, especially in middle school, because they may not be
ready to work independently or think critically. As one student explained, “It might be
harder for younger students to understand” and “It can be more challenging for some
middle school students because some may still be moving into higher order thinking more
slowly than some of their peers” (B4).
These details help to explicate some of the quantitative findings where teachers in
Group B rated inquiry instruction to be less useful and more challenging for middle school
students. The idea of inquiry being an opportunity for independent work may also be partly
explained by the research design for Group B – that these teachers were told from multiple
sources (teacher and peers) about “what is” inquiry learning. The peer presentation on
inquiry instruction presented this methodology as very research-oriented, that it involves
“research obviously, primary sources – they’re using their own tools to find the answers to
their questions…” (A7) yet “…in high school, students aren’t required to do real research”
(A3). These preservice teachers Group A had the opportunity to draw their own
conclusions about inquiry instruction based on their research and their participation in an
online historical inquiry model. This fact seems to have implicitly impacted their
inclinations about inquiry as an opportunity to draw conclusions and make connections,
although their explicit descriptions emphasized independence. Analysis of lesson plans
likewise illustrated a pattern that while a majority of students explicitly included inquiry in
activities and as part of assessments, these instances largely adhered to teacher-guided
inquiry. These patterns suggest that it may be important to distinguish between

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

independent work and opportunities for independent thinking in how teachers incorporate
inquiry in practice at different grade-levels.
Learner and Teacher Orientations. Next, the frequency counts derived from the
coding of preservice teachers’ statements reveal some differences in how they focused
their attention in their comments about inquiry learning and instruction. One category that
emerged was in the pre-requisite skills and traits that teachers need to have in order to be
able to facilitate inquiry. Some of these included time management, planning, practice,
training, flexibility, and trust. One preservice teacher explained the challenge of “making
good use of time when adapting this method, not letting discussion drag on at times...”
(B8) and that it “requires a great deal of preparation and explanation to the students and
requires effective classroom management…” (B3). These statements were generally
written as conditional, reflecting requirements of the teacher. Although preservice teachers
in this group talked about the challenges for the teacher, they associated these challenges
with specific teacher behaviors. For example, the provision of models or use of probing
questions for students may be challenging, but “teachers could gradually build up students’
investigative and analytical abilities so that eventually they can complete an inquiry task
on their own” (A5) and that inquiry can require “spending a lot of time with each student
in order to push them to get involved and follow questions through properly” (A6). While
teachers in Group A more frequently addressed the role of the teacher in facilitating an
inquiry activity, students in Group B more frequently referred to overall effects of inquiry
instruction on student learning and development, as well as the teacher pre-requisites in
order for instruction to be successful.
These orientations are also reflected in the language of preservice teachers’ post
reflections. Although preservice teachers in both groups may have expressed interest (or
disinterest) in using an inquiry approach, there were some subtle differences in how they
framed their comments. For example, Student B7 expressed interest, but indicated “I am
excited about the potential of using it for my own purposes right now,” suggesting that it is
more practical for her own learning than teaching, given her level of comfort with such
thinking processes. Other teachers in Group B focused on the general benefits or overall
value of the idea: “I believe, if effectively utilized, teachers can accurately assess a
student’s knowledge and understanding” (B6). Furthermore, they primarily discussed their
own experience as learners participating in college-level inquiry. In contrast, students in
Group A offered slight adaptations for inquiry in teaching, sometimes in comparison to the
online model. One preservice teacher suggested, “I think I would make it more interactive
and discussion based” (A7) and another commented “I would want to be sure to guide my
students into realization of the larger themes and movements going on in the nation that
made these things possible” (A5). The opportunity for independent research and
experience seems to have encouraged preservice teachers to reflect more on the transition
from learner to teacher.
Clearly, there are trends in what preservice teachers talk about when discussing the
incorporation of inquiry into their teaching. However, these should be interpreted most
accurately as general descriptors. Preservice teachers’ intended instructional practices in
association with the intervention would need to be further investigated through
longitudinal studies which followed teacher candidates through to clinical practices and
beyond. With no students or actual classroom context to guide preservice teachers’
implementation intentions, it is difficult to go beyond an expectancy model of general
effects and applications. When teaching preservice teachers about this form of instruction,
it could be helpful to address their ideas about the traits and contexts with which they
associate inquiry instruction. Preservice teachers may be more adaptive if they can find

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

ways to attribute student learning in an inquiry model to their role as facilitator rather than
an outcome of instructional methodology.

