Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning

Science Education

Volumn 88, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 728-753

  Zion, M ^a   Slezak, M ^a   Shapira, D ^a   Link, E ^a   Bashan, N ^a   Brumer, M ^a   Orian, T ^b   Nussinowitz, R ^b   Court, D ^a   Agrest, B ^a   Mendelovici, R ^b   Valanides, N ^c  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4644252340     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10145     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Abd-El-Khaliok, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
2. Achiron-Frumkin, T. (1994). Biological signs for assessment of ecological pollution. Ecology and Environment, 1(2), 22-13. (in Hebrew)
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. 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.
5. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426-453.
6. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of science apprenticeship program on high school students' understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.
7. Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486-506.
8. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating in inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
9. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry. New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
10. Davis, I. C. (1935). The measurement of scientific attitudes. Science Education, 19, 117-122.
11. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
12. Dvir, M., & Chen, D. (2000). Inquiry learning in a greenhouse-learning environment-A research of theoretical and practical points of view using case study. In P. Nassa, N. Hativa, & Z. Shwartz (Eds.), The research in education and its implementation in a changing world (Part A, pp. 288-290). Even Yehuda, Israel: Reches. (in Hebrew)
13. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: Macmillan.
14. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
15. Elliott, J. (1997). School-based curriculum development and action research in the United Kingdom. In S. Holligworth (Ed.), International action research (pp. 17-29). London: Falmer Press.
16. Fensham, P. J. (1981). Heads, hearts and hands-future alternatives for science education. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 27(1), 53-60.
17. Finn, H., Maxwell, M., & Calver, M. (2002). Why does experimentation matter in teaching ecology? Journal of Biological Education, 36, 158-162.
18. Gabel, C. (2001). Effectiveness of a scaffolded approach for teaching students to design scientific inquiries. Dissertation. Denver, CO: University of Colorado.
19. Gallagher, S. A., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136-146.
20. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 475-499.
21. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
22. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
23. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 39-53.
24. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
25. Hardin, G. J., & Bajema, C. (1978). Biology: Its principles and implications (pp. 1-15). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
26. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. In L. E. Gronlund (Ed.), Striving for excellence: The national education goals (Vol. 2, pp. 71-77). Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center.
27. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
28. Hofstein, A. (2001). Why action research? In N. Valanides (Ed.), Science and technology education: Preparing future citizens. Proceeding of the 1st IOSTE symposium in Southern Europe (Vol. 2, pp. 3-15). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus Press.
29. Israeli Ministry of Education. (1991). Syllabus of biological studies (7th- 12th grade) (3rd ed.). (in Hebrew)
30. Journet, A. R. P. (1985). Are we teaching science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 14, 236-238.
31. Kass, H., & MacDonald, A. L. (1999). The learning contribution of student self-directed building activity in science. Science Education, 83, 449-471.
32. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
33. Mendelovici, R. (1996). Teaching biology in high school in Israel in the middle of the 1990s, emphasizing inquiry. MSc thesis, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, (in Hebrew)
34. Mendelovici, R., & Nussinowitz, R. (2002). Biomind, an alternative for the practical part of curriculum for biology of five units for matriculations. Jerusalem, Israel: The Center for Science Education, The Hebrew University. (in Hebrew)
35. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. P. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Ogens, E. M. (1991). A review of science education: Past failures, future hopes. The American Biology Teacher, 53, 199-203.
39. Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53-82.
40. Penner, D. E., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709-2729.
41. Roberts, R. (2001). Procedural understanding in biology: The 'thinking behind the doing'. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 113-117.
42. Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London: Heinemann.
43. Sagor, R. (1993). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44. Sanson, P. J., & Pears, F. N. (1995). Biology one activity manual. Port Melbourne, Australia: Rigby Heinemann.
45. 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.
46. Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the discipline: Meaning and significances. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago: Rand McNally.
47. Solomon J., Duveen, J., & Hall, S. (1994). What's happened to biology investigations? Journal of Biological Education, 28, 261-266.
48. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinmann.
49. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition abilities and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.
50. Suchman, J. R. (1968). Developing inquiry in earth science. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
51. Tamir, P. (1998). Assessment and evaluation in science education: Opportunities to learn and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 761-789). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
52. Tamir, P., Friedler, Y., & Nussionwitz, R. (1982). The design and use of a practical tests assessment inventory. Journal of Biological Education, 16, 42-50.
53. Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Inquiry related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks. Science Education, 65, 477-484.
54. Tamir, P., Stavy, R., & Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 27-32.
55. Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421-431.
56. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.
57. White, R. T. (1988). Learning science. Oxford: Blackwell.
58. Wilkes, L., Cooper, K., Lewin, J., & Batts, J. (1999). Concept mapping: Promoting science learning in BN learners in Australia. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 30, 37-44.
59. Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The science teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
60. Zion, M., Shapira, D., Slezak, M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinowitz, R., Agrest, B., & Mendelovici, R. (2004). Biomind-A new biology curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59-67.