Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of A Checklist for Helping Students' Open Scientific Inquiry Report Writing

학생의 열린 과학 탐구 보고서 작성을 돕기 위한 점검표 개발

  • Received : 2015.09.25
  • Accepted : 2015.12.28
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a checklist for helping students write scientific inquiry reports after conducting open inquiry. To do this, eight scientifically gifted middle school students' worksheets for open inquiry, inquiry activities during conducting open inquiry, and final scientific inquiry reports were analyzed. Parts that were considered unsuitable in the writing inquiry reports as well as good parts were identified, and using this result, a checklist for helping students write good inquiry reports was developed. The checklist consisted of five categories and 46 items. The checklist was applied to inquiry reports written by seven other gifted students. Analyzing agreement rates of the checklists with two evaluators, high reliability could be obtained. Finally, recommendations for more effective use of the developed checklist were discussed.

본 연구의 목적은 학생들의 열린 탐구 보고서 작성을 돕기 위한 점검표를 개발하는데 있다. 이를 위해 8명의 과학 영재학생들이 작성한 탐구활동지, 학생들의 탐구활동 관찰과 면담, 그리고 최종적으로 제출한 열린 탐구 보고서를 분석하였다. 이로부터 학생들이 잘하는 점과 부족한 점을 추출하고, 이를 바탕으로 열린 탐구를 돕기 위한 점검표를 개발하였다. 점검표는 5개 영역에 대해서 총 46개의 항목으로 구성되었다. 개발된 점검표는 7명의 과학영재학생들이 제출한 탐구 보고서 평가에 적용하고, 평가자간 일치도 분석을 통해 신뢰도를 분석하였고, 그 결과 높은 신뢰도를 확인할 수 있었다. 마지막으로, 개발된 점검표를 보다 효율적으로 활용하기 위한 방안을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Berg, C.A.R., Bergendahl, V.C.B., Lundberg, B.K.S., & Tibell, L.A.E. (2003). Benefiting from an open ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145738
  2. Berry, D., & Fawkes, K. (2010). Constructing the components of a lab report using peer review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8000107
  3. Brigati, J.R., & Swann, J.M. (2015). Facilitating improvements in laboratory report writing skills with less grading: A laboratory report peer-review process. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.884
  4. Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  5. Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement, but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M
  6. Deiner, L.J, Newsome, D., & Samaroo, D. (2012). Directed self-inquiry: A scaffold for teaching laboratory report writing. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1151-1514.
  7. Doerr, H.M. (1997). Experiment, simulation and analysis: an integrated instructional approach to the concept of force. International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190302
  8. Duit, R., & Tesch, M. (2010). On the role of the experiment in science teaching and learning - Visions and the reality of instructional practice. In M. Kalogiannakis, D. Stavrou & P. Michaelides (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hands-On Science (pp. 17-30). Rethymno, Greece: University of Crete.
  9. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
  10. Keys, C.W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grad writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6
  11. Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  12. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2012). Searching for effective strategies on teaching open-inquiry -Based on cases of a science high school carrying our KYPT problem solving activities-. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 1489-1501.
  13. Klein, P.D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-tolearn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021913217147
  14. Krystyniak, R.A., & Heikkinen, H.W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1160-1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20218
  15. Kundel, H. L., & Polansky, M. (2003). Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology, 228, 303-308. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2282011860
  16. Lim, S., Yang, I., Kim, S., Hong, E., & Lim, J. (2010). Investigation on the difficulties during elementary pre-service teachers' open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 291-303.
  17. Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: what practical work in science education really for. In J. Wellington (ed.), Practical Work in School Science (pp. 16-31). London: Routledge.
  18. Nellist, J., & Nicholle, B. (1986). ASE Science Teachers' Handbook. London: Hutchinson.
  19. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. (2003). Designing a written assignment to promote the use of critical thinking skills in an introductory chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 889-903. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p889
  20. Park, J. (2005). Analysis of the characteristics and processes of the generation of scientific inquiry problems. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 50(4), 203-211.
  21. Park, J. (2013a). Developing and applying teaching materials to help students' generation of scientific-inquiry problems. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(4), 360-367. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.63.360
  22. Park, J. (2013b). Development and application of the checklist for finding inquiry problems, design of experiment and writing inquiry report. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Korean Physical Society, Daejeon: Daejeon Convention Center.
  23. Park, J., & Lee, K. (2012). Exploring the components and functions of scaffolding in open inquiry through factor analysis. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1204-1221. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1204
  24. Park, J., & Yang, H,-G. (2013, February). Helping students to design scientific experiment by themselves for open-inquiry approach. Paper presented at the 63th Conference of The Korean Association for Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  25. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20310
  26. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9060-9
  27. Schepmann, H.G., & Hughes, LA. (2006). Chemical research writing: A preparatory course for students capstone research. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1024-1028. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1024
  28. Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  29. Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa static. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-366.
  30. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  31. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry:"how preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010
  32. Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenge and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383-399.

Cited by

  1. IDENTIFYING AND APPLYING FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN STUDENTS’ EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN IN SCIENTIFIC OPEN INQUIRY vol.16, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.932