Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Development of the Scientific Inquiry Process Model Based on Scientists' Practical Work

  • Published : 2007.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a scientific inquiry model that makes scientific inquiry accessible to science teachers as well as students. To develop a scientific inquiry model, we investigated the research process demonstrated by ten scientists who were working at academic research institutions or industrial research institutions. We collected data through scientists' journal articles, lab meetings and seminars, and observation of their inquiry process. After we analyzed the scientists' inquiry strategies and processes of inquiry, we finally developed the Scientist's Methodology of Investigation Process model named SMIP. The SMIP model consists of four domains, 15 stages, and link questions, such as "if, why", and "how". The SMIP model stressed that inquiry process is a selective process rather than a linear or a circular process. Overall, these findings can have implication science educators in their attempt to design instruction to improve the scientific inquiry process.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Washington, D. C
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
  3. Bauer, H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL
  4. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedure, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education, (pp.289-325) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc
  5. Bruce, B. C., & Bishop, A. P. (2002). Using the web to support inquiry-based literacy development. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706-714
  6. Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31 (1), 21
  7. Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241-247 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1907.tb01009.x
  8. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press
  9. Collins, A. (1986). A sample dialogue based on a theory of inquiry teaching (Tech. Rep. No. 367). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. ED 266-423
  10. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23, 139-140
  11. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press
  12. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.). (pp. 365-395) Mechanisms of insight. Cambridge MA: MIT press
  13. Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The invivo/ invitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334-339 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01698-3
  14. Finley, F. N., & Pocovi, M. C. (2000). Considering the scientific method of inquiry. In J. Minstrell and E. H. van Zee (Eds.) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science, American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC
  15. Gilmer, P. J., & Alli, P. (1998). Action experiments: Are students learning physical science? In S. R. Steinberg & J. L. Kinchloe (Eds.). Students as researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. (pp. 199-211), London: Falmer Press
  16. Gooding, D. (1992). The procedural turn. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Vol.15: Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
  17. Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141-166 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-2865-z
  18. Harwood, W. S. (2004a). An activity models for scientific inquiry. The Science Teacher, 71(1), 44-46
  19. Harwood, W. S. (2004b). A new model for inquiry: Is the scientific method dead? Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(7), 29-33
  20. Harwood, W. S., Reiff, R., & Phillipson, T. (2005). Putting the puzzle together: Scientists' metaphors for scientific inquiry. Science Educator, 14(1), 25-30
  21. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathmatics and Environmental Education. ED 359 048
  22. Holmes, L. (1985). Lavoisier and the chemistry of life: An exploration of scientific creativity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
  23. Kimball, M. E. (1967-1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660050204
  24. Kerlinger, F. N. (1970). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  25. Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 6, 87-95 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660060116
  26. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7(3&4), 313-350 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_3
  27. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  28. Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2), 1-11
  29. Linn, M. C. (1992). The computer as learning partner: Can computer tools teach science. In K. Sheingold, L. G. Robert & S. M. Malcolm (Eds.). This year in school science, 1991: Technology for Teaching and Learning, pp. 31-69
  30. Linn, M. C., diSessa, A., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 7-15 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575812
  31. Loucks-Horsely, S. (1997). Reforming teaching and reforming staff development. Journal of Staff Development. 18, 20-22
  32. Lunetta, V. N. (1997). The role of the laboratory in school science. In D. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  33. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69, 34-37
  34. McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10-15 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10205.x
  35. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's sciences instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-128 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065002093
  36. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  37. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author
  38. National Society for the Study of Education. (1947). Science education in American schools: Forty sixth yearbook of the NSSE. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press
  39. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do the scientist think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 15: Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
  40. Nersessian, N. J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice? Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics. Science & Education, 4, 203-226 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486621
  41. Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14, 25-28
  42. Rakow, S. J. (1986). Teaching science as inquiry. Fastback 246. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. ED 275 506
  43. Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientific method based upon research scientists' conception of scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the AETS, Charlotte, NC
  44. Robinson, W. R. (2004). The inquiry wheel, an alternative to the scientific method. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 791-792 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p791
  45. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  46. Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<709::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-R
  47. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 25-48
  48. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 177-199 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0903_1
  49. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1994). The design of goal based scenarios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 305-345 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0304_2
  50. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry: In The teaching of science, 1-103, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA
  51. Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of chemical literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 323-344 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000266191
  52. Sorenson-Johnson, K. (2001). Connecting components of scientific inquiry and instructional strategies for teaching students in urban classrooms: A Literature Review. NOVAtions, 1
  53. Spiegel, S. A. (1997). Understanding science teacher enhancement programs: Essential components and a model. Unpublished Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI
  54. Taylor, C. (1962). Some educational implications of creativity research findings. School Science and Mathematics, 62, 593-606 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1962.tb13183.x
  55. Tweney, R. D. (1985). Faraday's discovery of induction: A cognitive approach. In D. Gooding & F. James(Eds.), Faraday rediscovered. New York: Stockton Press
  56. Variano, E., & Taylor, K. (2006). Inquiry in limnology lessons. The Science Teacher, 73(5), 36-39
  57. White, Y. B., & Frederiksen, R. J. (1995). The Thinker Tools inquiry project: Making scientific inquiry accessible to students and teachers (Causal models research group report No. 95-02). Berkeley: University of California, School of Education
  58. White, Y. B., & Frederiksen, R. J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3-118 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
  59. White, B., Frederiksen, J., Frederiksen, T., Eslinger, E., Loper, S., & Collins, A. (2002). Inquiry Island: affordances of a multi-agent environment for scientific inquiry and reflective learning. In P. Bell, R. Stevens and T. Satwicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). October 24-26. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum