Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.284

Characteristics of School Science Inquiry Based on the Case Analyses of High School Science Classes  

Lee, Sun-Kyung (Seoul National University)
Son, Jeong-Woo (Gyeongsang National University)
Kim, Jong-Hee (Chonnam National University)
Park, Jongseok (Kyungpook National University)
Seo, Hae-Ae (Pusan National University)
Shim, Kew-Cheol (Kongju National University)
Lee, Ki-Young (Kangwon National University)
Lee, Bongwoo (Dankook University)
Choi, Jaehyeok (Chonnam National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.33, no.2, 2013 , pp. 284-309 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to explore how to characterize high school science inquiry. For this research, data were collected from fifteen science classes (18 hours), through observation and videotaping, interviews with a few students and their teacher, and documents such as lesson plan or activity sheet in 13 Science Core High Schools. All the data were transcribed and analyzed. Analyses of these transcripts were proceeded in three steps: first, classroom cases showing active interactions between teacher-students and among students were selected; second, according to cognitive process of inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), each segment was analyzed and interpreted; lastly, distinctive cases were determined to show essential features of school science inquiry. Based on the analyses, we characterize high school science inquiry in terms of features of variables controlling-device improvement, design studies, evidence-explanation transformation, and reasoning to formulate explanations from evidence. Teachers' role and educational support were discussed as well as the practical characters or features of school science inquiry.
Keywords
school science inquiry; high school; reasoning; evidence; explanation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 이선경, 이선경, 김찬종, 김희백 (2005). 비형식적 과학 학습 자료의 시나리오 및 논증 구조: 영국 자연사박물관의 공룡관의 사례 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(7),849-866
2 Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2004). Inquiry in Science Education: international Perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Duschl, R. A. & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, published online: 06 October.
6 Garcia-Mila, M. & Anderson, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29-45). Springer
7 Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
8 Grandy, R. & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141-166.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Springer.
10 Kuhn, D. & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how)? In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Seried Eds.), D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2, Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 953-993). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11 McNeil, K. L. (2011). Elementary students'views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: what practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (ed.), Practical work in science education: which way now? (pp. 16-31). London: Routledge.
13 Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2, Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 947-978). New York: Wiley.
14 National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
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 Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of modelbased reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133 153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17 Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2005). 'Reading as inquiry', NSF inquiry conference proceedings. http://www.ruf.rice.edu /rgrandy/NSFConSched.html.
18 White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London, UK: Falmer Press.
19 Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: an exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217- 257.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Syntheses, 80(1), 9-42.   DOI
21 Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99-149.   DOI   ScienceOn