Stories from and of the field: Developing teachers’ discursive practices of science
Abstract
Graphs and data tables play a central role in the formation and communication of scientific findings. Competent graph users interpret graphs by understanding the limitations of the representing role they play and other “real world” factors that may influence depicted relationships, using personal experience to contextualize unfamiliar graphs. This suggests that improved competency with using data inscriptions (i.e., data tables, graphs, maps, drawings, illustrations, and pictures) develops as one accumulates a repertoire of research stories that can be used to support interpretations of graphs and data. This study examines the discursive practices of teachers—how they talk, what language they use, and what they gesture towards—while discussing academic posters representing the research work of field biologists they did fieldwork with. The data suggest that the teachers developed rich “stories” drawn from their field experiences, which they used to describe their participation and to contextualize the findings that emerged from the field study. However, despite a preponderance of graphs and tables on the posters, they made few direct references to them. We suggest this occurred because the teachers had participated almost exclusively in the data collection aspects of the research and not in the generative claim-making part of the research. Nevertheless, the teachers’ narrative stories of their fieldwork suggest that they appropriated many of the discursive and research practices of scientists through developing their own stories-from-the-field—“Stories of Me”. They can relate these stories to their own students as firsthand narratives demonstrating nuanced understandings of the practices of real-world research and also use them as a foundation for planning inquiry activities for their own students. We conclude that more participation in the generative, claim-making aspects of science research might further enhance the ways in which teachers discuss research and research findings.
Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
[1]Latour B. Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. In: Kuklick H (editor). Knowledge and society studies in the sociology of culture past and present. Jai Press; 1986. pp. 1-40.
[2]Gardner SM, Angra A, Harsh JA. Supporting student competencies in graph reading, interpretation, construction, and evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2024; 23(1). doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-10-0207
[3]Crawford B, Capps DK. Teacher cognition of engaging children in scientific practices, In: Dori J, Mevarich Z, Baker D (editors). Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching and assessment. Springer; 2018. pp. 9-32.
[4]Lederman NG, Kuerbis PJ, Loving CC, et al. Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1997; 8(4): 233–240. doi: 10.1023/A:1017189315539
[5]Mork SM, Henriksen EK, Haug BS, et al. Defining knowledge domains for science teacher educators. International Journal of Science Education. 2021; 43(18): 3018-3034. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2021.2006819
[6]Roth WM, McGinn MK, Bowen GM. How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1998; 9(1): 25-48. doi: 10.1023/A:1009465505918
[7]Bowen GM, Roth WM. Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2005; 42(10): 1063-1088. doi: 10.1002/tea.20086
[8]Kolbe T, Jorgenson S. Meeting instructional standards for middle-level science: Which teachers are most prepared? The Elementary School Journal. 2018; 118(4): 549-577. doi: 10.1086/697540
[9]Windschitl M. Folk theories of “inquiry: ” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004; 41(5): 481-512. doi: 10.1002/tea.20010
[10]Jain J, Lee YL, Mok SJ. A systematic review of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for teaching Nature of Science. Asian Journal of University Education. 2024; 20(1): 138-151. doi: 10.24191/ajue.v20i1.25738
[11]Schiering D, Sorge S, Tröbst S, et al. Course quality in higher education teacher training: What matters for pre-service physics teachers’ content knowledge development? Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2023; 78: 101275. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101275
[12]Mesci G, Schwartz RS, Pleasants BAS. Enabling factors of preservice science teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Nature of Science and Nature of Scientific Inquiry. Science & Education. 2020; 29(2): 263-297. doi: 10.1007/s11191-019-00090-w
[13]Wilcox J, Voss S, Kruse J, et al. Research Experiences for Undergraduates through extracurricular practitioner inquiry: Exploring the experiences of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2024; 35(7): 756-776. doi: 10.1080/1046560x.2024.2336769
[14]Nouri N, Saberi M, McComas WF, et al. Proposed Teacher Competencies to Support Effective Nature of Science Instruction: A Meta-Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2021; 32(6): 601-624. doi: 10.1080/1046560x.2020.1871206
[15]Aristeidou M, Lorke J, Ismail N. Citizen science: Schoolteachers’ motivation, experiences, and recommendations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2022; 21(7): 2067-2093. doi: 10.1007/s10763-022-10340-z
[16]Liu C, Yang W, Liu E. Policy in K-12 science teacher preparation: Uniformity and diversity from international perspectives. In: Luft JA, Jones MG (editors). Handbook of research on science teacher education. Routledge; 2022. pp. 231-241. doi: 10.4324/9781003098478-20
[17]Morrell P, Rogers MP, Pyle E, et al. NSTA/ASTE standards for science teacher preparation. National Science Teaching Association; 2020.