Discussion

With national standards and social studies curricular frameworks moving toward
disciplinary reading and critical inquiry, it is important to understand how teachers’
learning about inquiry instruction influences their perceptions and inclination to support
student-centered inquiry in their classrooms. The National Research Council’s (2000) How
People Learn report brought these ideas to the fore by asserting that teachers best develop
knowledge of the inquiry process through “in-depth study of the subject area themselves”
coupled with understanding of how learning occurs within disciplines (p. 20). The results
from this comparative case design informs social studies teacher educators about the need
to address the means of instruction and the nature of learning in teacher preparation
programs as important factors to impact instruction with K-12 students (Adler, 2008;
Williamson McDiarmid & Clenvenger-Bright, 2008). Results of this research suggest that
an experiential process may have an implicit impact on how preservice teachers talk about
implementing inquiry with middle and secondary education students. Participating in a
model that could be adapted for these students prompted preservice teachers to discuss
what they would change if they were to use a similar approach – namely that they would
rely more on teacher-led interaction and discussion. These teachers engaged in more
discussion about plausible alternatives when considering how they approach inquiry
instruction, suggesting that they experienced some dissonance around which to react. This
process is key when identifying the likelihood of incorporating similar modes of inquiry in
instruction (Posner et al., 1982).
Following the recommendation of Pintrich, et al. (1993) the learning context plays a
crucial role in understanding individual’s conceptual change. The data that were collected
focused particularly on preservice teachers’ ideas about external expectancies regarding
inquiry instruction as they emerged from contrasting instructional approaches, though and
there is little information beyond the lesson plans about how these ideas would be
implemented. Overall, however, when discussing the utility, challenges, and their own
inclinations to use inquiry instruction, similar factors were identified among preservice
teachers. These factors included time and curriculum constraints, as well as the necessity to
transfer information. These factors are often cited, even in content methods courses that
focus on the epistemic nature of the discipline with opportunities for preservice teachers to
participate in classroom inquiry investigations (Yeager & Wilson, 1997). These patterns
indicate that preservice teachers’ overarching goals for social studies teaching remain
relatively independent to their exposure to varying instructional approaches, including
historical inquiry.
The pre-requisite traits that preservice teachers identified for their students to be
able learn through inquiry seemed to inform their ideas about when and how it should be
used. Students’ level of knowledge, maturity, and motivation, for example, were related to
tendencies toward implementing inquiry at the high school level. This association of
inquiry with adolescent cognitive development has been found in other cases examining
preservice social studies teacher education. Conklin (2010) described the differences in
preservice teachers’ inclinations comparing a middle years-focused program with a
secondary teacher preparation program. In this case, preservice teachers in the middle
school program more often expressed positive beliefs about middle school students’
abilities to think critically – at 77% compared to only 23% in the secondary (6-12)
preparation program. Therefore, addressing preservice teachers’ beliefs about students and

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

the idea of inquiry as practice in different contexts may help them reframe the utility and
value of inquiry instruction as they weigh the costs and benefits of the model for their own
instruction.
Regardless of the limitations that come from this research design, there do seem to
be patterns in how and what preservice teachers talk about regarding inquiry learning and
instruction. While these findings are informed by researchers’ prior knowledge in teacher
education, motivation, teacher self-efficacy, and historical cognition, there were no pre-set
ideas about what to expect. The pre-/post- design was incorporated with intent to
investigate growth as a product of the methods of course instruction, but data instead
supported a relatively stable comparison between groups. Furthermore, the data were not
coded using names of individual students to minimize bias regarding the researcher’s
relationship with individual students as instructor. One data source in particular may have
contributed to more reactive responses from preservice teachers in Group B – those from
student responses led by the course instructor. In these sessions student responses were not
necessarily candid. However, all preservice teachers had the same opportunity for more
reflective responses in journal entries and in providing classroom applications of their
learning at the end of the second historical inquiry module. Given some differences in data
sources, attention was directed in analytic memos not to overemphasize language elicited
from specific data sources that may have been absent in one group. Recognizing these
threats, among other limitations, helped support the validity of the emerging patterns we
discerned from these data.

