Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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), 1271–1281.
Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.
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. 199–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
Chinn, C. & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
De Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Hanauer, D., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M., Cresawn, S., Hendrix, R. & Hatfull, G. (2006). Teaching scientific inquiry. Science, 314(5807), 1880–1881.
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.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.
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, 247–252.
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E. & O’louohlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York, NY: Academic.
Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Patterns of scaffolding in computer-mediated collaborative inquiry. Journal of Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2), 281–300.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Lawson, A. (2004). A reply to Allchin’s Pseudo history and Pseu doscience. Science & Education, 13(6), 599–605.
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), 527–565.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (1999). New strategies for America’s watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation (2000). An introduction to inquiry. Washington, DC: Author.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris: Author.
Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D. & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525.
Rutherford, F. J. (1960). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84.
Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E. & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, CT., She, HC. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY WITH/WITHOUT INTEGRATION OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 13, 1–20 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9508-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9508-7