How to open inquiry teaching? An alternative teaching scaffold to foster students’ inquiry skills

Author:

Baur Armin1,Emden Markus2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Heidelberg University of Education, Biology and Biology Didactics , Im Neuenheimer Feld 561 69120 Heidelberg , Germany

2. Zurich University of Teacher Education, Research and Development , Lagerstrasse 2 , 8090 Zurich , Switzerland

Abstract

Abstract Students are expected to learn scientific inquiry. It consists of several individual processes that need to be coordinated. Recent teaching concepts have suggested fading students into a limited set of interconnected processes, mostly using backwards-fading techniques. The efficiency of open approaches to learning has been criticized repeatedly in science education research. Following a brief discussion of previous scaffolded inquiry teaching concepts developing students into “open inquiry”, it is argued that these have been interpreted too strictly in science classrooms: (i) restricting inquiry to too few processes; (ii) delivering support to students in an all-or-nothing fashion; (iii) understanding opening of inquiry as a one-way-street insensitive to needs of momentary closing. This is not justified by the situated character of pedagogical considerations that depend on learners’ needs and potentials, teachers’ strengths and insecurities, and potential constraints from content. An alternative matrix for teaching inquiry is suggested that distinguishes five processes in four variations of openness. An example from chemistry shows that the achieved degree of openness is derived from situated considerations and is not ruled by a priori decisions on openness. Nor is this decision governed by faithfully adhering to a schematic sequence (confirmatory → structured → guided → open inquiry).

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Education,Chemistry (miscellaneous)

Reference54 articles.

1. AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science]. (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., … Tuan, H.-L. (2004). Inquiry in science education. International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

3. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. A. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom. Necessary components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: Realities and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

4. ACARA [Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority]. (2016). The Australian curriculum. Science. 8.3. Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority.

5. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3