“Doing Science” in Elementary School: Using Digital Technology to Foster the Development of Elementary Students’ Understandings of Scientific Inquiry
More details
Hide details
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Department of Library and Information Studies, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia, United States
School of Teacher Education, Florida State University, Florida, United States
College of Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
Institute for the Science of Teaching and Learning, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States
School of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States
Online publish date: 2017-07-28
Publish date: 2017-07-28
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):4635–4649
National efforts have described the need for students to develop scientific proficiency and have identified informal learning environments, interactive technologies, and an understanding of inquiry as ways to support this development. The Habitat Tracker project was developed in response to this need by developing a digitally-supported, inquiry-oriented curriculum focused on engaging elementary students in science practices in formal and informal settings. This study employed a mixed methods approach to explore how engagement in the project affected 125 fourth and fifth grade elementary students’ views of scientific inquiry and if certain aspects of scientific inquiry were shaped by student participation. The Views of Scientific Inquiry – Elementary School Version (VOSI-E), was administered before and after students had engaged with a three week Habitat Tracker curriculum and assessed aspects including the role of questions, diversity of methods, experiments and investigations, developing scientific explanations, supporting scientific explanations, predictions and hypotheses, role of subjectivity, role of creativity, and goal of science. VOSI-E responses were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. Chi-squared test results suggest that classroom learning coupled with visits to a wildlife center can help improve student understanding of scientific inquiry when integrated with technology-enhanced, field-based inquiries that emphasize the practices of science.
Jennifer Schellinger   
School of Teacher Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States.
1. Abrams, E. D., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. (2008). Inquiry in the classroom: Identifying necessary components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.) Inquiry in the Classroom: Realities and Opportunities (pp. xi-xlii). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
2. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 6(1)2, 32–44.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. Anderson, D., & Zhang, Z. (2003). Teacher perceptions of field-trip planning and implementation. Visitor Studies Today, 6(3), 6-11.
5. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1015171124982.
6. Avraamidou, L., & Roth, W. M. (Eds.). (2016). Intersections of Formal and Informal Science. Routledge.
7. Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies & practices. (pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
8. Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A Review of Research on School Field Trips and Their Value in Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 235-245.
9. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10. Bell, R. L. (2008). Observation or inference: A “burning” question. In R. L. Bell (Ed.), Teaching the nature of science through process skills: Activities for grades 3-8 (pp. 36-44). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
11. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7): 30-33.
12. Bitgood, S., Serrell, B., & Thompson, D. (1994). The impact of information education on visitors to museums. In V. Crane (Ed.), Informal science learning: what the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects (pp. 61-106). Dedham, MA: Research Communications.
13. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318.
14. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-9. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
15. Cox-Petersen, A.M., & Pfaffinger, J.A. (1998). Teacher preparation and teacher-student interactions at a discovery center of natural history. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10(2), 20-35.
16. 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.
17. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). What makes visitors want to learn? Intrinsic motivation in museums. Museum News, 74(3), 34-37.
18. Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the “informal science education” ad hoc committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 108-111. doi: 10.1002/tea.10066.
19. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
20. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
21. Economou, M., & Meintani, E. (2011). Promising beginnings? Evaluating museum mobile phone apps. In L. Ciolfi, K. Scott, & S. Barbieri (Eds.), Re-thinking technology in museums: Emerging experiences (n.p.), Limerick, Ireland: University of Limerick. Retrieved from http://www.idc.ul.ie/techmuseu....
22. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1.
23. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
24. Evolution & the Nature of Science Institutes (ENSI). (1999). Sunsets, souls, and senses. In Nature of science lessons. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiwe....
25. Evolution & the Nature of Science Institutes (ENSI). The great fossil find. In Nature of science lessons. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiwe....
26. Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744-778.
27. Filippini-Fantoni, S., & Bowen, J. (2007) Bookmarking in museums: Extending the museum experience beyond the visit? In J. Trant and D. Bearman (Eds). Museums and the Web 2007 (pp. 115-126). Toronto, Canada: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/mw200....
