The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1137-1160

  Sadeh, Irit ^a   Zion, Michal ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Dynamic inquiry; Guided inquiry; Inquiry based learning; Open inquiry; Performance

Indexed keywords

CONTENT ANALYSIS; CRITICAL THINKING; DATA SOURCE; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; GUIDED INQUIRY; INITIAL STAGES; INQUIRY LEARNING; INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING; ON DYNAMICS;

BIOLOGY; COMMUNICATION CHANNELS (INFORMATION THEORY);

STUDENTS;

EID: 73349090273     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20310     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students' views of nature of science. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 389-425). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37, 353-369.
4. Berg, C.A.R., Bergendahl, V.C.B., Lundberg, B.K.S., &Tibell, L.A.E. (2003). Benefiting from an openended 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.
5. 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 Reston (pp. 1-12). VA: NSTA Press.
6. Carter, L. (2008). Globalisation and science education: The implication of science in new economy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 617-633.
7. Castelfranchi, C., & Lorini, E. (2003). Cognitive Anatomy and Functions of Expectations. Paper presented in IJCAI'03 workshop on cognitive modeling of agents and multi-agent interactions, Acapulco, Mexico.
8. Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using students' questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88(5), 707-727.
9. Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67.
10. Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
11. Crawford, B.A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.
12. Crawford, B.A., Krajcik, J.S., & Marx, R.W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle school science classroom. Science Education, 83(3), 701-723.
13. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Dori, Y.J. (2006). The inquiry approach in computerized learning environments: Implications on chemistry understanding levels and higher order thinking skills. In A. Zohar (Ed.), Taking the inquiry road: An ongoing challenge (pp. 279-307). Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Publishing Company. (in Hebrew).
15. Flick L.B., & Lederman N.G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. The Netherlands: Springer.
16. Furtak, E.M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
17. Gallagher, J.J., & Tobin, K.G. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555.
18. 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.
19. Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.
20. Israeli Ministry of Education (2006). Syllabus of Biological Studies (10th-12th grade) (in Hebrew).
21. Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y.J. (2008). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of high school chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved Feb 11, 2009, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/ 78803714871r16n4/.
22. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiryoriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
23. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1998). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
24. Krajcik, J.S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
25. Krystyniak, R.A., &Heikkinen, H.W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, openinquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1160-1186.
26. Lunsford, E., Melear, C.T., Roth, W.-M., Perkins, M., & Hickok, L.G. (2007). Proliferation of inscriptions and transformations among preservice science teachers engaged in authentic science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 538-564.
27. Lazarowitz, R. (2007). High school biology curricula development: Implementation, teaching, and evaluation from the 20th to the 21st century. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 561-599). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. McGlashan, P., Gasser, K., Dow, P., Hartney, D., &Rogers, B. (2007). Outdoor inquiries-Taking science investigations outside the classroom. Heinemann Portsmouth, NH. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://books.heinemann.com/ shared/onlineresources/E01120/introduction.pdf.
29. Michalsky, T., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z.R. (2007). Developing students' metacognitive awareness in asynchronous learning networks in comparison to face-to-face discussion groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 421-450.
30. Millar R., & Osbourne J.F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: Kings College London, School of Education.
31. 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.
32. Mooney, S.J. (2006). A simple group work approach for effective field work: A soil sciences case study. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(1), 74-79.
33. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. 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.
36. Orion, N., &Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097-1119.
37. Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., &Giddings, G.J. (1997). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities. Science Education, 81(2), 161-171. (Pubitemid 127361881)
38. Palmer, D.H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147-165.
39. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
40. Quintana, C., Zhang, X., &Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244.
41. Roberts, R. (2001). Procedural understanding in biology: Thinking behind the doing. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 113-117.
42. Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (1999). Procedural understanding: Its place in the biology curriculum. School Science Reviews, 81, 19-25.
43. Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2003). Assessment of biology investigations. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 114-121.
44. Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197-223.
45. Roth, W.-M. (1999). Scientific research expertise from middle school to professional practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Quebec, Montreal.
46. Sabar, N. (1999). Qualitative research in teaching and learning. Tel Aviv: Modan (in Hebrew).
47. Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J.J. Schwab & P.F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Shkedi, A. (2003). Words of meaning. Qualitative research-Theory and practice. Tel-Aviv: Ramot. (in Hebrew).
49. Tabak, I., Sandoval, W.A., Smith, B.K., Agganis, A., Baumgartner, E., &Reiser, B.J. (1995). Supporting collaborative guided inquiry in a learning environment for biology. In J.L. Schnase & E.L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL'95: The first international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 362-366). Bloomington, IN: Erlbaum.
50. Tamir, P., Nussinovitz, R., & Friedler, Y. (1982). A practical tests assessment inventory. Journal of Biological Education, 16, 42-50.
51. Tamir, P., Stavy, R., &Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 27-32.
52. Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., &Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
53. Woods, P. (1996). Researching the art of teaching: Ethnography for educational use. London: Routledge.
54. Yen, C., & Huang, S. (2001). Authentic learning about Tree Frogs by preservice biology teachers in open-inquiry research settings. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, ROC(D), 11(1), 1-10. Retrieved Feb 11, 2009, from http://nr.stpi.org.tw/ejournal/proceedingD/v11n1/1-10.pdf.
55. Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
56. Zion, M. (2007). Online forums scaffold students experiencing open and guided inquiry process. Paper presented at the ESERA (The European Science Education Research Association) International Conference, MalmÖ , Sweden.
57. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423-447.
58. Zion, M., & Sadeh, I. (2007). Curiosity and open inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 162-168.
59. Zion, M., Shapira, D., Slezak, M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinovitch, R., Agrest, B., &Mendelovici, R. (2004a). Biomind-Anewbiology curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59-67.
60. 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.
61. Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinovitch, R., Court, D., Agrest, B., Mendelovici, R., & Valanides, N. (2004b). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88, 728-753.