[18]Morrell PD, Park Rogers MA, Pyle EJ, et al. Preparing teachers of science for 2020 and beyond: Highlighting changes to the NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2020; 31(1): 1-7. doi: 10.1080/1046560x.2019.1705536
[19]Morrell PD, Rogers MP, Pyle EJ, et al. Preparing our next generation of science teachers: What should a science teacher know and be able to do ARISE-AAAS Blog. Available online: https://aaas-arise.org/2019/09/25/preparing-our-next-generation-of-science-teachers-what-should-a-science-teacher-know-and-be-able-to-do/ (accessed on 3 January 2025).
[20]Nielsen N, Schweingruber H, Wilson S. Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. National Academies Press; 2016. doi: 10.17226/21836
[21]Baldwin K, Darner R. Preservice science and mathematics teachers’ acculturation into communities of practice: A call for undergraduate research in science and mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of STEM Teacher Education. 2021; 56(1). doi: 10.30707/jste56.1.1624981200.209707
[22]Ahmad Z, Al-Thani NJ. Undergraduate Research Experience models: A systematic review of the literature from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of Educational Research. 2022; 114: 101996. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101996
[23]Binali T, Chang CH, Chang YJ, et al. High school and college students’ graph-interpretation competence in scientific and daily contexts of data visualization. Science & Education. 2022; 33(3): 763-785. doi: 10.1007/s11191-022-00406-3
[24]Stephens AL. From graphs as task to graphs as tool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2024; 61(5): 1206-1233. doi: 10.1002/tea.21930
[25]St. Clair N, Stephens AL, Lee HS. ‘But, is it supposed to be a straight line?’ Scaffolding students’ experiences with pressure sensors and material resistance in a high school biology classroom. International Journal of Science Education. 2023; 46(8): 815-838. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2023.2260064
[26]Kaya E, Erduran S. Comparison of physics, chemistry, and biology teachers’ perceptions of Nature of Science and domains of science. Science & Education. Published online October 30, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s11191-024-00576-2
[27]Paoletti T, Lee HY, Rahman Z, et al. Comparing graphical representations in mathematics, science, and engineering textbooks and practitioner journals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2020; 53(7): 1815-1834. doi: 10.1080/0020739x.2020.1847336
[28]Schwartz RS, Lederman JS, Enderle PJ. Scientific inquiry literacy: The missing link on the continuum from science literacy to scientific literacy. In: Lederman N, Zeidler D, Lederman JS (editors). Handbook of research on science education. Routledge; 2023. pp. 749-782.
[29]Conerly TR, Holmes K, Tamang AL. Introduction to sociology 3e. Available online: https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-3e (accessed on 3 January 2025).
[30]McComas WF, Olson J. The Nature of Science in international science education standards documents. In: McComas WF (editor). Nature of Science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer (Springer) Academic Publishers; 1998. pp. 41-52. doi: 10.1007/0-306-47215-5_2
[31]NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press; 2013. doi: 10.17226/18290
[32]Abd-El-Khalick F. Teaching with and about Nature of Science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education. 2012; 22(9): 2087-2107. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9520-2
[33]Edgerly H, Kruse J, Wilcox J. Investigating elementary teachers’ views, implementation, and longitudinal enactment of Nature of Science instruction. Science & Education. 2022; 32(4): 1049-1073. doi: 10.1007/s11191-022-00343-1
[34]Akerson VL, Pongsanon K, Park Rogers MA, et al. Exploring the use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge for teaching Nature of Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2015; 15(2): 293-312. doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9690-x
[35]Akerson VL, Morrison JA, McDuffie AR. One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2005; 43(2): 194-213. doi: 10.1002/tea.20099
[36]Kinskey M. The importance of teaching Nature of Science: Exploring preservice teachers’ views and instructional practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2022; 34(3): 307-327. doi: 10.1080/1046560x.2022.2100730
[37]Stroupe D, Suárez E, Scipio D. Epistemic injustice and the “Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2024; 62(4): 901-941. doi: 10.1002/tea.21988
[38]Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Crawford BA. Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education. 2004; 88(4): 610-645. doi: 10.1002/sce.10128
[39]Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M. Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education. 2008; 92(5): 941-967. doi: 10.1002/sce.20259
[40]Windschitl M. Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education. 2002; 87(1): 112-143. doi: 10.1002/sce.10044
[41]Bowen GM, Bartley A. Improving the graph interpretation competencies of preservice secondary science teachers through long-term independent inquiry project work. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology; 2025; Antalya, Turkey.
[42]Capps DK, Crawford BA. Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about Nature of Science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2013; 24(3): 497-526. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z
[43]Strat TTS, Henriksen EK, Jegstad KM. Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education. 2023; 60(2): 191-249. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148
[44]Brown S, Melear C. Preservice teachers’ research experiences in scientists’ laboratories. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2007; 18(4): 573-597. doi: 10.1007/s10972-007-9044-9
[45]Morrell E. Legitimate Peripheral Participation as professional development: Lessons from a summer research seminar. Teacher Education Quarterly. 2003; 30(2): 89-99.
