Relationship between preferred and actual opinions about inquiry-based instruction classroom

Prasart Nuangchalerm 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Thailand
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 67-73.
OPEN ACCESS   1263 Views   785 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


Based on 10 preservice science teachers in 4 schools, this study presents a detailed analysis of how preservice teacher expectation interacts with school practicum and authentic classroom action of inquiry-based instruction. Classroom observation, lesson plan analysis, and interviews revealed that inquiry-based instruction in the expectation and authentic classroom seems to them not differently perceived. Exploring the relationship of this study allows for teacher preparation program of the mechanisms of the science teacher production. Pedagogical content knowledge is studied and it indicated that preservice science teachers had highest level of understanding. The implication is that changes in school practices that incubate theory and practice ways increase their role about inquiry-based instruction, including science teacher’s attributes.


Nuangchalerm, P. (2017). Relationship between preferred and actual opinions about inquiry-based instruction classroom. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 67-73.


  • Akerson, V. L., &Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth‐grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049.
  • Atwater, M. M., Gardner, C., &Kight, C. R. (1991).Beliefs and attitudes of urban primary teachers toward physical science and teaching physical science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 3(1), 3-12.
  • Buaraphan, K. (2007). Relationships between fourth-year preservice physics teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning physics and their classroom practices during student teaching. Songklanakarin Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 13(4), 595-620.
  • Chiappetta, E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004).Inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 71(2), 46.
  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Dostál, J. (2015). Inquiry based instruction : Concepts, essence, importance.Olomouce University.
  • Eggleston, J. (1979). Teacher decision-making in the classroom: a collection of papers. Boston: Routledge&Kegan Paul Books.
  • Emmer, E. T., &Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103-112.
  • Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education.Tesol Quarterly, 23(1), 27-45.
  • Johnson, R., & Hoffman, N. E. (1994).Preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs, literacy definitions, and conceptions of literacy development. Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn. Sixteenth yearbook of the College Reading Association, 73-84.
  • Linnenbrink, E. A., &Pintrich, P. R. (2003).The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.
  • Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (1999).The effects of mentoring relationships on preservice teachers' attitudes toward academically diverse students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(2), 56-62.
  • Nuangchalerm, P. (2011). In-service science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Studies in Sociology of Science, 2(2), 33-37.
  • Nuangchalerm, P. (2012). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in preservice science teachers. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 66-71.
  • Nuangchalerm, P., &Prachagool, V. (2010a). Influences of teacher preparation program on preservice science teachers’ beliefs. International Education Studies, 3(1), 87-91.
  • Nuangchalerm, P., &Prachagool, V. (2010b).Promoting transformative learning of preservice teacher through contemplative practices.Asian Social Science, 6(1), 95-99.
  • Parker, W. C. (1984).Developing teachers’ decision making. The Journal of Experimental Education, 52(4), 220-226.
  • Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., &Shernoff, E. S. (2003).Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases.Case Methods in Teacher Education, 1-30.
  • Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 4(2), 1-22.
  • Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.
  • Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom‐based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101.
  • Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education.Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.