Children's Understanding of Scientific Inquiry: Their Conceptualization of Uncertainty in Investigations of Their Own Design

Metz, Kathleen E.

doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3

Cited by 232 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the centrality of scientific investigation to the epistemology of science (not to mention to the U.S. science education standards), we do not see the student time devoted to attaining and consolidating this strategic and metastrategic understanding as needing to be minimized. Indeed, Klahr and Nigam's adoption of the experimental psychologist's focus on efficiency of instruction departs significantly from the perspectives of those in the field of science education concerned with the teaching of science process skills (Duschl & Grandy, 2005;Metz, 2004;Reiser, 2004;Sandoval, 2005: White & Frederiksen, 2005.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

D. Klahr and M. Nigam (2004) make a case for the superiority of direct instruction over discovery learning in students' mastery of the control-of-variables strategy central to the scientific method. In the present work, we examine acquisition of this strategy among students of the same age as those studied by Klahr and Nigam, as well as follow central features of their design in directly comparing the two methods. In contrast to their design, however, we follow progress over an extended time period and a range of equivalent tasks. Three groups of 15 fourth-grade students, of diverse socioeconomic background, were compared. One group engaged in 12 sessions over 10 weeks working on problems that required the control-of-variables strategy for effective solution. Another group engaged in the same activity, preceded by a session involving direct instruction on the controlof-variables strategy. A third group received only the initial direct instruction, without subsequent engagement and practice. In this longer term framework, direct instruction appears to be neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for robust acquisition or for maintenance over time. The patterns of attainment observed here point instead to a gradual and extended process of acquisition and consolidation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, primary-grade students are expected mostly to observe and describe (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993;National Research Council [NRC], 1996). However, Metz (1995Metz ( , 1997Metz ( , 2004) has argued that current research does not support such developmental deficiencies for young children. Although many primary science teachers rarely ask young children to pursue explanatory reasoning (Newton & Newton, 2000), young learners, in fact, can be engaged in theorizing about their observations, as they reason about and explain the "whys" of what they have noted and described (Newton, Newton, Blake, & Brown, 2002;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This view is based on what are considered "developmental constraints" that younger children possess in science (Metz, 2004). As a result, primary-grade students are expected mostly to observe and describe (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993;National Research Council [NRC], 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban primary‐grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:We focus on the concept of matter and explore how young children in urban schools bridge their spontaneous concepts and everyday experiences with scientific concepts introduced to them by children's literature information books and their teacher. The study shows how material artifacts used in a sorting activity became ideational tools-semiotic devices that promoted children's engagement with science and shaped the classroom discourse, thinking, and transactions. "Ambiguous" objects, such as a baggie with air, shaving cream, a baggie of salt that children were asked to sort, encouraged them to debate ideas about states of matter. Children used four ways of reasoning about states of matter: macroscopic properties, prototypes, everyday functions, and process of elimination. Furthermore, children's meaning making was intertwined with various socio-organizational aspects of inquiry-the ways in which children negotiated their roles within their group and in wholeclass sessions, how they worked with each other, how their ideas were heard by others. We discuss how curricular and instructional approaches that do not lead children to one specific answer or way of thinking become catalysts for the creation of discursive spaces, where children and teacher engage in meaning making in the midst of ambiguity and confusion.C 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 92: 65 -95, 2008

show abstract

“…They had more opportunities to experience science process such as identifying a problem; choosing a research question; formulating hypothesis; determining and controlling variables; designing and conducting an experiment; collecting, recording and analysing data, and drawing conclusion through the instructional intervention over the study. The result of the study is supported by Metz (2004) who found that children could design and carry out their own investigations-posing questions, determining appropriate methods of inquiry, carrying out the study, and reporting and critiquing their own results with strong instructional guidance. In literature, many studies targeted developing SPSs have yielded positive impacts of the science process skills (e.g., Coil, Wenderoth, Cunningham, & Dirks 2010;Dirks & Cunningham 2006;Klahr & Chen, 2003;Spektor-Levy, Eylon, & Scherz, 2008;Wilke & Straits 2005;).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%