[46]Giamellaro M, O’Connell K, Knapp M. Teachers as participant-narrators in authentic data stories. International Journal of Science Education. 2020; 42(3): 406-425. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1714093
[47]Rushton EAC, Reiss MJ. From science teacher to ‘teacher scientist’: exploring the experiences of research-active science teachers in the UK. International Journal of Science Education. 2019; 41(11): 1541-1561. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1615656
[48]Yakar Z, Baykara H. Inquiry-based laboratory practices in a science teacher training program. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2014; 10(2). doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1058a
[49]Valente B, Maurício P, Faria C. The influence of real-context scientific activities on preservice elementary teachers’ thinking and practice of Nature of Science and scientific inquiry. Science & Education. 2022; 33(1): 5-27. doi: 10.1007/s11191-022-00377-5
[50]Sadler TD, Burgin S, McKinney L, et al. Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2009; 47(3): 235-256. doi: 10.1002/tea.20326
[51]Wakefield W. Designing a research experience for teachers: Applying features of effective professional development to a hybrid setting. Teacher Development. 2022; 26(4): 514-530. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2022.2095007
[52]Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press; 1991. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
[53]Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press; 1998.
[54]Wenger-Trayner E, Wenger-Trayner B. Introduction to communities of practice: A brief overview of the concept and its uses. Available online: http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-tocommunities-of-practice/ (accessed on 3 January 2025).
[55]Bourdieu P. The logic of practice. Stanford University Press; 1980.
[56]Bowen GM. Understanding the development of competent practice in biology field research. Cybernetics & Human Knowing. 2003; 10(2): 74-88.
[57]Roth W. ‘Enculturation’: Acquisition of conceptual blind spots and epistemological prejudices. British Educational Research Journal. 2001; 27(1): 5-27. doi: 10.1080/01411920123822
[58]Latour B. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press; 1987.
[59]Berg CA, Smith P. Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple‐choice and free‐response instruments. Science Education. 1994; 78(6): 527-554. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730780602
[60]Leinhardt G, Zaslavsky O, Stein MK. Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research. 1990; 60(1): 1-64. doi: 10.3102/00346543060001001
[61]Preece J, Janvier C. A study of the interpretation of trends in multiple curve Graphs of ecological situations. School Science and Mathematics. 1992; 92(6): 299-306. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1992.tb15595.x
[62]Bowen GM, Bartley A, MacDonald L, Sherman A. Experiences with activities developing pre-service science teacher data literacy. In: Buck GA, Akerson V (editors). Allowing our professional knowledge of pre-service science teacher education to be enhanced by self-study research: Turning a critical eye on our practice. Springer; 2016. pp. 243-270.
[63]Roth WM, McGinn MK, Bowen GM. Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science education. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1996; 21(4): 454-484. doi: 10.1177/016224399602100404
[64]Bencze JL, Bowen GM, Alsop S. Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education. 2006; 90(3): 400-419. doi: 10.1002/sce.20124
[65]Roth WM, McGinn MK. Toward a new perspective on problem solving. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation. 1997; 22(1): 18. doi: 10.2307/1585809
[66]Woolnough BE. Authentic science in schools, to develop personal knowledge. In: Wellington J (editor). Practical work in school science. Routledge; 1998. pp. 109-125. doi: 10.4324/9780203062487-10
[67]Larison KD. Taking the scientist’s perspective: The nonfiction narrative engages episodic memory to enhance students’ understanding of scientists and their practices. Science & Education. 2018; 27: 133-157. doi: 10.1007/s11191-018-9957-z
[68]Ogborn J, Kress G, Martins I, McGillicuddy K. Explaining science in the classroom. Open University Press; 1996.
[69]Bloomfield EF, Manktelow C. Climate communication and storytelling. Climatic Change. 2021; 167(3-4). doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03199-6
[70]Bowen GM, Roth WM. The” socialization” and enculturation of ecologists in formal and informal settings. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education. 2002; 6(3): 1-29.
[71]Roth WM, Bowen GM. Of disciplined minds and disciplined bodies: On becoming an ecologist. Qualitative Sociology. 2001; 24: 459-481. doi: 10.1023/A:1012241029874
[72]Gough N. Environmental education, narrative complexity and postmodern science/fiction. International Journal of Science Education. 1993; 15(5): 607-625. doi: 10.1080/0950069930150512
[73]Bruner J. Actual minds possible worlds. Harvard University Press; 1986.
[74]Bohannan L. Shakespeare in the bush: An American anthropologist set out to study the Tiv of West Africa and was taught the true meaning of Hamlet. Natural History. 1966; 75: 28–33.
