0.903
IF
1.06
CiteScore
0.510
SJR
1.062
SNIP
Research paper
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

A Case Study on Developmental Changes of Eleventh Graders’ Scientific Inquiry Competences

 
1
Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy Development, National Chiayi University, TAIWAN
2
Department of Early Childhood Education, National Chiayi University, TAIWAN
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(1):363–382
Online publish date: 2017-11-07
Publish date: 2017-11-07
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this study was to explore possible developmental changes of vocational high school students’ scientific inquiry competence while they learned within the “Mechatronics” inquiry-based curriculum and instruction. A case study approach was employed in this study, while multiple resources of 77 11th graders’ learning were collected and analyzed by using the editing analytic techniques. During the process of this two-year study, there were 11 changes of students’ competence extracted from the data collected. These changes were inducted into 6 categories of scientific inquiry competences and then finally formed three themes, “basic competence, advanced competence, and critical competence”. The result of this study was reported as a developmental triad of students’ scientific inquiry competences. Based on discussions, as teachers, we have to actively implement the real-life problem-solving teaching practice to enhance students’ scientific inquiry competences. The findings of this study also provided the insight that how teachers understood the scope and sequence in designing inquiry-based curricula. Finally, the dialogue between the findings and the literature reminded us that students’ scientific inquiry competences could not be cultivated in a short time; instead, a long-term and context-driven curriculum design is the cornerstone to develop their competences for future learning and life.
 
