Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2009.29.8.848

The effect of practicing the authentic open inquiry on compositions of laboratory reports  

Kim, Mi-Kyung (Hansung Science High School)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.29, no.8, 2009 , pp. 848-860 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study examined the characteristics of scientists' writing on the laboratory reports written in the authentic open inquiry, and explored the possibility that the class discussion after the inquiries could influence the laboratory report writing. The samples were 131 10th graders in a science high school in Seoul. The control group (n=45) practiced traditional school science inquiries, the experimental group 1 (n=43) practiced the authentic open inquiries, and the experimental group 2 (n=43) practiced the authentic open inquiries and the class discussion after the laboratory activities. Their laboratory reports were analyzed into three parts - prediction (prediction with background and apposite description), data analysis (data transformation and critical analysis), and conclusion (objective description based on evidence). The frequency of the characteristics of scientist's writing in the experimental group was higher than the control group. Particularly, the differences of the prediction with background (p<.01) and the critical analysis of data (p<.05) were statistically significant. However, the frequency of writing the conclusion based on evidence was very low in all of the three groups. The result from comparing descriptions of reports showed that the writing prediction in experimental groups were more elaborate, and the data transformation in experimental groups were more correct, and the evaluation to data in experimental groups were more critical than the control group. And the descriptions of the critical evaluation to data and the finding flaw in methods were found in experimental groups 2, indicating that the class discussion can stimulate students' scientific thinking.
Keywords
laboratory report; science writing; authentic open inquiry; prediction; data analysis; conclusion;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김태선, 고수형, 김범기 (2005). 고등학생들의 그래프 능력과 과학탐구능력 및 과학 학업 성취도의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(5), 624-633   과학기술학회마을
2 김희경 (2003). 중학생의 동료 간 논변활동을 강조한 개방적 물리탐구: 조건, 특징, 역할을 중심으로. 서울대학교 박사 학위 논문
3 Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43-69   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Bazerman, C. (1998). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
7 Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192   DOI   ScienceOn
9 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   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, B. C. (2002). Student-generating questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education 24(5), 521-549   DOI   ScienceOn
12 서정희, 문경원, 류선화, 김영수 (2007). 중등 과학교사의 컴퓨터 접속 실험에 대한 인식 및 활용 실태조사 연구. 한국생물교육학회지, 35(2), 253-265
13 조희형, 최경희 (2007). 과학교육의 이론과 실제. 서울: 교육과학사. 420-421
14 Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. Y. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcome from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education,26(2), 131-149   DOI   ScienceOn
15 National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press
16 Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
17 박승재, 조희형 (2000). 과학론과 과학교육(제2판). 서울: 교육과학사
18 Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/ culture/ power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
19 American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) (1990). Science: A process approach(Ⅱ). Washington D.C.: AAAS
20 Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 423-445   DOI   ScienceOn
21 White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 761-774   DOI   ScienceOn
22 조희형, 최경희 (2001). 과학교육총론. 서울: 교육과학사. 73-82
23 Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (1993). Language and literacy learning in the early years: An integrated approach. Orlando, FL: Holts, Rinehart, and Winston
24 김미경 (2008). 개방적 참탐구 활동에서 과학고등학교 학생들의 과학에 대한 인식론적 이해. 서울대학교 박사학위 논문