[75]Dillon S, Craig C. Storylistening: Narrative evidence and public reasoning. Routledge; 2021.
[76]Barnett M, Wagner H, Gatling A, et al. The impact of science fiction film on student understanding of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2006; 15(2): 179-191. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9001-y
[77]Bowen GM. Insights on the media’s practices and representations of (global warming) science: Confusing the public, educating school children? Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education. 2011; 3(1): 1-28.
[78]Bacchi C, Bonham J. Reclaiming discursive practices as an analytic focus: Political implications. Foucault Studies. Published online April 30, 2014: 179-192. doi: 10.22439/fs.v0i17.4298
[79]Milne C. Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1998; 35(2): 175-187. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<175::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-P
[80]Avraamidou L, Osborne J. The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education. 2009; 31(12): 1683-1707. doi: 10.1080/09500690802380695
[81]Ford DJ. Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2005; 43(2): 214-235. doi: 10.1002/tea.20095
[82]Allchin D, Scientific myth‐conceptions. Science Education. 2003; 87(3): 329-351.
[83]Hughey MW. The white savior film and reviewers’ reception. Symbolic Interaction. 2010; 33(3): 475-496. doi: 10.1525/si.2010.33.3.475
[84]Lynch M. The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In: Lynch M, Woolgar S (editors). Representation in scientific practice. MIT Press; 1990. pp. 152-186.
[85]Mody C. Scientific practice and science education. Science Education. 2015; 99(6): 1026-1032. doi: 10.1002/sce.21190
[86]You H, Park S, Hong M, et al. Unveiling effectiveness: A meta‐analysis of professional development programs in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2024; 62(4): 971-1005. doi: 10.1002/tea.21985
[87]Southerland SA, Granger EM, Hughes R, et al. Essential aspects of science teacher professional development. AERA Open. 2016; 2(4). doi: 10.1177/2332858416674200
[88]Roth WM, Bowen GM, McGinn MK. Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1999; 36(9): 977-1019. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<977::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-V
[89]Jordan B, Henderson A. Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 1995; 4: 39-103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
[90]Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications; 1990.
[91]Ricœur P. From text to action: Essays in hermeneutics, II. Northwestern University Press; 1991.
[92]Royal Society of Chemists. Getting the message across: Key skills for scientists. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2009. doi: 10.1039/9781847551511
[93]Roth WM, Bowen GM. Digitising lizards or the topology of vision in ecological fieldwork. Social Studies of Science. 1999; 29(5): 627-654. doi: 10.1177/030631299029005003
[94]Bowen GM, Graham A, Bencze JL. Engaging pre-service secondary science teachers in “authentic” inquiry projects: Understanding the atheoretical nature of their project work. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education - Congress of the Learned Societies; 2005; London, Ont.
[95]Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Lederman NG. The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education. 1998. 82(4): 417-436.
[96]Bowen GM, Roth WM. The practice of field ecology: Insights for science education. Research in Science Education. 2006; 37(2): 171-187. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9021-x
[97]Traweek S. Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press; 1988.
[98]Knorr-Cetina K. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press; 1999.
[99]Orr JE. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in a service culture. In: Middleton D, Edwards D (editors). Collective remembering: Memory in society. Sage Publications, Inc.; 1990. pp. 169-189.
[100]Rorty R. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press; 1989.
[101]Wong SL, Hodson D. More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education. 2009; 32(11): 1431-1463. doi: 10.1080/09500690903104465
[102]Valladares L. Scientific literacy and social transformation: Critical perspectives about science participation and emancipation. Science & Education. 2021; 30(3): 557-587. doi: 10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2
[103]Montgomery SL. The scientific voice. Guilford Press; 1996.
[104]Baram-Tsabari A, Wolfson O, Yosef R, et al. Jargon use in Public Understanding of Science papers over three decades. Public Understanding of Science. 2020; 29(6): 644-654. doi: 10.1177/0963662520940501
[105]Wellington J, Osborne J. Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press; 2001.
[106]Egan K. Teaching as story telling: An alternative approach to teaching and curriculum in the elementary school. University of Chicago Press; 1989.
[107]Wong ATY. Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System. 2005; 33(1): 29-47. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.06.009
[108]Oliver CA. The social brain and the neuroscience of storytelling. In: Rowland S, Kuchel L (editors). Teaching science students to communicate: A practical guide. Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 31-38. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-91628-2_4
[109]Foucault M. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Penguin Random House; 1980.
[110]Chowning JT. Science teachers in research labs: Expanding conceptions of social dialogic dimensions of scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2022; 59(8): 1388-1415. doi: 10.1002/tea.21760
[111]Chasen A, Chapman Tripp H, Borrego M. Disability and postsecondary fieldwork experiences in the natural sciences: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2024; 62(4): 1006-1039. doi: 10.1002/tea.21989