Significance and Future Research

Unique in this study was the opportunity to map out preservice teachers’ responses
based on different instructional processes experienced. Although preservice teachers’ were
not explicitly categorized based on how they made the transition from learner to instructor,
there were patterns that indicated some differences from this perspective, and these
patterns were mirrored in lesson plans. Preservice teachers’ in the Independent Inquiry
Group (A) more often reflected on their role as instructor, although most preservice
teachers’ seemed to have questions about its implementation in practice. There were
statements to suggest that inquiry is more practical in their own learning than teaching and
one student in Group B was “nonplussed” despite exposure to the historical inquiry module
in the latter part of course instruction. The teacher-directed inquiry in this case did not
seem to prompt preservice teachers’ reevaluation of history teaching. As Holt-Reynolds
(1992) found, preservice teachers commented on how their own beliefs about history
education challenged research-based practices – rather than attuning to research as a
challenge to their own beliefs.
The findings from this study are significant given the limited attempts in social
studies teacher education research to explore how learning context interacts with
preservice teachers’ instructional beliefs. The comparative cases reveal differences in
preservice teachers accommodation of methods of historical inquiry evidenced in their
ratings on how frequently they would use inquiry instruction and in their reflections that
focused on contrasting perspectives about inquiry from the perspective of learner and
teacher. Interventions that have sought to encourage historical inquiry as regular practice
have relied on large problem-based units that are met with challenge against preservice
teacher conceptions, which express genuine interest in these ideas but largely deem them
impractical in K-12 instruction (McDiarmid & Vinten-Johansen, 2000). The contrasting
instructional methods explored here, however, employ an independent inquiry component
in which preservice teachers reflected on their own beliefs independently from their peers

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

(e.g. during class discussion) and were presented with a unique model of inquiry that
emphasized the induction of an historical thinking process rather than the instructional
design of a complex unit.
Researchers have long lamented that instruction designed to stoke curiosity and
challenge them to think creatively and critically is less emphasized as students progress
through the school system (Mitra & Negroponte, 2012; Robinson, 2011). As students move
toward secondary school they are more often required to memorize names and dates rather
than to inquire and discover interpretations of the past through historical evidence (Bain,
2005). Preservice teachers’ conceptions are firmly grounded in this approach, which they
have experienced over the course of their educational careers. This phenomenon becomes
more significant as curriculum developers and policymakers begin to include inquiry as
part of standards and frameworks (e.g. Common Core State Standards and NCSS C3
Framework). To breach this divide, this research purports that teacher education programs
must present more practical possibilities for incorporating historical inquiry in instruction
that is attentive to teacher beliefs about students’ capabilities, effective history instruction,
and their role as educator in the standards driven environment. A key component to Posner
et al.’s (1982) theory of conceptual change is that the alternatives presented must be
perceived to be plausible. Therefore, this research provides unique details regarding
preservice teacher beliefs as they pertain to two different means of presenting inquiry as an
effective and useful approach to history education.
To elaborate on these findings, future research could draw out this interaction
between teachers’ preconceptions and the learning context during the transition period in
more detail using comparative cases. Kang et al. (2013) examined preservice science
teachers’ transition from learner to instructor and was able to map out preservice teachers
in only two of four categories: teacher of inquiry with questions and inquiry-oriented. In
this case, preservice teachers who had questions about inquiry focused on the long-term
and research aspects of scientific inquiry – a focus that we also found among preservice
teachers, particularly those in the Independent Inquiry Group (A) who presented inquiry to
their peers as an analytic research model. Therefore, an emphasis on how preservice
teachers form their ideas about inquiry instruction through an experiential learning process
may provide more useful information regarding instructional design for secondary methods
teachers. An extension of this investigation could draw on interviews about how research
informs preservice teachers’ ideas, in addition to prompted comparisons for preservice
teachers to reflect on inquiry more explicitly, both as learner and as instructor. This
approach could facilitate more explicit distinctions between these two roles during
preservice teachers’ transitional period. Overall, the methods course provides a unique
opportunity to explore the development of ideas and expectancies regarding approaches to
instruction in the social studies.

