Advertisement

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY WITH/WITHOUT INTEGRATION OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING

  • Chun-Ting Chen
  • Hsiao-Ching She
Article

Abstract

This study examines the difference in effectiveness between two scientific inquiry programs—one with an emphasis on scientific reasoning and one without a scientific reasoning component—on students’ scientific concepts, scientific concept-dependent reasoning, and scientific inquiry. A mixed-method approach was used in which 115 grade 5 students were administered the scientific concept test, scientific concept-dependent reasoning test, and scientific inquiry test before, 1 week after, and 8 weeks after instruction. In addition, students’ scientific inquiry worksheets in the classroom were collected and evaluated. Results indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group, regardless of scientific concept test, scientific concept-dependent reasoning test, and scientific inquiry test. Moreover, the classroom inquiry worksheets results demonstrated that the experimental group generated a significantly greater number of testable hypotheses, correct hypotheses, and correct evidence-based scientific explanations and a higher level of scientific reasoning than did the control group.

Key words

evidence-based scientific explanations formulating hypotheses integration of scientific reasoning scientific inquiry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. & Cummins, C. (2001). The how’s and why’s of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, W. K. & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 199–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinn, C. & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Hanauer, D., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M., Cresawn, S., Hendrix, R. & Hatfull, G. (2006). Teaching scientific inquiry. Science, 314(5807), 1880–1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King, R. D., Whelan, K. E., Jones, F. M., Reiser, P. G. K., Bryant, C. H., Muggleton, S. H., Kell, D. B. & Oliver, S. G. (2004). Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist. Nature, 427, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E. & O’louohlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Patterns of scaffolding in computer-mediated collaborative inquiry. Journal of Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawson, A. (2004). A reply to Allchin’s Pseudo history and Pseu doscience. Science & Education, 13(6), 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council (1999). New strategies for America’s watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Science Foundation (2000). An introduction to inquiry. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  25. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D. & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rutherford, F. J. (1960). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E. & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations