THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY WITH/WITHOUT INTEGRATION OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Chun-Ting Chen ; Hsiao-Ching She
• 关键词：evidence ; based scientific explanations ; formulating hypotheses ; integration of scientific reasoning ; scientific inquiry
• 刊名：International Journal of Science & Math Education
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：February 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：13
• 期：1
• 页码：1-20
• 全文大小：237 KB
• 参考文献：1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. & Cummins, C. (2001). The how’s and why’s of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. / International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271-281. CrossRef
  2. Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1994). / Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.
  3. Ahn, W. K. & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), / Explanation and cognition (pp. 199-25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). / Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  5. Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. / Child Development, 70(5), 1098-120. CrossRef
  6. Chinn, C. & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. / Science Education, 86(2), 175-18. CrossRef
  7. De Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. / Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-01. CrossRef
  8. Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). / Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
  9. Hanauer, D., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M., Cresawn, S., Hendrix, R. & Hatfull, G. (2006). Teaching scientific inquiry. / Science, 314(5807), 1880-881. CrossRef
  10. 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), 791-06. CrossRef
  11. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. / Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-32. CrossRef
  12. King, R. D., Whelan, K. E., Jones, F. M., Reiser, P. G. K., Bryant, C. H., Muggleton, S. H., Kell, D. B. & Oliver, S. G. (2004). Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist. / Nature, 427, 247-52. CrossRef
  13. Koslowski, B. (1996). / Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E. & O’louohlin, M. (1988). / The development of scientific thinking skills. New York, NY: Academic.
  15. Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Patterns of scaffolding in computer-mediated collaborative inquiry. / Journal of Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2), 281-00. CrossRef
  16. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. / International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-408. CrossRef
  17. Lawson, A. (2004). A reply to Allchin’s Pseudo history and Pseu doscience. / Science & Education, 13(6), 599-05. CrossRef
  18. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? / Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527-65. CrossRef
  19. National Research Council (1996). / National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  20. National Research Council (1999). / New strategies for America’s watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  21. National Research
• 作者单位：Chun-Ting Chen (1)
  Hsiao-Ching She (1)
  
  1. Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta-Hsueh Rd, Hsinchu, 300, Taiwan, Republic of China
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Education
  Mathematics Education
  Science Education
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-1774

文摘

This study examines the difference in effectiveness between two scientific inquiry programs—one with an emphasis on scientific reasoning and one without a scientific reasoning component—on students-scientific concepts, scientific concept-dependent reasoning, and scientific inquiry. A mixed-method approach was used in which 115 grade 5 students were administered the scientific concept test, scientific concept-dependent reasoning test, and scientific inquiry test before, 1?week after, and 8?weeks after instruction. In addition, students-scientific inquiry worksheets in the classroom were collected and evaluated. Results indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group, regardless of scientific concept test, scientific concept-dependent reasoning test, and scientific inquiry test. Moreover, the classroom inquiry worksheets results demonstrated that the experimental group generated a significantly greater number of testable hypotheses, correct hypotheses, and correct evidence-based scientific explanations and a higher level of scientific reasoning than did the control group.