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

References

Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Silva, P. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in the classroom.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In (L.S. Levstik & C.A. Tyson).
Handbook of research on social studies education (pp. 329-351). New York:
Routledge.
Bain, R. (2005). They thought the world was flat: applying the principles of how people
learn in teaching high school history. In M.S. Donovan and J.D. Bransford (Eds.),
How students learn history, mathematics and science in the classroom (pp. 177-
198). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Barton, K. C. (2011). History: From learning narratives to thinking historically. In W. B.
Russell (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential reader. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Barton, K.C., Levstik, L. S. (2001). Doing history: Investigating with children in
elementary and middle schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bell, B., Gaventa, J., & Peters, J. (Eds.). (1990). We make the road by walking:
Conversations on education and social change: Myles Horton and Paulo Freire.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R., (Eds). (1999). How people learn. National
Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. In J. Bruner (Ed.), In Search of Pedagogy: The
Selected Works of Jerome S. Bruner, (pp. 57-66). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Excerpts retrieved from Google Books.
Ching Yang, S. (2009). A case study of technology-enhanced historical inquiry.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 237–248.
doi:10.1080/14703290902844040
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). Retrieved September 25,
2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states
Council of Chief State School Officers (2012). Vision for the college, career, and civic life
(C3) framework for inquiry in social studies state standards. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/resources/publications
Conklin, H. G. (2010). Preparing for the educational black hole? Teachers’ learning in two
pathways into middle school social studies teaching. Theory & Research in Social
Education, 38(1), 48–79.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle Rive, NJ: Pearson
Crofutt, G.A. (1872). American Progress. [After 1872 painting of the same title by John
Gast]. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/97507547/
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston : D.C. Heath & Co. Retrieved from
http://archive.org/details/howwethink00deweiala
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New
York, NY.
Doolittle, P., Hicks, D., & Ewing, T. (2004). Historical inquiry: understanding the past.
Historical inquiry: Scaffolding wise practices in the history classroom. Retrieved
January 26, 2013, from http://www.historicalinquiry.com/inquiry/index.cfm
Drake, F.D. & Nelson, L. R. (2005). Engagement in teaching history: Theory and practices
for middle and secondary teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Driscoll, M.P (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

