The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices

Research in Science Education

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 423-447

  Zion, Michal ^a   Cohen, Smadar ^b   Amir, Ruth ^b  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Biomind program; Dynamic inquiry; Open inquiry; Professional development

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548171014     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangino, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
3. Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 681-693). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
4. Bencze, L., Bowen, M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers' tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90(3), 400-419.
5. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., & Lundberg, B. K. S. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
6. Bybee, R. W., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2001). National science education standards as a catalyst for change: The essential role of professional development. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Professional development planning and design (pp. 1-12). Arlington, VA: NSTA.
7. Crawford B. A., (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
8. Crockett, M. D. (2002). Inquiry as professional development: Creating dilemmas through teachers' work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 609-624.
9. Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differenced between pre-service and in-service teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 99(2), 71-76.
10. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
12. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791-806.
13. Harlen, W. (2004). Evaluating inquiry-based science developments. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/WHarlen_inquiry_Mtg_paper.pdf
14. Hogan, K., & Berkowitz, A. R. (2000). Teachers as inquiry learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 1-25.
15. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 668-690.
16. Kennedy, M. (1997). Defining Optimal Knowledge for Teaching Science and Mathematics (no. 10). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin.
17. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essentional research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
18. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1998). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
19. Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2004, April). Early elementary students' and teacher's understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from Project ICAN. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
20. Luft, J. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
21. Mendelovici, R. (1996). Teaching biology in high school in Israel in the middle of the 1990s, emphasizing inquiry. Unpublished masters thesis. The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel. (in Hebrew)
22. Mendelovici, R., & Nussinovitch, R. (2002). Biomind, an alternative for the practical part of curriculum for Biology of 5 units for matriculations. Jerusalem, Israel: The Center for Science Education, The Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
23. Minstrell, J. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 471-496). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
24. Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H (Eds). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
25. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.) (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773-789.
29. Pidgeon, N. (1996). Grounded theory: Theoretical background. In John T. R. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods (pp. 75-85). Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society Books.
30. Roberts, R. (2001). Procedural understanding in biology: The 'thinking behind the doing. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 113-117.
31. Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 709-736.
32. Roth, W. M. (1999, April). Scientific research expertise from middle school to professional practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Quebec, Montreal, Canada.
33. Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London: Heinemann.
34. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Ragghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882.
35. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Shperling, O. (1999). Letter to the biology team about the ecology work. The Bulletin of Biology Teachers, 159, 10-11. (in Hebrew)
37. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178.
38. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinmann.
39. Tamir, P. (1983). Inquiry and the science teacher. Science Education, 67(5), 657-672.
40. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.
41. Trautmann, N., & MaKinster, J. (2005, January). Teacher/scientist partnerships as professional development: Understanding how collaboratoryoration can lead to inquiry. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Colorado Springs, CO.
42. Uno, G. E. (1997). Learning about learning through teaching about inquiry. In A. P. McNeal & C. D'Avanzo (Eds.), Student-active science: Models of innovation in college science teaching (pp. 189-198). Fort Worth, TX: Saunders College Publishing.
43. Vasques J., & Cowan, M. B. (2001). Moving teachers from mechanical to mastery: The next level of science implementation. In H. Pratt (Ed.), Issues in science education series: Professional leadership and the diverse learner. Arlington, VA: NSTA.
44. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33-50.
45. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-18.
46. Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112-143.
47. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
48. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838.
49. Zion, M., Shapira, D., Slezak M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., et al. (2004a). Biomind - A new biology curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59-67.
50. Zion, M., & Slezak, M. (2005). It takes two to tango: In dynamic inquiry, the self-directed student acts in association with the facilitating teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 875-894.
51. Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., et al. (2004b). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88, 728-753.