Scaffolding open inquiry: How a teacher provides students with structure and space

Abstract

The present case study examines a teacher's scaffolding strategies supporting his students during a twelve-week open inquiry project at an upper secondary school. We use interaction analysis to identify how he provides structure and space in the different phases of open inquiry as well as how it constitutes the students' inquiry process. The study reveals that the teacher scaffolded this open inquiry in two opposing ways; he created space for the students to make their own experiences and ideas, which eventually set up the need for more directed scaffolding to discuss the challenges students experienced, and directing students' ideas in certain directions in phases with structure. We suggest that the interplay between structure and space creates what can be seen as a driving force providing both exploration and direction for open inquiry. Moreover, we propose that the dual concept of 'structure and space' can work as a thinking tool to promote teachers' competence on how to scaffold more authentic versions of scientific inquiry in schools. IntroductionScience education reforms all over the world advocate a view of learning science that emphasises inquiry (e.g. European Commission, 2007; Norwegian Ministry of Education, 2006; NRC, 2000). In the classroom, the term 'inquiry' can be understood with two different emphases: the experiments and activities that facilitate the students' learning of established sciences, and the scientific thinking and practices in which students engage when they model professional scientists (Asay & Orgill, 2010) -which is in focus in the classroom studied here. Specifically, open inquiry has been proposed as a means to enhance more authentic scientific inquiry (Duschl & Grandy, 2008;Roth, 2012) and promote active and autonomous learning (Hodson, 2009). However, change in school science depends upon how teachers conceptualise inquiry and how it is translated into classroom practice. Thus, we need to understand how the actions of the teacher influence the nature of the inquiry-based instruction and the students' learning experiences (Blanchard et al., 2010;Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn, 2007).Birgitte Bjønness is associate professor in science education at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Her research interests involve inquiry-based learning, biology education and education for sustainable development.Stein Dankert Kolstø is professor in science education at the University of Bergen. His research interests focuses on use of dialogue and inquiry in science learning. In specific, he is interested in combining dialogic inquiry with the use of authentic texts related to socioscientific issues. Scaffolding open inquiry: How a teacher provides students with structure and space [224] 11(3), 2015 BIRGITTE BJØNNESSIn this case study, we use interaction analysis to understand how an experienced upper secondary science teacher's scaffolding strategies impact the nature of an open inquiry practice and students' inquiry process. It has been proposed that in open inquiry the teac...

Data-Texts in the Sciences

“…- What is already known about the subject which could help to improve the research question and to think about the possibilities of measures? Lehrer and Schauble ( 2002 , 2004 ) Chin and Kayalvizhi ( 2002 ) Bjønness and Kolstø ( 2015 ) T2 (measures → data set) - How will the data be collected? What instruments and/or techniques will be used?…”

“…- How many data will be collected? Lehrer and Schauble ( 2002 , 2004 ) Wu and Krajcik ( 2006 ) Bjønness and Kolstø ( 2015 ) Crujeiras-Pérez and Jiménez-Aleixandre ( 2017a ) Crujeiras-Pérez and Jiménez-Aleixandre ( 2017b ) T3 (data → evidence) - Are there any other data that could be more informative? - How will the data be analyzed (statistically, graphically, qualitatively)?…”

Aksjonsforskning i Norge: Teoretisk og empirisk mangfold

“…Det var et stort spenn i utforskning både tematisk og metodisk, for eksempel: «Hvordan virker solarium på produksjon av D-vitamin i personer med ulik hudfarge?» og «Hva er sunnest av flaskevann og vann fra springen?». Elevenes prosjekter ble presentert på en felles utstilling på skolen der over 100 elever deltok (for mer om prosjektet se Bjønness & Kolstø, 2015).…”

A science teacher’s complex beliefs about nature of scientific inquiry

“…After the introduction, the students worked independently in groups of 3-5 persons whilst being guided by the teacher. Their work followed roughly the phases: developing ideas, formulating research question and making a research design, experimenting and discussing, presenting of posters and writing of a report (for more details see Bjønness & Kolstø, 2015). The students' choices of research problems were often close to their interests or daily life, e.g.…”

“…We worked especially closely with an experienced teacher, Amir, which had implemented open inquiry for students to learn about scientific inquiry and NOS for several years. In the first cycle of the action research, we observed and analysed the open inquiry and found that it represented a simplified version of scientific inquiry, characterized by a step-by-step method and little use of theory to inform the students' inquiries (Bjøn-ness & Kolstø, 2015). In the two next cycles of action research Amir decided to make chances towards a version of open inquiry reflecting a more contemporary view on scientific inquiry, but in the rough and tumble of practice, he fell back on the known practice.…”