Edsel, D.C., Gordin, D.N., & Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based
learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8(3+4), 391-450.
Evans, R.W. (2011). The hope for American school reform: Cold War pursuit of inquiry
learning in social studies. New York: Palgrave.
Farley, L. (2009). Radical hope: Or, the problem of uncertainty in history education.
Curriculum Inquiry, 39(4), 537-554.
Fenton, E. (1991). Reflections on the ‘new social studies.’ Social Studies, 82(3), 84-90.
Foster, S. J. & Padgett, C. (1999). Authentic historical inquiry in the social studies
classroom. Clearing House, 72(6), 357-65.
Fragnoli, K. (2005) Historical inquiry in a methods classroom: Examining our beliefs and
shedding our old ways. The Social Studies, 96(6), 247-25. doi:
10.3200/TSSS.96.6.24-252
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-
Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-
based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gregoire-Gill, M., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’
epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An
intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 164–185.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.003
Guccione, L. M. (2011). In a world of mandates, making space for inquiry. The Reading
Teacher, 64(7), 515–519. doi:10.2307/41203442
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hernández-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning history in middle school by
designing multimedia in a project-based learning experience. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 42(2), 151–173.
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in
course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349.
doi:10.3102/00028312029002325
Husbands, C. (1996). What is history teaching? Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Kang, E. J. S., Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2013). Crossing the border from science
student to science teacher: Preservice teachers’ views and experiences learning to
teach inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 427–447.
doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9317-9
Kennedy, M.M. (1997). Defining an ideal teacher education program. Paper for the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Retrieved from:
https://www.msu.edu/~mkennedy/publications/Kennedy%20to%20NCATE.pdf
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 Psychology,
41(2), 75-86.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive
skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.
doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_3
Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in historical understanding among students ages
7-14. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 199–222). New
York: New York University Press.
Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives.
Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools
Project.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design : an interactive approach . Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Mitra, S., & Negroponte, N. (2012). Beyond the hole in the wall: Discover the power of
self-organized learning. New York: TED Books.
National Center for History in Schools (1996). History standards. Retrieved March 15,
2013 from http://www.nchs.ucla.edu/standards
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). College, career & civic life: C3 framework
for social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the
Social Studies:
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and
school. National Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D.
Bransford, A.AL. Brown & R.R. Cockling (Eds.). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Neill, A.S. (1995). Summerhill school: A new view of childhood. Edited by Albert Lamb.
London: St. Martins Press.
Palmer, P. J. (1980). The courage to teach. Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s
life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd. ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W. , & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual
change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of
a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,
66(2), 211–227. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. London: Capstone.
Rogers, V.R. (1968). The social studies revolution begins in Britain. Phi Delta Kappa
International, 50(3), 162-165.
Rone, T.R. (2008). “Culture from the Outside in and the Inside out: Experiential Education
and the Continuum of Theory, Practice, and Policy.” College Teaching, 56(4), 237-
245. Singer, A.J. (2010). Social studies for secondary schools: Teaching to learn,
learning to teach (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & J. Stevens, R. (1999). Addressing preservice teachers’
conceptions of motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7), 741–752.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00023-2
Stearns, P.N. (1998). Why study history? American Historical Association. Retrieved
from: http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm
VanSledright, B. (2009). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge and school
history education. Review of Research in Education, 32, 109-146.
VanSledright, B. (2000, August). Can ten-year-olds learn to investigate history as
historians do? Bruce A. VanSledright. OAH Outlook. Retrieved from
http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2000aug/vansledright.html
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anthony M. Pellegrino & Jessica Kilday

Williamson McDiarmid, G., & Clevenger-Bright, M. (2008). Rethinking teacher capacity.
In (M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D.J. McIntyre, (Eds.). Handbook on
teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed.), 134-156.
Windschitl, M. & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science
investigations: Can pre-service instruction foster teachers’ understanding of model-
based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43, 783-835.
Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Reading like a historian: Teaching
literacy in middle and high school classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts : Charting the future
of teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Yeager, E. A., & Wilson, E. K. (1997). Teaching historical thinking in the social studies
methods course: A case study. Social Studies, 88(3), 121.

Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2013: 4(2), 1-26

Appendix

Pre- / Post- Teacher Survey
Provide three words or phrases that you would use to describe inquiry-based learning.
In response to each of the following items, how frequently would you plan to use inquiry-
based learning?

For middle school students? Never Seldom Sometimes Often
For high school students?
For student engagement?
For student learning?
For your own learning?
For developing historical thinking?

In response to each of the following items, how useful is inquiry-based learning?

For middle school students? Not at all Not very Somewhat Very
For high school students?
For student engagement?
For student learning
For your own learning?
For developing historical thinking?

Considering your ratings, address some of the ways you believe inquiry-based learning is:
(a) useful; (b) not useful

In response to each of the following items, how challenging is inquiry-based learning?

For middle school students? Not at all Not very Somewhat Very
For high school students?
For student engagement?
For student learning?
For your own learning?
For developing historical thinking?

Considering your ratings, address some of the ways you believe inquiry-based learning is:
(a) challenging; (b) not challenging