The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning

Science Education

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 29-47

  Tang, Xiaowei ^a   Coffey, Janet E ^a   Elby, Andy ^b   Levin, Daniel M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b University of Maryland   (United States)

^c AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951995130     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20366     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ayers, J., & Ayers, K. (2007). Teaching the scientifc method: It's all in the perspective. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 17-21.
2. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1989). On understanding the nature of scientifc knowledge. Educational Psychologists, 28(3), 235-251.
3. Cavicchi, E. (1997). Experimenting with magnetism: Ways of learning of Joann and Faraday. American Journal of Physics, 65, 867-882.
4. Collins, H. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientifc practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Conant, J. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Dewey, J. (1910a). Science as subject matter and method. Science, 31, 121-127.
7. Dewey, J. (1910b). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
8. Edmund, N. (1994). The general pattern of the scientifc method (SM-14; 2nd student ed.). Lauderdale, FL: Norman Edmund.
9. Edmund, N. (2000). The scientifc method today: Your guide to the complete method of creative problem solving and decision making (SM-14). Lauderdale, FL: Norman Edmund.
10. Engestr̈om, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.
11. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
12. Gee, J. B. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
13. Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79(4), 393-413.
14. Hammer, D., Russ, R.,Mikeska, J.,&Scherr, R. (2005). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientifc inquiry (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
15. Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16. Herbst, P.,&Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2-14.
17. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientifc method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
18. Kelly, G. J. (2005). Discourse, description, and science education. In R. K. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientifc classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 79-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
20. Knabb, M. T. (2006). Assessing inquiry process skills in the lab using a fast, simple, inexpensive fermentation model system. American Biology Teacher, 68, 25-28.
21. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process (pp. 33-57). New York: Wiley.
22. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientifc thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
23. Lederman,N. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matterwithout context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3, 1-11.
24. Lehrer,R.,&Schauble, L. (2004).Modeling natural variation through distribution. American EducationalResearch Journal, 41, 635-679.
25. Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.
26. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
27. Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559-589.
28. Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347-352.
29. Reiff, R., Harwood,W. S.,&Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientifcmethod based upon research scientists' conceptions of scientifc inquiry. In P. Rubba, J. Rye, W. J. Di Biase, & B. A. Crawford (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science. Greenville, NC: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
30. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discus-sion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292.
31. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the scientifc method in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45, 341-376.
32. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientifc inquiry:Aframework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499-525.
33. Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientifc explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91-118.
35. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C.,&Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences of epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
36. Suits, J. P. (2004). Assessing investigative skill development in inquiry-based and traditional college science laboratory courses. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 248-257.
37. Tamir, P. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 27-32.
38. Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons, and a high stakes test. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1), 57-75.
39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society-The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., & Roseberry, A. S. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.
41. Warren, B., & Roseberry, S. (1995). "This question is just too too easy!" Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning (pp. 97-125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Willden, J. (2002). A quantitative comparison of instruction format of undergraduate introductory level content biology courses: Traditional lecture approach vs. inquiry-based for education majors. Paper presented at the Proceedings of theAnnual International Conference of theAssociation for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
43. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry": How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientifc method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
44. Wink, D. J. (2005). The inquiry wheel, an alternative to the scientifc method. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 682-682.