Underlying success in open-ended investigations in science: Using qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient conditions

Research in Science and Technological Education

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 5-30

  Glaesser, Judith ^a   Gott, Richard ^a   Roberts, Ros ^a   Cooper, Barry ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

ideas about evidence; open ended investigations; procedural knowledge; Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA); undergraduate students

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958145273     PISSN: 02635143     EISSN: 14701138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02635140802658784     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abbott, A., 1988. Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 6: 169–86.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., and Tuan, H.-L., 2004. Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88 (3): 397–419.
3. Adey, P., 1992. The CASE results: Implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 14 (2): 137–46.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1967. Science–a process approach, Washington, DC: Ginn and Co.
5. Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA). 2005. GCSE Science A 2007/8 specification, Manchester: AQA.
6. Baxter, G.P., Shavelson, R.J., Goldman, S.R., and Pine, J., 1992. Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29 (1): 1–17.
7. Boudon, R., 1974. The logic of sociological explanation, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
8. Buffler, A., Allie, S., and Lubben, F., 2001. The development of first year physics students’ ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (11): 1137–56.
9. Chen, Z., and Klahr, D., 1999. All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70 (5): 1098–120.
10. Cooper, B., 2005. Applying Ragin’s crisp and fuzzy set QCA to large datasets: Social class and educational achievement in the National Child Development Study. Sociological Research Online, 10 (2) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/12/cooper.html
11. Cooper, B., Using Ragin’s Qualitative Comparative Analysis with longitudinal datasets to explore the degree of meritocracy characterising educational achievement in Britain. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April7–11, San Francisco.
12. Cooper, B., and Glaesser, J., Exploring social class compositional effects on educational achievement with fuzzy set methods: A British study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April9–13, Chicago, IL.
13. Cooper, B., and Glaesser, J., 2008. How has educational expansion changed the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving professional, managerial and technical class positions in Britain? A configurational analysis. Sociological Research Online, 13 (3): 1–22.
14. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., and Shouse, A.W., eds. 2006. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. report of the Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
15. Erickson, G., Bartley, R.W., Blake, L., Carlisle, R., Meyer, K., and Stavey, R., 1992. “ British Columbia Assessment of Science 1991 technical report II: Student performance component ”. Victoria, Canada: Ministry of Education.
16. Germann, P.J., and Aram, R., 1996. Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (7): 773–98.
17. Germann, P.J., Aram, R., and Burke, G., 1996. Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (1): 79–99.
18. Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R., and Cooper, B., “ The roles of substantive and procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to compare two different tasks ”. In Research in Science Education Submitted for publication
19. Gott, R., and Duggan, S., 2007. A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25 (3): 271–91.
20. Gott, R., and Murphy, P., 1987. Assessing investigations at ages 13 and 15, London: Department for Education and Skills. science report for teachers no. 9
21. Gott, R., and Roberts, R., 2004. A written test for procedural understanding: A way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum?. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22 (1): 5–21.
22. Gott, R., Roberts, R., and Glaesser, J., 2007. Concepts of evidence and their role in open-ended practical investigations and scientific literacy: A report of a research programme, Durham, UK: Durham University.
23. Gotwals, A., and Songer, N., 2006. “ Measuring students’ scientific content and inquiry reasoning ”. In Making a difference: The proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS), Edited by: Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E., Songer, N.B., and Hickey, D.T., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Haigh, M., 1999. “ Investigative practical work in Year 12 biology programmes ”. New Zealand: University of Waikato. PhD thesis
25. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., and Gunstone, R., 2000. What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (7): 655–75.
26. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2002. “ Science education from 14 to 19 (third report of session 2001–2 ed.) ”. London: The Stationery Office.
27. Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J., 1958. “ The growth of logical thinking ”. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
28. Jenkins, E.W., 1979. “ From Armstrong to Nuffield: Studies in twentieth century science education in England and Wales ”. London: John Murray.
