Research in Science Education

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 1231–1255 | Cite as

Science Camps for Introducing Nature of Scientific Inquiry Through Student Inquiries in Nature: Two Applications with Retention Study

  • G. LeblebiciogluEmail author
  • N. M. Abik
  • E. Capkinoglu
  • D. Metin
  • E. Eroglu Dogan
  • P. S. Cetin
  • R. Schwartz


Scientific inquiry is widely accepted as a method of science teaching. Understanding its characteristics, called Nature of Scientific Inquiry (NOSI), is also necessary for a whole conception of scientific inquiry. In this study NOSI aspects were taught explicitly through student inquiries in nature in two summer science camps. Students conducted four inquiries through their questions about surrounding soil, water, plants, and animals under the guidance of university science educators. At the end of each investigation, students presented their inquiry. NOSI aspects were made explicit by one of the science educators in the context of the investigations. Effectiveness of the science camp program and its retention were determined by applying Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI-S) (Schwartz et al. 2008) questionnaire as pre-, post-, and retention test after two months. The patterns in the data were similar. The science camp program was effective in developing three of six NOSI aspects which were questions guide scientific research, multiple methods of research, and difference between data and evidence. Students’ learning of these aspects was retained. Discussion about these and the other three aspects is included in the paper. Implications of differences between school and out-of-school science experiences are also discussed.


Science camp Scientific inquiry Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI) 



The science camp projects presented in this paper were supported by Science and Society Department of Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey with grant numbers 111B092 and 113B061.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atwater, M. M., Colson, J., & Simpson, R. D. (1999). Influences of a university summer residential program on high school students’ commitment to the sciences and higher education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 1555.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bager, T. (2011). The camp model for entrepreneurship teaching. The International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, R., Blair, M., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bialeschki, M., Lyons, K. T., & Thompson, A. K. (2006). Four years at Morry’s camp: a longitudinal study of youth development outcomes of the Morry’s camp experience. Martinsville: American Camp Association.Google Scholar
  8. Bischoff, P. J., Castendyk, D., Gallagher, H., Schaumloffel, J., & Labroo, S. (2008). A science summer camp as an effective way to re-cruit high school students to major in the physical sciences and science education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(3), 131–141.Google Scholar
  9. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: a quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94, 577–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleicher, R. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1115–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgin, S. R., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Learning nature of science concepts through a research apprenticeship program: a comparative study of three approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  13. Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colburn, A. (2000). What teacher educators need to know about inquiry-based instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH.Google Scholar
  15. Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal science learning: what research says about television, science museums, and communit -based Project. Philadelphia: The Science Press.Google Scholar
  16. Crombie, G., Walsh, J. P., & Trinneer, A. (2003). Positive effects of science and technology summer camps on confidence, values, and future intentions. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 37(4), 256–269.Google Scholar
  17. Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2006). Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education, 91, 384–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fields, D. A. (2009). What do students gain from a week at science camp? Youth perceptions and the design of an immersive research-oriented astronomy camp. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson, H., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gonsalves, A., Rahm, I., & Carvolho, A. (2013). We could think of things that could be science. Girls’ re-figuring of science in an out-of-school-time club. Journal of Resaerch in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1068–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, D. A., & McCurdy, D. W. (1990). A comparison of a biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS) laboratory and a traditional laboratory on student achievement at two private liberal arts colleges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helm, E., Parker, J., & Russell, M. (1999). Education and career paths of LSU’s summer science program students from 1985 to 1997. Academic Medicine, 74, 336–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kimbrough, D. (1995). Project design factors that affect student perceptions of success of a science research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knox, K. L., Moynihan, J. A., & Markowitz, D. G. (2003). Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koksal, E. A., & Berberoglu, G. (2014). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement, science process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers conception of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lederman, N. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Vol II (pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—the views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leonard, W. H. (1983). An experimental study of a BSCS-style laboratory approach for university general biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 807–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leonard, W. H., Cavana, G. R., & Lowery, L. F. (1981). An experimental test of an extended discretion approach for high school biology laboratory investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindner, N., & Kubat, C. (2014). Science camps in Europe—collaboration with companies and school, implications and results on scientific literacy. Science Education International, 25(1), 79–85.Google Scholar
  35. Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maarschalk, J. (1988). Scientific literacy and informal science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markowitz, D. G. (2004). Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school summer science program on students’ interest and perceived abilities in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Michalski, J. H., Mishna, F., Worthington, C., & Cummings, R. (2003). A multi-method impact evaluation of a therapeutic summer camp program. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2004). Elementary and secondary science and technology curriculum. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.Google Scholar
  41. Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2014). Elementary and secondary science curriculum. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.Google Scholar
  42. Minner, D. D., Leavy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter. Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Kull, J. A. (1998). Can we be scientists, too? Secondary students’ perceptions of scientific research from a project-based classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 8, 771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richmond, G., & Kurth, L. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: high school students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 36, 677–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, R. S. (2004). Scientists’ epistemological views of science: a cross-discipline comparison of scientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as a context for teaching nature of science: identifying critical elements for success. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What scientists say. Scientists’ views of nature of science and relationto science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 727–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing view 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: the VOSI questionnaire. National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, March 30–April 2, 2008. Baltimore, U.S.Google Scholar
  53. Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: a response to Allchin’s whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96(4), 685–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Senler, B. (2015). Middle school students’ views of scientific inquiry: an international comparative study. Science Education International, 26(2), 166–179.Google Scholar
  55. Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tamir, P. (1991). Factors associated with the relationship between formal, informal, and nonformal science learning. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ventura, A. K. & Garst, B. A. (2013). Residential summer camp: a new venue for nutrition education and physical activity promotion. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10,64. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-64.
  58. Vickers, M. H., Ching, H. L, & Dean, C. B. (1998). Do science promotion programs make a difference? Proceedings of the more than just numbers conference (pp. 83–87). Fredericton: Faculty of Engineering, University of New Brunswick. Google Scholar
  59. Wade-Jaimes, K. (2017). A multi-level discourse analysis of African American, middle school girls’ science identity development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  60. Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: the role of the interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25(5), 247–252.Google Scholar
  61. Wu, Y. P., Prout, K., Roberts, M. C., Parikshak, S., & Amylon, M. D. (2011). Assessing experiences of children who attended a camp for children with cancer and their siblings: a preliminary study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 40, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yager, R. E., & Akcay, H. (2010). The advantages of an inquiry approach for science instruction in middle grades. School Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science EducationAbant Izzet Baysal UniversityBoluTurkey
  2. 2.BoluTurkey
  3. 3.School of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science EducationBozok UniversityYozgatTurkey
  4. 4.School of Education, Department of Middle and Secondary EducationGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations