2010
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20390
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction

Abstract: ABSTRACT:In this quantitative study, we compare the efficacy of Level 2, guided inquirybased instruction to more traditional, verification laboratory instruction in supporting student performance on a standardized measure of knowledge of content, procedure, and nature of science. Our sample included 1,700 students placed in the classrooms of 12 middle school and 12 high school science teachers. The instruction for both groups included a week long, laboratory-based, forensics unit. Students were given pre-, pos… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
186
0
40

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 295 publications
(231 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
4
186
0
40
Order By: Relevance
“…Because some teachers prefer structured and guided inquiry activities rather than open inquiry practices. They claim that open inquiry is considered to be a waste of time, whereas guided inquiry provides high level science skills and helps in understanding the nature of science (Blanchard et al, 2010;Quintana, Zhang, & Krajcik, 2005;Tabak et al, 1995). On the contrary, some scholars (Berg et al, 2003;Chinn & Malhotra 2002;Krystyniak & Heikkinen, 2007) advocate that open inquiry is a more effective way to teach the nature of science and science process skills.…”
Section: Extended Abstractmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Because some teachers prefer structured and guided inquiry activities rather than open inquiry practices. They claim that open inquiry is considered to be a waste of time, whereas guided inquiry provides high level science skills and helps in understanding the nature of science (Blanchard et al, 2010;Quintana, Zhang, & Krajcik, 2005;Tabak et al, 1995). On the contrary, some scholars (Berg et al, 2003;Chinn & Malhotra 2002;Krystyniak & Heikkinen, 2007) advocate that open inquiry is a more effective way to teach the nature of science and science process skills.…”
Section: Extended Abstractmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bazı öğretmenler yapılandırılmış ve yönlendirmeli sorgulamayı, açık sorgulamaya tercih etmektedir. Yapılandırılmış ve yönlendirmeli sorgulama savunucuları yönlendirmeli sorgulama temelli öğretimin öğrencilerin bilimsel içerikleri, üst düzey bilimsel becerileri ve bilimsel bilginin doğasını anlamalarına yardımcı olduğunu iddia etmektedirler (Blanchard et al, 2010;Quintana, Zhang, & Krajcik, 2005;Tabak et al, 1995). Ayrıca yönlendirmeli sorgulamanın hem öğrencilerin boşa giden zamanlarını hem de başarısızlık duygusu ile bir sonuca ulaşamama korkusunu azalttığını ifade etmektedirler (Trautmann, MaKinster, & Avery, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…Inquiry-based learning uses open-ended questions or scenarios to provide students with a glimpse of genuine research, while also providing enough direction and structure to focus their learning (Hofstein and Lunetta 2004;Blanchard et al 2010;Puttick, Drayton and Cohen 2015). Inquiry-based microbiology experiments have been reported for a wide range of topics selected to enhance student engagement, including beer brewing (Sato et al 2015), oral hygiene (Geiger-Thornsberry 2016) and endophytes from rainforest plants (Strobel and Strobel 2007).…”
Section: Benefits Of Inquiry-based Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1A; cf. Bybee 1993, Boddy et al 2003, Abrams et al 2007, Blanchard et al 2010 because it best fit the inquiry teaching model advocated by the Alaska Science Consortium and the pedagogical training of both the researcher and the collaborating science teacher.…”
Section: Study Context and Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%