Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science

Cobern, William W.; Schuster, David; Adams, Betty; Applegate, Brooks; Skjold, Brandy; Undreiu, Adriana; Loving, Cathleen C.; Gobert, Janice D.

doi:10.1080/02635140903513599

Cited by 97 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a characterization of all science pedagogy, we would agree. However, as argued earlier in this paper, the distinction between inquiry and direct instruction as fundamental epistemic approaches definitely has application to instructional design decisions for the teaching of science concepts (Cobern et al, 2010).…”

Section: Science Teaching Orientation Spectrummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, Ausubel's two-dimensional framework of orthogonal constructs often tended to be collapsed to one dimension, with direct instruction implicitly equated with rote learning, and inquiry instruction with meaningful learning. Although reception learning research in various forms continues today (Clark, Eyler, Rivas, & Wagner, 2011;Cobern et al, 2010;Klahr, 2002;Sweller, 2009), by the late 1980s the rote/meaningful learning dimension tended to be forgotten as the inquiry/direct instructional dichotomy became the focus. In 2000, the widely referenced book How people learn (National Research Council, 2000a) specifically advocates active learning and inquiry instruction without mention of Ausubel, Novak, reception learning, or even meaningful learning.…”

Section: Science Teaching Orientation Spectrummentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pedagogy of Science Teaching Tests: Formative assessments of science teaching orientations

Cobern

Schuster

Adams

et al. 2014

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical aspect of teacher education is gaining pedagogical content knowledge of how to teach science for conceptual understanding. Given the time limitations of college methods courses, it is difficult to touch on more than a fraction of the science topics potentially taught across grades K-8, particularly in the context of relevant pedagogies. This research and development work centers on constructing a formative assessment resource to help expose pre-service teachers to a greater number of science topics within teaching episodes using various modes of instruction. To this end, 100 problem-based, science pedagogy assessment items were developed via expert group discussions and pilot testing. Each item contains a classroom vignette followed by response choices carefully crafted to include four basic pedagogies (didactic direct, active direct, guided inquiry, and open inquiry). The brief but numerous items allow a substantial increase in the number of science topics that pre-service students may consider. The intention is that students and teachers will be able to share and discuss particular responses to individual items, or else record their responses to collections of items and thereby create a snapshot profile of their teaching orientations. Subsets of items were piloted with students in pre-service science methods courses, and the quantitative results of student responses were spread sufficiently to suggest that the items can be effective for their intended purpose.

show abstract

Section: Science Teaching Orientation Spectrummentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Science Teaching Orientation Spectrummentioning

confidence: 99%

Pedagogy of Science Teaching Tests: Formative assessments of science teaching orientations

Cobern

Schuster

Adams

et al. 2014

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientific inquiry is the basis for research and study (Anderson, 2007;Cobern et al, 2010), and argumentation is one of the most important processes of scientific inquiry (Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2011). The evaluation and interpretation of evidence, the evaluation of the validity of scientific knowledge, and thinking about different ideas are the core elements of argumentation and science.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction

2015

EDUC SCI-THEOR PRACT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) based laboratory instruction on the academic achievement, argumentativeness, science process skills, and argumentation levels of pre-service science teachers in the General Physics Laboratory III class. The study was conducted with 79 pre-service science teachers. The participants in the control group (n = 38) participated in traditional laboratory activities, and the participants in the experimental group (n = 41) participated in laboratory activities based on argumentdriven inquiry. Data was collected through the Optical Achievement Test (OAT), Argumentative Scale (AS), Science Process Skills Test (SPST) and the individual reports of the participants. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used together to analyze the data. The results showed that argument-driven inquiry was more effective in improving the academic achievement and science process skills of pre-service science teachers compared to traditional laboratory instruction, but no significant difference was observed in the Argumentative Scale scores between the groups that had ADI instruction and those that had traditional laboratory instruction. Towards the end of the treatment, there was an improvement in the argumentative quality of the experimental group, but there was no change in the argumentation quality of the control group. ADI is an effective method for improving the academic achievement and science process skills of students, and it could be adapted for other laboratory classes. Argumentativeness might be improved with a longer argumentation session and more laboratory activities.

show abstract

“…Although enquiry learning may be popular with students and academics alike, enquiry learning is considered a naive pedagogy because it ignores cognitive load and architecture (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999). Dichotomies such as those created by Kirshner et al 's, (2006) polemic and the continued debate about superiority and purity of a minimally guided and unscaffolded environment compared to direct, explicit highly scaffolded instructional teaching (Cobern et al, 2010;Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007;Kirschner et al, 2006;Mayer, 2004) may help to focus arguments, but ultimately are unhelpful in providing guidance. Perhaps part of this debate arises because of the context of learning in the tertiary learning of science is physically and argumentatively separated.…”

Section: Enquiry Learning: a Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Enquiry learning has been defined as instruction which reflects the investigative approach, empirical techniques and reliance on evidence that scientists use in making discoveries and constructing new knowledge (Cobern et al, 2010). Current thinking suggests that there is no 'one' method of scientific enquiry and that the ways of doing science are as diverse as scientists and the ways they study the natural world (Elliot, Sweeney, & Irving, 2009;Elliot, Boin, Irving, Johnson, & Galea, 2009, 2010National Research Council, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%