29. Jones, M., and Gott, R., 1998. Cognitive acceleration through science education: Alternative perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (7): 755–68.
30. Klahr, D., and Nigam, M., 2004. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15 (10): 661–7.
31. Kuhn, D., and Dean, D., 2005. Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables?. Psychological Science, 16 (11): 886–70.
32. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., and O’Loughlin, M., 1988. The development of scientific thinking skills, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33. Lieberson, S., 1985. Making it count. The improvement of social research and theory, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34. Lubben, F., and Millar, R., 1996. Children’s ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (8): 955–968.
35. Martin, J.R., 1993. “ Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology ”. In Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, Edited by: Halliday, M.A.K., and Martin, J.R., 166–220. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
36. Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., and Duggan, S., 1994. Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9 (1): 207–48.
37. Osborne, J.F., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., and Duschl, R., 2003. What ‘ideas about science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (7): 692–720.
38. Polanyi, M., 1966. The tacit dimension, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith Publisher.
39. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). 2004. Reforming science education for the 21st century; a commentary on the new GCSE criteria for awarding bodies, London: QCA.
40. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). 2006. GCSE criteria for science, London: QCA. http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_8468.aspx
41. Ragin, C.C., 1987. The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
42. Ragin, C.C., 2000. Fuzzy-set social science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43. Ragin, C.C., 2003. Recent advances in fuzzy-set methods and their application to policy questions COMPASSS. http://www.compasss.org/files/wpfiles/Ragin2003.pdf
44. Ragin, C.C., 2005. “ From fuzzy sets to crisp truth tables, working paper ”. COMPASSS http://www.compasss.org/files/wpfiles/Raginfztt_April05.pdf
45. Ragin, C.C., 2006a. “ The limitations of net-effects thinking ”. In Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis, Edited by: Rihoux, B., and Grimm, H., 13–41. New York: Springer.
46. Ragin, C.C., 2006b. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14: 291–310.
47. Ragin, C.C., Drass, K.A., and Davey, S., 2006. “ Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0 ”. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Department of Sociology. http://www.u.arizona.edu/%7Ecragin/fsQCA/software.shtml
48. Roberts, R., forthcoming, 2009. Can teaching about evidence encourage a creative approach in open-ended investigations?. School Science Review, 90(332)
49. Roberts, R., and Gott, R., 2000. Procedural understanding in biology: How is it characterised in texts?. School Science Review, 82: 83–91.
50. Roberts, R., and Gott, R., 2003. Assessment of biology investigations. Journal of Biological Education, 37 (3): 114–21.
51. Roberts, R., and Gott, R., 2004. Assessment of Sci1: Alternatives to coursework?. School Science Review, 85 (131): 103–8.
52. Roberts, R., and Gott, R., 2006. Assessment of performance in practical science and pupil attributes. Assessment in Education, 13 (1): 45–67.
53. Roberts, R., and Gott, R., Evidence, investigations and scientific literacy: What are the curriculum implications?. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching. April15–18, New Orleans.
54. Ryder, J., and Leach, J., 1999. University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (9): 945–56.
55. Sandoval, W.A., 2005. Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89: 634–56.
56. Schauble, L., 1996. The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32 (1): 102–19.
57. Screen, P.A., 1986. The Warwick Process Science Project. School Science Review, 72 (260): 17–24.
58. Shayer, M., and Adey, P.S., 1992. Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students, II: Post project effects on science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29: 81–92.
59. Star, J.R., 2000. “ On the relationship between knowing and doing in procedural learning ”. In Fourth international conference of the learning sciences, Edited by: Fishman, B., and O’Connor-Divelbiss, S., 80–6. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Toh, K.A., and Woolnough, B.E., 1994. Science process skills: Are they generalisable?. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12 (1): 31–42.
61. Toth, E.E., Klahr, D., and Chen, Z., 2000. Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (4): 423–59.
62. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., and Gott, R., 2001a. Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (8): 815–32.
63. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., and Gott, R., 2001b. Public participation in an environmental dispute: Implications for science education. Public Understanding of Science, 10 (4): 343–64.
64. Welford, G., Harlen, W., and Schofield, B., 1985. Practical testing at ages 11, 13 and 15, London: Department for Education and Skills.