The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students' understanding the process of science

Spears, Jacqueline D.; Zollman, Dean

doi:10.1002/tea.3660140106

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is unlike implicit approaches that typically emphasize the “doing” of science, but neglect to address instructional objectives targeting learners' understandings of foundational aspects of scientific practice (i.e., knowledge about scientific inquiry). In this paradigm, “doing science” is seen as a sufficient vehicle to help students “know science.” A body of research that spans decades (e.g., Abd‐El‐Khalick, ; Barufaldi, Bethel, & Lamb, ; Haukoos & Penick, ; Riley, ; Scharmann & Harris, ; Spears & Zollman, ; among others) has indicated that these implicit approaches are not sufficient for improving students' and teachers' understandings of NOS or SI. In general, we echo the sentiments of Sandoval and Reiser () in that “[p]lacing these epistemic aspects of scientific practice in the foreground of inquiry may help students to understand and better conduct inquiry, as well as provide a context to overtly examine the epistemological commitments underlying it” (p. 346).…”

Section: Scientific Inquirysupporting

confidence: 64%

Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Helping students develop informed views about scientific inquiry (SI) has been and continues to be a goal of K‐12 science education, as evidenced in various reform documents. Nevertheless, research focusing on understandings of SI has taken a perceptible backseat to that which focuses on the “doing” of inquiry. We contend that this is partially a function of the typical conflation of scientific inquiry with nature of science (NOS), and is also attributable to the lack of a readily accessible instrument to provide a meaningful assessment of learners' views of SI. This article (a) outlines the framework of scientific inquiry that undergirds the Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire; (b) describes the development of the VASI, in part derived from the Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI) questionnaire; (c) presents evidence for the validity and reliability of the VASI; (d) discusses the use of the VASI and associated interviews to elucidate views of the specific aspects of SI that it attempts to assess; and (e) discusses the utility of the resulting rich‐descriptive views of SI that the VASI provides for informing both further research efforts and classroom practice. The trend in recent reform documents, unfortunately, ignores much of the research on NOS and SI and implicitly presumes that the “doing” of inquiry is sufficient for developing understandings of SI. The VASI serves as a tool in further discrediting this contention and provides both the classroom teacher and the researcher a more powerful means for assessing learners' conceptions about essential aspects of SI, consonant with the vision set forth in the recently released Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, Inc., 2013). © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 65–83, 2014

show abstract

Section: Scientific Inquirysupporting

confidence: 64%

Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most curricula of the 1960s and 1970s adopted this approach and emphasized hands-on, inquirybased activities and/or process-skills instruction. Research studies have indicated that the implicit approach was not, and is not, an effective means of enhancing learners' understandings of NOS (e.g., Meichtry, 1992;Riley, 1979;Spears &Zollman, 1977;Trent, 1965;Troxel, 1968). The historical approach recommends incorporating history of science in science teaching as a means to promote among learners more informed views of the scientific endeavour (e.g., Klopfer & Watson, 1957;Rutherford, Holton, & Watson, 1970).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Pre‐service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study

Lederman

Schwartz

Abd‐El‐Khalick

et al. 2001

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Educati

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is the third in a line of investigations that examines pre-service teachers' conceptions of nature of science (NOS) and the translation of those conceptions into classroom practice. The purpose of the present study was to delineate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to facilitate pre-service teachers' inclusion of NOS in their classroom teaching. Four factors were identified as most influential in participants' teaching efforts: (1) knowledge of NOS, (2) knowledge of subject matter, (3) pedagogical knowledge, and (4) intentions towards teaching NOS. Intentions were the most critical factor. Participants, regardless of NOS views or science background, did not teach in accordance with their NOS views if they had not internalized the importance of teaching NOS. Those with strong intentions to address NOS explicitly were more successful. Those participants with strong intentions, well-developed NOS views, and extensive knowledge of science content were most successful in their instruction. Implications for the development of pedagogical content knowledge for NOS are discussed. Sommaire exécutif :La présente étude a visé à cerner l'efficacité d'une intervention destinée à faciliter chez de futurs enseignants et enseignantes l'intégration de savoir relatif à la nature de la science (NS) dans leurs pratiques d'enseignement. Il s'agit de la troisième étude d'une série de travaux portant sur la compréhension et l'enseignement de la NS chez de futurs maîtres. La recherche montre que la transposition des savoirs dans la pratique est indirecte et influencée par divers facteurs contextuels et personnels. L'intervention qui sous-tend la présente étude s'est déroulée lors de la cinquième année d'un programme de maîtrise en enseignement Pour favoriser l'intégration de savoir relatif à la NS, quatre modifications ont été apportées au programme de cette année en vue de tenir compte des contraintes qui limitent l'enseignement de la NS et qui ont été décrites ailleurs, soit le manque de savoirs relatifs à la NS, le manque de directives pour son enseignement, le manque d'activités pédagogiques ainsi que le manque de soutien d'un enseignant mentor. La NS a servi de fil conducteur tout au long de cette cinquième année du programme, de sorte que plusieurs travaux des étudiants et étudiantes devaient faire place aux objectifs liés à la NS, a son enseignement et à son évaluation. De plus, deux cours ont été ajoutés au cursus en vue d'enrichir les conceptions des futurs enseignants et enseignantes à l'égard de la NS. Enfin, un fascicule d'activités et de suggestions ou directives pédagogiques portant sur la NS a été fourni aux étudiants et étudiantes avant le début de leur stage d'enseignement Une cinquième modification, qui n'a touché que le cursus des participants et participantes à la présente étude, a consisté en la constitution, par les chercheurs, d'un groupe visant à soutenir les participants et participantes dans leurs efforts pour intégrer des références explicites à la NS dans leurs pratiques d'enseignement ...

show abstract

“…Ambos enfoques han recibido apoyo en distintos documentos internacionales de diversas reformas de la enseñanza de las ciencias y en la bibliografía de didáctica de las ciencias desde hace varias décadas, con el propósito de mejorar la comprensión de profesores y estudiantes sobre la NdC (p.e., véanse para el enfoque implícito: Gabel, Rubba y Franz, 1977;Haukoos y Penick, 1983, 1985Lawson, 1982;Rowe, 1974;Scharmann, 1990;Scharmann y Harris, 1992;Spears y Zollman 1977; y para el enfoque explícito: Akindehin, 1988;Billeh y Hasan, 1975;Carey y Stauss, 1968, 1970Hodson, 1985;Jones, 1969;Kimball, 1967-68;Klopfer, 1964;Lavach, 1969;Ogunniyi, 1983;Robinson, 1965;Rutherford, 1964) [1].…”

Section: Dos Enfoques Generales Para La Enseñanza De La Naturaleza Deunclassified

“…Igual puede decirse de las evaluaciones que compararon diversas versiones del BSCS con cursos de biología o de ciencia basados en libros de texto más tradicionales (Jungwirth, 1970;Meichtry, 1992;Tamir, 1972). Otras investigaciones han mostrado también que este tipo de enfoque implícito no es eficaz en general para mejorar la comprensión de la NdC (Durkee, 1974;Haukoos y Penick, 1985;Riley, 1979;Spears y Zollman, 1977). En este sentido, es importante destacar que Meichtry concluye su estudio afirmando la necesidad de una "representación explícita de todos los aspectos de la naturaleza de la ciencia en el contenido del currículo que se enseña y en la metodología de enseñanza usada por los profesores" (Meichtry, 1992, p. 405).…”

Section: Enfoque Implícito Para La Enseñanza De La Naturaleza De La Cunclassified

Enfoques explícitos versus implícitos en la enseñanza de la naturaleza de la ciencia

Díaz¹

2009

Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students' understanding the process of science

Cited by 28 publications

References 5 publications

Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire

Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire

Pre‐service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study

Enfoques explícitos versus implícitos en la enseñanza de la naturaleza de la ciencia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About