Improving the Graph Interpretation Competencies of Preservice Secondary Science Teachers Through Long-Term Independent Inquiry Project Work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijses.5867Keywords:
Graph literacy, Science literacy, Teacher education, Research experience, RETAbstract
Understanding graphs is a necessary component of understanding science communication. Previous work indicated that pre-service science teachers have difficulty with this sort of data interpretation (Bowen, Bartley & Melville, 2025; Bowen et al., 2016). It is suggested that experience in conducting independent field work may be necessary to increase the competency of pre-service science teachers in graphing practices. A previous study (Bowen & Roth, 2005) suggested that an improvement in competency was not gained from engaging in a short-term inquiry project, much as short-term engagements have not improved Nature of Science understandings (Edgerly et al., 2023; Akerson et al., 2006, 2017). Evidence from this study suggests participation in an extended inquiry project did improve several aspects of discourse over and about graphs. Three positive outcomes from engaging in a long-term inquiry project are identified: (1) There was an improved canonical use of inscriptions as demonstrated by a higher use of abstract transformations, (2) There was an increase in the use of external referents, (3) There was an increase in the use of personal experiences to make sense of the components of the data problem and to interpret the relationships. Implications of these findings for preparing science teachers are discussed.
References
Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213.
Akerson, V. L., Pongsanon, K., Park Rogers, M. A., Carter, I., & Galindo, E. (2017). 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, 15, 293-312.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2009). Student-teachers' dialectically-developed motivation for promoting student-led science projects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 133-159.
Berg, C. A., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78, 527–554.
Binali, T., Chang, C. H., Chang, Y. J., & Chang, H. Y. (2024). High school and college students’ graph-interpretation competence in scientific and daily contexts of data visualization. Science & Education, 33(3), 763-785.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1997) Méditations pascaliennes [Pascalian meditations]. Seuil.
Bowen, G. M., & Bencze, J. L. (2009). Engaging preservice secondary science teachers with inquiry activities: Insights into difficulties promoting inquiry in high school classrooms. In W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (Vol. Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North America (pp. 587-609). Sense Publishers.
Bowen, G. M. & Hembree, P. (2025). Stories from and of the field: Developing teachers’ discursive practices of science. Forum for Education Studies, 3(3), 2997. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2997
Bowen, G.M., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among pre-service science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088.
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific re-presentation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1020–1043.
Bowen, G.M., Bartley, A., & Melville, W. (2025). The nature of feedback on student laboratory reports: Issues in the formative assessment practices of pre-service science teachers. In C. Tippett, & T. Milford (Eds.), Seeing science through the eyes of Canadian teachers and learners, secondary and beyond. Springer.
Bowen, G. M., Bartley, A., MacDonald, L, & Sherman, A. (2016). Experiences with activities developing pre-service science teacher data literacy. In G. A. Buck & V. Akerson (Eds.), Allowing our professional knowledge of pre-service science teacher education to be enhanced by self-study research: Turning a critical eye on our practice (pp. 243-270). Springer.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Crawford, B. & Capps, D. K. (2018). Teacher cognition of engaging children in scientific practices, In J. Dori, Z. Mevarich & D. Baker (Eds.). Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching and assessment (pp. 9-32). Springer.
Edgerly, H., Kruse, J., & Wilcox, J. (2023). Investigating elementary teachers’ views, implementation, and longitudinal enactment of nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 32(4), 1049-1073.
Finlayson, A. C. (1994) Fishing for truth: A sociological analysis of Northern Cod stock assessments from 1977-1990. Institute of Social and Economic Research.
Gardner, S. M., Angra, A., & Harsh, J. A. (2024). Supporting student competencies in graph reading, interpretation, construction, and evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(1), 1-9.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hassal, J. (1988). Practice tests: GCSE Biology. Surrey, UK: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Hodson, D. (1986). The nature of scientific obseravation. School Science Review, 68, 17-29.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
Kolbe, T., & Jorgenson, S. (2018). Meeting instructional standards for middle-level science: Which teachers are most prepared?. The Elementary School Journal, 118(4), 549-577.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G., Kuerbis, P. J., Loving, C. C., Ramey-Gassert, L., Roychoudhury, A., & Spector, B. S. (1997). Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), 233–240.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.
Lemke, J. L. (1988). Games, semantics and classroom education. Linguistics and Education, 1, 81–99.
Mesci, G., Schwartz, R. S., & Pleasants, B. A. S. (2020). Enabling factors of preservice science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science and nature of scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 29(2), 263-297.
Mork, S. M., Henriksen, E. K., Haug, B. S., Jorde, D., & Frøyland, M. (2021). Defining knowledge domains for science teacher educators. International Journal of Science Education, 43(18), 3018-3034. Morrell, E. (2003). Legitimate peripheral participation as professional development: Lessons from a summer research seminar. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 89-99.
Morrell, P. D., Rogers, M. P., Pyle, E. J., Roehrig, G., & Veal, W. (2019). Preparing our next generation of science teachers: What should a science teacher know and be able to do ARISE-AAAS Blog. 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/
Morrell, P., Rogers, M. P., Pyle, E., Roehrig, G., & Veal, W. (2020a). NSTA/ASTE standards for science teacher preparation. National Science Teaching Association. https://theaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/v2.2020-NSTA-Standards1-6_FINAL_DO.NOT_.EDIT_.pdf
Morrell, P. D., Park Rogers, M. A., Pyle, E. J., Roehrig, G., & Veal, W. R. (2020b). Preparing teachers of science for 2020 and beyond: Highlighting changes to the NSTA/ASTE standards for science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(1), 1-7.
Nouri, N., Saberi, M., McComas, W. F., & Mohammadi, M. (2021). Proposed teacher competencies to support effective nature of science instruction: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(6), 601-624.
Preece, J., & Janvier, C. (1992). A study of the interpretation of trends in multiple curve graphs of ecological situations. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 299–306.
Roth, W.-M. (1996). Where is the context in contextual word problems?: Mathematical practices and products in Grade 8 students’ answers to story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 487–527.
Roth, W.-M. (2003). Toward an anthropology of graphing. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1999). Of cannibals, missionaries, and converts: Graphing competencies from grade 8 to professional science inside (classrooms) and outside (field/laboratory). Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24, 179–212.
Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25–48.
Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235-256.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). 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, 88(4), 610-645.
Stephens, A. L. (2024). From graphs as task to graphs as tool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(5), 1206-1233.
St. Clair, N., Stephens, A. L., & Lee, H. S. (2024). ‘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, 46(8), 815-838.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
Wilcox, J., Voss, S., Kruse, J., Miller, S., & Fettkether, L. (2024). Research experiences for undergraduates through extracurricular practitioner inquiry: Exploring the experiences of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(7), 756-776.
Windschitl, M. (2002, April). The Reproduction of Cultural Models of “Inquiry” by Pre-Service Teachers: An Examination of Thought and Action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 464–840).
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Studies in Education and Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in the International Journal of Studies in Education and Science (IJSES), the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. This license allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.
Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
