Understanding Students' Experiments-What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks?

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 36, Issue 16, 2014, Pages 2719-2749

  Arnold, Julia Caroline ^a   Kremer, Kerstin ^b   Mayer, Jürgen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Experiment; Fair test; Inquiry; Procedural knowledge; Procedural understanding; Support

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906055788     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2014.930209     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. doi: 10.1002/sce.10118
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks online. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1#A0
3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1023/A:1015171124982
4. Arnold, J., & Kremer, K. (2012). Lipase in Milchprodukten - Schüler erforschen die Temperaturabhängigkeit von Enzymen [Lipase in dairy products - Students investigate the temperature dependency of enzymes]. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften - Biologie in der Schule, 61(7), 15-20.
5. Arnold, J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2013). Wissenschaftliches Denken beim Experimentieren - Kompetenzdiagnose in der Sekundarstufe II [Scientific thinking while experimentation - Competence-Diagnosis in upper secondary level]. In D. Krüger, A. Upmeier zu Belzen, P. Schmiemann, A. Möller, & D. Elster (Eds.), Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik (Vol. 11, pp. 7-20). Kassel: Universitätsdruckerei.
6. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Senior secondary curriculum-biology. Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Static/docs/senior%20secondary/Senior%20Secondary%20Curriculum%20-%20Biology%20November%202012.pdf
7. Bass, K. M., Magone, M. E., & Glaser, R. (2002). Informing the design of performance assessment using a content-process analysis of two NAEP science tasks (CSE Technichal Report No. 564). Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TR564.pdf
8. Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1997). An approach to analyzing the cognitive complexity of science performance assessments (CSE Technical Report 452). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation.
9. Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 133-145. doi: 10.1080/02635140120087687
10. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616. doi: 10.1002/sce.20390
11. Buffler, A., Allie, S., Lubben, F., & Campbell, B. (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), 1137-1156. doi: 10.1080/09500690110039567
12. Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169-177. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660220208
13. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
14. Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding 'a framework for K-12 science education'. Science Teacher, 78(9), 34-40.
15. Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 777-786. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.777
16. Chang, C. Y. (2001). A problem-solving based computer-assisted tutorial for the earth sciences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 263-274. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00181.x
17. Chang, S.-N., & Chiu, M.-H. (2005). The development of authentic assessments to investigate ninth graders'scientific literacy: In the case of scientific cognition concerning the concepts of chemistry and physics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 117-140.
18. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00081
19. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001
20. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
21. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20157
22. Department for Education and Skills/Qualification and Curriculum Authority. (2004). Science-the national curriculum for England. London: HMSO.
23. Dillashaw, F. G., & Okey, J. R. (1980). Test of the integrated science process skills for secondary science students. Science Education, 64(5), 601-608. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730640506
24. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
25. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2000). Intermediate general national vocational qualification (GNVQ) science: A missed opportunity for a focus on procedural understanding? Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(2), 201-214. doi: 10.1080/713694978
26. Duggan, S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). A critical point in investigative work: Defining variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 461-474. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<461::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-P
27. Ertepinar, H., & Geban, O. (1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative-oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course. Educational Research, 38(3), 333-341. doi: 10.1080/0013188960380306
28. Flick, L. B. (2004). Developing understanding of scientific inquiry in secondary students. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 157-172). Dodrecht: Kluwer.
29. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467. doi: 10.1002/sce.20130
30. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517-529. doi: 10.3102/00346543060004517
31. Germann, P. J., Aram, R., & 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. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<79::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-M
32. Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R., & Cooper, B. (2009). The roles of substantive and procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to compare two different tasks. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 595-624. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9108-7
33. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (n.d.). Concepts of evidence. Retrieved from www.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/CofEv_Gott%20et%20al.pdf
34. Gott, R., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence and their role in open-ended practical investigations and scientific literacy; background to published papers. Retrieved from https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/education/research/res_rep_short_master_final.pdf
35. Hammann, M., Hoi Phan, T. T., Ehmer, M., & Grimm, T. (2008). Assessing pupils' skills in experimentation. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 66-72. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2008.9656113
36. Harwood, W. S. (2004). A new model for inquiry-is the scientific method dead? Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(7), 29-33.
37. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368
38. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students' ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791-806. doi: 10.1002/tea.20072
39. iSTAR Assessment. (2011). Inquiry for scientific thinking and reasoning. Retrieved from http://www.istarassessment.org/
40. Keogh, B. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446. doi: 10.1080/095006999290642
41. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.10036
42. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418. doi: 10.1002/tea.20137
43. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
44. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
45. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction-effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
46. KMK/Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (2005a). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz-Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Decisions of the Assembly of German Ministers of Education-Educational standards in biology for lower secondary school]. München: Luchterhand.
47. KMK/Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (2005b). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz-Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Decisions of the Assembly of German Ministers of Education-Educational standards in chemistry for lower secondary school]. München: Luchterhand.
48. KMK/Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (2005c). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz-Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Decisions of the Assembly of German Ministers of Education-Educational standards in physics for lower secondary school]. München: Luchterhand.
49. Kremer, K., Fischer, H. E., Kauertz, A., Mayer, J., Sumfleth, E., & Walpuski, M. (2012). Assessment of standards-based learning outcomes in science education: Perspectives from the German project ESNaS. In S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig (Eds.), Making it tangible - Learning outcomes in science education (pp. 201-218). Münster: Waxmann.
50. Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2014). The relationship in biology between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 1-8.
51. Lazarowitz, R., Baird, J. H., Bowlden, V., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1996). Teaching biology in a group mastery learning mode: High school students' academic achievement and affective outcomes. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 447-462. doi: 10.1080/0950069960180404
52. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 497-521. doi: 10.1002/tea.10034
54. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837-858. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U
55. Lubben, F., Buffler, A., Campbell, B., & Allie, S. (2001). Point and set reasoning in practical science measurement by entering university freshmen. Science Education, 85(4), 311-327. doi: 10.1002/sce.1012
56. Lubben, F., & Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 955-968. doi: 10.1080/0950069960180807
57. Mayer, J. (2007). Erkenntnisgewinnung als wissenschaftliches Problemlösen [Inquiry as scientific problem-solving]. In D. Krüger & H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung [Theories in Didactics of Biology] (pp. 177-186). Berlin: Springer.
58. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
59. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
60. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
62. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
63. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008a). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Science, 2008.
64. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 11 and 12: Science, 2008: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
65. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.10105
66. Phillips, K. A., & Germann, P. J. (2002). The inquiry 'I': A tool for learning scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 64(7), 512-520. doi: 10.1662/0002-7685(2002)064[0512:TIIATF]2.0.CO;2
67. Roberts, R. (2001). Procedural understanding in biology: The thinking behind the doing. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 113-117. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2001.9655758
68. Roberts, R. (2009). Can teaching about evidence encourage a creative approach in open-ended investigations? School Science Review, 90(332), 31-38.
69. Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2003). Assessment of biology investigations. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 114-121. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2003.9655865
70. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). Using vee and concept maps in collaborative settings: Elementary Education majors construct meaning in physical science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 237-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1993.tb12236.x
71. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Aylesbury: Penguin Books.
72. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160. doi: 10.1002/tea.20310
73. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
74. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Hänze, M., & Wodzinski, R. (2009). Complex problem solving and worked examples: The role of prompting strategic behavior and fading-in solution steps. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 129-138. doi: 10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.129
75. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033
76. Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645. doi: 10.1002/sce.10128
77. Tamir, P., Nussinovitz, R., & Friedler, Y. (1982). The design and use of a practical tests assessment inventory. Journal of Biological Education, 16(1), 42-50. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1982.9654417
78. Tamir, P., Stavy, R., & Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 27-32. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1998.9655633
79. Temiz, B. K., Tasar, M. F., & Tan, M. (2006). Development and validation of a multiple format test of science process skills. International Education Journal, 7(7), 1007-1027.
80. Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1982). Development and validation of a group test of integrated science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 133-141. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660190205
81. Watson, R., Goldsworthy, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1999). What is not fair with investigations? School Science Review, 80(292), 101-106.
82. Weinert, F. E. (2001a). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45-65). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.
83. Weinert, F. E. (2001b). Vergleichende Leistungsmessungen in Schulen-eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit [Comparative Assessment in Schools-a controversial matter of cause]. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Leistungsmessungen in Schulen [Assessment in schools] (pp. 17-31). Weinheim: Beltz.
84. Wellnitz, N., & Mayer, J. (2011). Modelling and assessing scientific methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Olandor, FL.
85. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
86. Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229-1252. doi: 10.1002/tea.20380
87. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001
88. Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88(5), 728-753. doi: 10.1002/sce.10145