28. Granger, E.M., T. Bevis, Y. Saka, S. Southerland, V. Sampson, & Tate, R. (2012). The efficacy of student centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science, 338, 105-108.
29. Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science Education, 88, S56-S70.
30. Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 81(6), 763-779.
31. Hall, T., & Bannon, L. (2006). Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children’s learning in museums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 231-243.
32. Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 13-17.
33. Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
34. Holmes, J. A. (2012). Use of pre- and post-museum visit classroom activities by kindergarten-eighth grade teachers. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 1,794-800.
35. Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Chu, H. C., Kinshuk, & Chen, C. H. (2012). A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a science park. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 931-947.
36. Judson, E. (2013). The relationship between time allocated for science in elementary schools and state accountability policies. Science Education, 97(4), 621-636.
37. Kisiel, J. F. (2003). Revealing teacher agendas: An examination of teacher motivations and strategies for conducting museum fieldtrips. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning Company. (UMI No. 3133296).
38. Kisiel, J. F. (2007). Examining teacher choices for science museum worksheets. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 29-43.
39. Knapp, D. & Barrie, E. U. (2001). Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 351-357.
40. Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Urban elementary school teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners. Science Education, 92, 733-758.
41. Looi, C. K., Lim, K. F., Pang, J., Koh, A. L. H., Seow, P., Sun, D., ... & Soloway, E. (2016). Bridging formal and informal learning with the use of mobile technology. In Future Learning in Primary Schools (pp. 79-96). Springer Singapore.
42. Marty, P. F., Alemanne, N. D., Mendenhall, A., Maurya, M., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., ... & Schellinger, J. (2013). Scientific inquiry, digital literacy, and mobile computing in informal learning environments. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 407-428.
43. Morag, O., & Tal, T. (2012). Assessing learning in the outdoors with the field trip in natural environments (FiNE) framework. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 745-777.
44. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Chapter 6: Activities for teaching about evolution and the nature of science. In Teaching about evolution and the nature of science (pp. 61-104). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
45. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
46. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47. Price, S., & Hein, G. E. (1991). More than a field trip: Science programmes for elementary school groups at museums. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 505-519.
48. Proctor, N. (Ed.) (2011). Mobile apps for museums. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
49. Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 175-185.
50. Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2009). How mobile technologies are changing the way children learn. In A. Druin (Ed.), Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction (pp.5-22). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Morgan Kaufman.
51. Schaller, D.T., & Allison-Bunnell, S. (2005). Learning styles and online interactives. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2005 (n.p.). Toronto, Canada: Archives and Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/mw200....
52. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, N. (2008, April). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, Maryland.
53. Soloway, E. (1991) How the Nintendo generation learns. Communications of the ACM, 34(9), 23-26/95.
54. Southerland, S. A. (2013). The Possibilities of Teaching “Science for All” Given National Education Policy: How Policy Influences the Equitable Teaching of Science. In Bianchini, J., Akerson, V., Calabrese Barton, A., Lee, O. & Rodriguez, A. (Eds.) Moving the equity agenda forward, pp. 21-38. Netherlands: Springer.
55. Tallon, L., & Walker, K. (Eds). (2008). Digital technologies and the museum experience: Handheld guides and other media. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
56. Vitone, T., Stofer, K. A., Steininger, M. S., Hulcr, J., Dunn, R., & Lucky, A. (2016). School of ants goes to college: integrating citizen science into the general education classroom increases engagement with science. J. Sci. Commun., 15, 1-24.
57. Vogel, B., Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (2010). Integrating mobile, web and sensory technologies to support inquiry-based science learning. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (pp. 65- 72). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
58. Wakkary, R., & Evernden, D. (2005). Museum as ecology: A case study analysis of an ambient intelligent museum guide. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2005 (pp.151-164). Toronto, Canada: Archives and Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/mw200....
59. Woodruff, A., Rosenholtz, R., Morrison, J. B., Faulring, A., & Pirolli, P. (2002). A comparison of the use of text summaries, plain thumbnails, and enhanced thumbnails for Web search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 172-185.
60. Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2017). Integrating Mobile Computers into Informal Science Education. In Preparing Informal Science Educators (pp. 169-183). Springer International Publishing.