Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 5–6, pp 321–330 | Cite as

Inquiry-based Learning and Digital Libraries in Undergraduate Science Education

  • Xornam S. Apedoe
  • Thomas C. Reeves


The purpose of this paper is twofold: to describe robust rationales for integrating inquiry-based learning into undergraduate science education, and to propose that digital libraries are potentially powerful technological tools that can support inquiry-based learning goals in undergraduate science courses. Overviews of constructivism and situated cognition are provided with regard to how these two theoretical perspectives have influenced current science education reform movements, especially those that involve inquiry-based learning. The role that digital libraries can play in inquiry-based learning environments is discussed. Finally, the importance of alignment among critical pedagogical dimensions of an inquiry-based pedagogical framework is stressed in the paper, and an example of how this can be done is presented using earth science education as a context.


digital libraries inquiry-based learning post-secondary science education 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0304895. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Alexander P. A. (1998). Positioning conceptual change within a model of domain literacy. In B. Guzzetti, & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 55–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  2. Apedoe X. S., Walker S. E., Reeves T. C. (2006). Integrating inquiry-based learning into undergraduate geology. Journal of Geoscience Education 54:414–421Google Scholar
  3. Arms W. Y. (2000). Digital libraries, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Barstow, D., and Geary, E. (Eds.), (2002). Blueprint for change: Report from the national conference on the revolution in earth and space science education, Technical Education Research Center (TERC), Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransford J. D., Brown A. L., Cocking R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown J. S., Collins A., Duguid P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavallo A. M. L., Potter W. H., Rozman M. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics 104:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences 14:161–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb P., Yackel E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist 31:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniels H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy, Routledge-Falmer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Derry S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist 31:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver R., Asoko H., Leach J., Mortimer E., Scott P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher 23:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driver R., Leach J., Millar R., Scott P. (1996). Young people’s images of science, Open University Press, Bristol, PAGoogle Scholar
  14. Edelson D. C. (2001). Learning-for-Use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38:355–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edelson, D. C., and Gordin, D. N. (1996). Adapting digital libraries for learners: Accessibility vs. Availability. D-Lib Magazine, 2 (September). Retrieved June 16, 2005, from Scholar
  16. Edelson D. C., Gordin D. N., Pea R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 8:391–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fosnot C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, Teachers College, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser S. P., Deane E. M. (1999). Educating tomorrow’s scientists: IT as a tool, not an educator. Teaching in Higher Education 4:91–107Google Scholar
  19. Friedman T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hargis J. (2001). Can students learn science using the internet? Journal of Research on Computing in Education 33:475–487Google Scholar
  21. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from Scholar
  22. Hersh R. H., and Merrow J. (Eds.), (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk, Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins E. W. (2004). Science education: Research, practice and policy. In E. Scanlon, P Murphy, J Thomas, & E Whitelegg (Eds.), Reconsidering science learning (pp. 235–249). New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller C. K., Allen-King R. M., O’Brien R. (2000). A framework for integrating quantitative geologic problem solving into courses across the undergraduate geology curriculum. Journal of Geoscience Education 48:459–463Google Scholar
  25. 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 41:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krajcik J. S. (2002). The value and challenges of using learning technologies to support students in learning science. Research in Science Education 32:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuh G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change 35:24–32Google Scholar
  28. Lawson A. E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching 28:401–411Google Scholar
  29. Lim B.-R. (2004). Challenges and issues in designing inquiry on the Web. British Journal of Educational Technology 35:627–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marchionini G., Maurer H. (1995). The roles of digital libraries in teaching and learning. Communications of the ACM 38:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maria K. (2000). Conceptual change instruction: A social constructivist perspective. Reading & Writing Quarterly 16:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthews M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McIntosh W. J. (2000). Beyond 2000 – The changing face of undergraduate science education. Journal of College Science Teaching 29:379–380Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council (1996a). National science education standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. National Research Council (1996b). Report of a convocation: From analysis to action, undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. National Science Teachers Association. (2000, January). NSTA Position Statement: K-16 Coordination. Retrieved March 27, 2005, from Google Scholar
  40. Oblinger D., and Oblinger J. (2005). Educating the Net Gen, EDUCAUSE, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher 24:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prawat R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist 31:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prawat R. S., Floden R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology 29:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Qian G., Alvermann D. E. (2000). Relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual change learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly 16:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reeves T. C. (1994). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. In M Wild, & D Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Computer education: New perspectives (pp. 219−246). Perth, Australia: Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Centre (MASTEC)Google Scholar
  46. Rutherford J. F. (2005). The 2005 Paul F-Brandwein Lecture: Is our past our future? Thoughts on the next 50 years of science education reform in the light of judgments on the past 50 years. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14:367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandoval W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education 89:634–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandoval W. A., Daniszewski K. (2004). Mapping trade-offs in teachers’ integration of technology-supported inquiry in high school science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shipman D., Aloi S. L., Jones E. A. (2003). Addressing key challenges in higher education assessment. Journal of General Education 52:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snow R. E., Corno L., and Jackson D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243−310). New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  51. Wallace, R., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E. (1996). Digital libraries in the science classroom. D-Lib Magazine, 2 (September). Retrieved June 16, 2005, from Google Scholar
  52. Wang F., Reeves T. C. (2003). Why do teachers need to use technology in their classrooms? Issues, problems and solutions. Computers in the Schools 20:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wertsch J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  54. Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., and Weaver, A. J. (2002). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, University of Victoria, Victoria, CanadaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research & Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology & Instructional TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations