Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students

Michal Zion; Irit Sadeh

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75240

Full Text (PDF)

Michal Zion ¹ ^* , Irit Sadeh ¹

More Detail

¹ Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

In examining open inquiry projects among high-school biology students, we found dynamic inquiry performances expressed in two criteria: 'changes occurring during inquiry' and 'procedural understanding'. Characterizing performances in a dynamic open inquiry project can shed light on both the procedural and epistemological scientific understanding of students. In addition, we found a connection between the number of students in a team and the number of performances, in both fields: The greater the number of participants in the inquiry project (up to three students per team), the greater the number of performances. Regarding the characterization of dynamic inquiry performed in an open inquiry project, and in addition to characterizing student performances, we found that there were advantages in doing inquiry projects as a team.

Keywords

dynamic inquiry skills
inquiry learning
open inquiry
performances

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 6, Issue 3, 2010, 199-214

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240

Publication date: 21 Dec 2010

Article Views: 1714

Article Downloads: 955

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V.L. (2007). On the role and use of 'theory' in science education research: A response to Johnston, Southerland, and Sowell. Science Education, 91(1), 187-194.
Benckert, S & Pettersson, S. (2008). Learning Physics in Small-Group Discussions–Three Examples. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(2), 121-134.
Chin, C. & Chia, L. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using students' questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88(5), 707-727.
Ciechanover, A. (2003). The ubiquitin proteolytic system and pathogenesis of human diseases: a novel platform for mechanism-based drug targeting. Biochem Soc Trans, 31, 474-481.
Crawford, B., Marx, R. & Krajcik, J. (1999). Developing collaboration in a middle school project-based science classroom. Science Education, 83(6), 701-723.
Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, Plenum Press
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behaviour. New York, Plenum press.
DeCorte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practise: a permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249-266.
Finn, H., Maxwell, M. & Calver, M. (2002). Why does experimentation matter in teaching ecology? Journal of Biological Education, 36(4), 158-162.
Gibson, H.L. & Rea-Ramirez, M.A. (2002). Keeping the inquiry in curriculum designed to help students' conceptual understanding of cellular respiration. (Eric Document Reproduction No. ED465634).
Grandy, R. & Duschl, R.A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141-166.
Grindstaff, K. & Richmond, G. (2008). Learners' perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 251-271.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Nagarajan, A. & Day, R. (2002). 'It‘s harder than we thought it would be': a comparative case study of expert - novice experimentation strategies. Science Education, 86(2), 219-243.
Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students' personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education, 83(1), 1-32.
Holliday, W.G. (2006). A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In N.G. Lederman & L.B. Flick (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 201–217). Dordrecht (The Netherlands), Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Horvitz, L.A. (2002). Eureka! Scientific breakthroughs that changed the world. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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, 551-578.
Kim, H. & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W. & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E.H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry science learning and teaching (pp. 283-315). Washington, DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lazarowitz, R. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2003). Cooperative learning in science curriculum. In: B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449-471). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lederman, N.G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science whitin inquiry and science instruction. In N.G. Lederman & L.B. Flick (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301-317). Dordrecht (The Netherlands), Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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), 1-22.
Lou, Y. (2004). Understanding process and affective factors in small group versus individual learning with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 337-369.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C. & d‘Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449-521.
Luckie, D.B., Maleszewski, J.J., Loznak, S.D. & Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning: a fouryear study of 'Teams and Streams'. Advances in Physiology Education, 28, 199-209.
Lunetta, V.N., Hofstein, A. & Clough, M.P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-442). Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Mittlefehldt, S. & Grotzer, T.A. (2003, March). Using metacognition to facilitate the transfer of causal models in learning density and pressure. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C, National Academy Press.
Prusiner, S.B. (1996). Prion biology and diseases - laughing cannibals, mad cows, and scientific heresy. Medicinal Research Reviews, 16 (5), 487-505.
Reinstein, E. & Ciechanover, A. (2006). Narrative Review: protein degradation and human diseases: the ubiquitin connection. Review – Physiology in medicine, 145(9), 676- 684.
Rob, T. (2007). Evaluating science investigations at ages 14- 16: dealing with anomalous results. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 127-150.
Roberts, R. & Gott, R. (1999). Procedural understanding: its place in the biology curriculum. School Science Reviews, 81(294), 19-25.
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.
Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J.J. Schwab & P.E Brandweine (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.
Slavin, R.E (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, K.A. (2000). Inquiry-Based Collaborative Learning. Retrieved August 10, 2010 from http://www.nciia.org/proceed_01/Smith%20handouts.pdf
Sowell, S., Johnston, A. & Southerland, S. (2007). Calling for a focus on where learning happens: A Response to Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson. Science Education, 91(1), 195-199.
Staer, H., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in western Australia: openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education 28(2), 219-228.
Tamir, P., Stavy, R. & Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 27-32.
Warwick, P., Stephenson, P. & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils' written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192.
Wen, L.M. C., Tsai, C.-C., Lin, H.-M. & Chuang, S.-C. (2004). Cognitive-metacognitive and content-technical aspects of constructivist internet-based learning environments: a LISREL analysis, Computers and Education 43, 237-248.
Zakaria, E. & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35-39.
Zion, M. (2008). On-line Forums as a 'Rescue Net' in an open inquiry process. International Journal of Science & Math Education, 6, 351-375.
Zion, M., Cohen, S. & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423-447.
Zion, M. & Sadeh, I. (2007). Curiosity and open inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 162-168.
Zion, M., Shapira D., Slezak, M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinovitch, R., Agrest, B. & Mendelovici, R. (2004a). Biomind - A new biology curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59-67.
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.

How to cite this article

APA

Zion, M., & Sadeh, I. (2010). Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(3), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240

Vancouver

Zion M, Sadeh I. Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010;6(3):199-214. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240

AMA

Zion M, Sadeh I. Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010;6(3), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240

Chicago

Zion, Michal, and Irit Sadeh. "Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2010 6 no. 3 (2010): 199-214. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240

Harvard

Zion, M., and Sadeh, I. (2010). Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(3), pp. 199-214. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240

MLA

Zion, Michal et al. "Dynamic Open Inquiry Performances of High-School Biology Students". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 6, no. 3, 2010, pp. 199-214. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75240