Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of an explicit and reflective inquiry‐oriented compared with an implicit inquiry‐oriented instructional approach on sixth graders' understandings of nature of science (NOS). The study emphasized the tentative, empirical, inferential, and imaginative and creative NOS. Participants were 62 sixth‐grade students in two intact groups. The intervention or explicit group was engaged in inquiry activities followed by reflective discussions of the target NOS aspects. The comparison or implicit group was engaged in the same inquiry activities. However, these latter activities included no explicit references to or discussion of any NOS aspects. Engagement time was balanced for both groups. An open‐ended questionnaire in conjunction with semistructured interviews was used to assess participants' NOS views before and at the conclusion of the intervention, which spanned 2.5 months. Before the intervention, the majority of participants in both groups held naive views of the target NOS aspects. The views of the implicit group participants were not different at the conclusion of the study. By comparison, substantially more participants in the explicit group articulated more informed views of one or more of the target NOS aspects. Thus, an explicit and reflective inquiry‐oriented approach was more effective than an implicit inquiry‐oriented approach in promoting participants' NOS conceptions. These results do not support the intuitively appealing assumption that students would automatically learn about NOS through engagement in science‐based inquiry activities. Developing informed conceptions of NOS is a cognitive instructional outcome that requires an explicit and reflective instructional approach. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 551–578, 2002

Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry

“…The results of this study suggest that explicit and guided attention to and reflection on NOS in the context of the authentic scientific research experiences is that missing factor. These findings corroborate reports promoting an explicit/reflective, constructivist-based approach to teaching about NOS through inquiry pedagogy (e.g., Bianchini & Colburn, 2000;Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002;Roth & Lucas, 1997;Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999;Smith et al, 2000). The guided journal writings and seminars provided opportunities for active reflection.…”

The Influence of RET’s on Elementary and Secondary Grade Teachers’ Views of Scientific Inquiry

“…6, No. 1;2013 Although work focusing on learner's understandings of scientific inquiry is far more sparse than work focusing on the nature of science (Khishfe &Abd-El Khalick, 2002), scholars acknowledge that the two can and should go "hand in hand" in instruction (Lederman & Lederman, 2008). If the teacher education community is to help prepare teachers to structure science instruction in ways that will enhance students' science proficiency, we must focus on ways to support teachers' development of their knowledge in this area.…”

The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science

“…Relevant examples from the history of science (HOS) were also discussed during the intervention. Similar to Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), I sought to implement an instructional approach which ''emphasizes student awareness of certain NOS aspects in relation to the science-based activities in which they are engaged, and student reflection on these activities from within a framework comprising these NOS aspects' ' (p. 555). This section will detail some episodes of planned explicit NOS instruction that took place during weekly class sessions.…”