Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.4.541

Exploring Science High School Students' Epistemic Goals, Epistemic Considerations and Complexity of Reasoning in Open Inquiry  

Yun, Hyeonjeong (Seoul National University)
Kim, Heui-Baik (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.4, 2018 , pp. 541-553 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between epistemic goals, epistemic considerations and complexity of reasoning of science high school students in an open inquiry and to explore the context on how open inquiry compares with the characteristics of an authentic scientific inquiry. Two teams were selected as focus groups and a case study was conducted. The findings are as follows: First, the contexts, such as 'sharing the value for the phenomenon understanding, reflection on the value of the research, task characteristics that require collaboration and consensus, and sufficient communication opportunities,' promote epistemic goals and considerations. On the other hand, contexts such as 'lack of opportunity for critical review of related literature and environmental constraints' lowered epistemic sides. Second, epistemic goals and considerations influenced the reasoning complexity. The goal of 'scientific sense making' led to reasoning that pose testable hypotheses based on students' own questions. The high justification considerations led to purposely focusing attention to the control designs and developing creative experimental know-how. The high audience considerations led to defending their findings through argumentation and suggesting future research. On the other hand, the goal of 'doing the lesson' and the low justification considerations led to reasoning that did not interpret the meaning of the data and did not control the limit of experiment. The low audience considerations led to reasoning that did not actively defend their findings and not suggest future research. The results of this study suggest that guidance should provide communication and critical review opportunities.
Keywords
open inquiry; authentic scientific inquiry; epistemic goals; epistemic considerations; complexity of reasoning;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 MOE(Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development). (2007). 2007 Science Curriculum for Middle School Students. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Daehangyogwaseo, Inc.
2 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
3 Park, C. J., & Cha, H. Y. (2017). Considerations and Scientific Argumentation Level in Argumentation to Conceptualize the Concept of Natural Selection of Science-Gifted Elementary Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 565-575.   DOI
4 Park, J. W. (2009). Discussions for preparation and types of mentorship for scientifically gifted students. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 1(3), 1-19.
5 Rivera Maulucci, M. S., Brown, B. A., Grey, S. T., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Urban middle school students’ reflections on authentic science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1119-1149.   DOI
6 Sandoval W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.   DOI
7 Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147-174.   DOI
8 Wickman, P. O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88(3), 325-344.   DOI
9 Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Method(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10 Berland, L. K., & Crucet, K. (2016). Epistemological trade-offs: accounting for context when evaluating epistemological sophistication of student engagement in scientific practices. Science Education, 100(1), 5-2.   DOI
11 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012a). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
12 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012b). Students' framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M. Khine(Eds.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation(pp. 77-93). Dordrecht: Springer.
13 Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112.   DOI
14 Cho, H. C. (2011). A comparison of epistemological beliefs between Korean scientifically gifted and regular middle school students. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 10(1), 5-26.
15 Burgin, S., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Consistency of practical and formal epistemologies of science held by participants of a research apprenticeship. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2179-2206.   DOI
16 Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science(pp. 20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
17 Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive Apprenticeship in Science through Immersion in Laboratory Practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195-213.   DOI
18 Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.   DOI
19 Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.   DOI
20 Corbin, J., Strauss, A., & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research. California: Sage.
21 Crawford, B. A. (2012). Moving the essence of inquiry into the classroom: engaging teachers and students in authentic science. In: Tan K., Kim M (Eds.), Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research (pp. 25-42). Dordrecht: Springer.
22 Dolan, E., & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing Students’ Scientific Reasoning: A Tool for Categorizing Complexity of Reasoning During Teaching by Inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 31-55.   DOI
23 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, and P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24 Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two Views About Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139.   DOI
25 Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567.   DOI
26 Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860-877.   DOI
27 Jeong, S. H., Choi, H. D., & Yang, I. H. (2011). Analysis on the Complexity of Scientific Reasoning during Pre-service Elementary School Teachers' Open-Inquiry Activities. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(3), 379-393.
28 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or"doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
29 Kang. E. J., Kim, S. J., & Park, J. W. (2009). Analysis of Features Related to Authentic Science Inquiry Appear in Open-ended Activities of the Elementary Science-gifted Students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 19(3), 647-667.
30 Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: Physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1172-1197.   DOI
31 Kim, M. K., & Kim, H. B. (2007). The Effects of Authentic Open Inquiry on Cognitive Reasoning through an Analysis of Types of Student-generated Questions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 930-943.
32 Lee, M. J., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Science High School Students' Shift in Scientific Practice and Perception Through the R&E Participation: on the Perspective of Legitimate Peripheral Participation in the Community of Practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 371-387.   DOI
33 Kim, S. J., & Chung, Y. L. (2015). Structural Relationships Among the Epistemological Beliefs, Metacognition, Science Inquiry Skills, and Science Achievement of High School Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 931-938.   DOI
34 Kuhn, D. (2004). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
35 Kwon, J. S., & Kim, H. B. (2016). Exploring Small Group Argumentation Shown in Designing an Experiment: Focusing on Students' Epistemic Goals and Epistemic Considerations for Activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61.   DOI
36 Lim, S. C., Kim, J. H., & Jeong, J. W. (2013). Analysis of the Scientific Reasoning Ability of Science-Gifted 2nd Middle School Students in Open-Inquiry Activities. Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 323-337.   DOI
37 Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68.   DOI
38 McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett., & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data (pp. 233-265). NJ: Erlbaum.
39 Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.