REFERENCES (73):
1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Ann, C. H. K. & Marcy, S-G. (2010). Inscriptional practices in undergraduate introductory science courses: A path toward improving prospective k-6 teachers understanding and teaching of science. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3), 58-88.
4. Atilhan, M., Eljack, F., Atilhan, H. M., Froyd, J. E., El-Halwagi, M., & Mahalec, V. (2014). Inquiry guided learning in a chemical engineering core curriculum general instructional approach and specific application to the fluid mechanics case. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(6), 1450-1460.
5. Barak, M. & Shakhman, L. (2008). Reform-based science teaching: Teachers‟ instructional practices and conceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(1), 11-20.
6. Barbro, G. & Johan O. (2013). DEQUAL: A tool of investigating deliberative qualities in students’ socio-scientific conversations. International Journal of Environment & Science Education, 8(2), 319-338.
7. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
8. Brown, W. R. (1977). The effect of process-skill instruction on performance of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research Teaching, 14(1), 83-87.
9. Bruner, J. S. (1967). The Process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11. Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (ED.), Handbook of Research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-388). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
12. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5e instructional model: Origins and effectiveness, Colorado Springs, CO: A Report Prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health.
13. Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., and Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14. Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 765-773.
15. Chin, C. C. (2007). A reflection on the science education of Taiwan: The voice from the elites in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 627-646.
16. Chang, L. Y. (2008). A study on science inquiry for gifted students. Bulletin of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 18, 51-71.
17. Chang, Y. L. (2015). Using mechatronics curriculum design in enhancing vocational high-school students’ competence of scientific inquiry. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(5), 1398-1409.
18. Chang, Y. L., & Wu, H. H. (2015). A case study of increasing vocational high school teachers practices in designing interdisciplinary use of scientific inquiry in curriculum design. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 11(1), 37-51.
19. Center for Science Mathematics and Engineering Education [CSMEE] (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
20. Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research in primary care: Multiple strategies (2nd ed., pp. 163-177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Cross, R. T. (1999). The public understanding of science: Implication for education. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 699-702.
22. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1999). The responsibility of science and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 775-785.
23. Colburn, A., & Bianchini, J. K. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teacher: A tale of researchers. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
24. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
25. Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. R. Durant, & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe (pp. 129-137). London: Science Museum.
26. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science, Nature, 340(6), 11-14.
27. Espinosa-Bueno, J. S., Labastida-Pina, D. V., Padilla-Martínez, K., & Garritz A. (2011). Pedagogical content knowledge of inquiry: An instrument to assess it and its application to high school in-service science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 599-614.
28. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, T. R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643-658.
29. Gallagher, J., & Harsch, G. (1997). Scientific literacy: Science education and secondary school students. In W. Graeber & C. Bolte. (Eds.). Scientific literacy: An international symposium (pp. 13-34). Kiel, Germany: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften [IPN].
30. Gejda, L. M., & LaRocco, D. J. (2006, October). Inquiry-based instruction in secondary science classrooms: A survey of teacher practice. Research paper presented at the 37th annual Northeast Educational Research Association Conference, Kerhonkson, NY.
31. Hazen, R. M. (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate? Retrieved on Oct. 15, 2012 from Action Bioscience website at http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hazen.html.
32. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
33. Hsu, Y. (2006). A survey of college students’ scientific competence: An example of Kainan University. Journal of the Chinese for General Education, 9, 137-154.
34. Jacobs-Sera, D., Hatfull, G.F., and Hanauer, D.I. (2009). Assessing scientific inquiry. In Hanauer, I.D., Hatfull, G.F., & Jacobs-Sera, D. (Eds.), Active assessment: Assessing scientific inquiry (pp. 31-43). New York: Springer.
35. Keeves, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1995). Science curriculum in changing world. In B, J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 13-45). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.
36. Ketelhut, D.J., Dede, C., & Clarke, J. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
37. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of science literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 143-178.
38. Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2014). Research on educational standards in German science education: Towards a model of student competences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(4), 257-269.
39. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
40. Lee, W.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). Taiwan’s secondary school teachers’ expectations with regard to the earth science literacy of their students. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Mathematics & Science Education, 50(2), 1-27.
41. Lin, C. Y. (1995). The development and validation of the understanding of the nature of science scale. Science Education Monthly, 4(1), 1-58.
42. Lin, S. S. (1999). Reflection on scientific literacy. Science Education Monthly, 222, 16-25.
43. Lubben, F., & Millar, R. (1996). Children’s ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 955-968.
44. Lunsford, E., & Melear, C.T. (2004). Using scoring rubrics to evaluate inquiry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(1), 34-38.
45. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier. R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry‐based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063-1080.
46. Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2000). Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
47. Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2007). Science Education Whitepaper. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
48. Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2014). 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
49. Moore, R. W., & Sutman, F. X. (1970). The development, field test, and validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85-94.
50. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2012). The condition of education 2012. Retrieved on Nov. 10, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.
51. National Science Teacher Association [NSTA] (2004). Scientific inquiry. Retrieved on Oct. 20, 2014 from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx.
52. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53. National Research Council [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
55. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
56. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2007). Assessing scientific, and mathematical literacy. Paris: Author.
57. Orgill, M., & Thomas, M. (2007). Analogies and the 5E model: Suggestions for using analogies in each phase of the 5E model. The science teacher, 74, 40-45.
58. Pella, M. O. (1967). Scientific Literacy and the High School Curriculum. School Science & Mathematics, 67, 346-356.
59. Rithchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 799-815.
60. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry laboratories. Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwen Academic Publishing.
61. Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (2003). A holistic model of competence. In D. S. Rychen and L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society. (pp. 41-62). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publisher.
62. Santos-Trigo, M. (2008). An inquiry approach to construct instructional trajectories based on the use of digital technologies. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(4), 347-357.
63. Shavelson, R. (2010). On the measurement of competency. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2, 43-65.
64. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science Literacy: The Public Need. The Sciences, 1, 27-29.
65. Showalter, V. (1974). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy, 2, 1-6.
66. Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
67. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk.
68. Wenning, C. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Education Online, 4(2), 21-24.
69. Yen, C. F., & Huang, S. C. (1999). Student interactions in open-inquiry ecological research settings. Science Education Monthly, 11(2), 141-169.
70. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71. Zachos, P. (2004). Pendulum phenomena and the assessment of scientific inquiry capabilities. Science and Education, 13(7-8), 743-756.
72. Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doanne, W. E., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 938-962.
73. Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009). Flipping the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. In Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exhibition. Retrieved on Nov. 15, 2014 from https://peer.asee.org/flipping-the-classroom-to-explore-active-learning-in-a-large-undergraduate-course.pdf.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215