The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry‐based laboratory activities on students' views of nature of science

Yacoubian, Hagop A.; BouJaoude, Saouma

doi:10.1002/tea.20380

Cited by 84 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, students' NOS views in this study became broader to include more than one scientific method, articulated the role of relevant evidence in more detail, and identified that the work of scientists involves complex interactions with other scientists (AAAS 1993;Osborne et al 2003;Yacoubian and BouJaoude 2010). The depth of the statements and the increased number of connections illustrate that students recognized a more complex view of science (Anderson 1981;Larkin et al 1980), which is supported by research that novice learners have fewer connections to draw on to understand concepts in context, while more expert learners can draw from more connections per concept (Hadwin et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Khishfe and Lederman (2006) examined ninth-grade students' understanding of NOS and found that they improved in two conditions: NOS contextualized into environmental science and NOS decontextualized as stand-alone activities in the environmental science course. Yacoubian and BouJaoude (2010) found that sixth-grade students who participated in explicit and reflective discussions after inquiry activities improved their views of NOS, while students involved in implicit inquiry-based activities did not improve their NOS views. Much work has been done using general explicit and reflective instruction, and this study builds on this work by situating explicit NOS instruction in the forethought phase and reflective NOS instruction in the self-reflection phase of self-regulated learning strategies.…”

Section: Connection Between Explicit Reflective Nos Instruction Andmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Outcomes of a Self-Regulated Learning Curriculum Model

Peters‐Burton

2015

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to describe connections among students' views of nature of science in relation to the goals of a curriculum delivered in a unique setting, one where a researcher and two teachers collaborated to develop a course devoted to teaching students about how knowledge is built in science. Students proceeded through a cycle of self-regulated phases, forethought, performance, and self-reflection, during each segment of the curriculum: (a) independent research, (b) knowledge building in the discipline of science, and (c) a citizen science project. Student views were measured at the beginning and end of the course using epistemic network analysis. The pretest map reported student understanding of science as experimentation and indicated three clusters representing the durability of knowledge, empirical evidence, and habits of mind, which were loosely connected and represented knowledge generation as external to personal thinking. The posttest map displayed a broader understanding of scientific endeavors beyond experimentation, a shift toward personal knowledge generation, and indicated a larger number of connections among three more tightly oriented clusters: empirical evidence, habits of mind, and tentativeness. Implications include the potential to build curriculum that purposefully considers reinforcing cycles of learning of the nature of science in different contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Connection Between Explicit Reflective Nos Instruction Andmentioning

confidence: 92%

Outcomes of a Self-Regulated Learning Curriculum Model

Peters‐Burton

2015

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, instructional interventions designed to enhance epistemic change in learners have been designed and conducted in different subject areas such as physics (Kalman, Sobhanzadeh, Thompson, Ibrahim, & Wang, 2015); Karakostas & Hadzidaki, 2005), mathematics (Bielaczyc & Kapur, 2010;Liu, 2009;Mason & Scrivani, 2004), teacher education (Brownlee, 2003;DiPietro, 2004;Gill, 2004;Hong & Lin, 2010;Marra, 2005), or generally (Elen & Clarebout, 2001). Different strategies have been used, including epistemic games (Bielaczyc & Kapur, 2010), explicit reflection or discussion (Kalman & Rohar, 2010;Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010), and argumentation (McDonald, 2010). Very encouragingly, these studies all support Schraw and Sinatra's (2004) claim that "belief change can be brought about through wrestling with difficult issues" (p. 96) and instructional intervention.…”

Section: Concepts Epistemic Thinking and Conceptual Change In Learnmentioning

confidence: 90%

Changing Students’ Approach to Learning Physics in Postsecondary Gateway Courses

Kalman¹,

Shore²,

Aulls³

et al. 2017

IRHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated if and how a combined set of specially developed activities can help students change their approach to learning physics. These activities included (a) reflective-writing activities, (b) critique-writing activities, and (c) reflective write-pair-share activities combined with conceptual-conflict collaborative-group exercises. Each of these activities was previously successfully tested as a stand-alone activity. This investigation was conducted at two different institutions over a three-year period. At each institution the same instructor taught students in two sections. At the first, a university with a substantial graduate school, sections were relatively large (over 100 students each) covering a typical introductory calculus-based mechanics course. At the second, a community college, there were relatively small classes (32 students each) covering a typical algebra-based introductory course in mechanics, electricity, and magnetism. The courses at the two institutions used different textbooks and had different formats. Measured data included student interviews and writing products. We developed rubrics for evaluation of the impact of the writing products and interviews of students. The main results of this study were the changes in students' approaches to learning physics, especially as revealed in the interviews. Students who experienced the full suite of activities (a) changed their understanding of physics from solving problems to creating a network of interrelated concepts, and they also (b) modified their approach to learning physics from repetitious review to consideration of the interconnections of the subject matter and (c) related their new learning to key concepts in an overall physics framework.

show abstract

“…Enhancing learners' understanding of NOS is a longstanding goal of science education in general (e.g., Moore 1993; National Academy of Sciences 1998;Cobern 2000;Lederman 2004;McDonald 2010;Yacoubian and BouJaoude 2010). Part of the problem, however, is that scientists and philosophers of science themselves disagree about what exactly the nature of science is (Alters 1997;Abd-ElKhalick et al 1998;Rudolph 2000;Lederman 2004;AbdEl-Khalick 2005;Cho et al 2011;Duschl et al 2011).…”

Section: Insufficient/incorrect Factual Knowledgementioning

confidence: 92%

Why Don’t People Think Evolution Is True? Implications for Teaching, In and Out of the Classroom

Allmon

2011

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The causes of non-acceptance of evolution are groupable into five categories: inadequate understanding of the empirical evidence and the content of modern evolutionary theory, inadequate understanding of the nature of science, religion, various psychological factors, and political and social factors. This multiplicity of causes is not sufficiently appreciated by many scientists, educators, and journalists, and the widespread rejection of evolution is a much more complicated problem than many of these frontline practitioners think it is. Solutions to the widespread non-acceptance of evolution must therefore involve not just further resolution of the "religion vs. science" controversy. They must also involve better communication of empirical evidence for evolution, more effective explication of the nature of science, and explicitly addressing the numerous significant psychological obstacles that evolution presents to many (perhaps most) people. There is no clear roadmap to how to do all of this, but some practical recommendations include (1) more research on why and when different people accept or do not accept evolution when they are exposed to it, especially the role of "scientific" vs. "affective" causes for non-acceptance, and also on apparently deeply rooted psychological obstacles to acceptance.(2) A more explicit approach to explication and understanding of the causes for non-acceptance of evolution should support the often-stated goal of understanding "where students are" prior to implementing the kind of approaches frequently advocated for teaching evolution.(3) Integration of multiple educational perspectives and academic disciplines to support application of pedagogical strategies in actual educational settings. (4) Increased development and application of approaches to evolution education in settings beyond the K-16 classroom, such as museums, nature centers, zoos, parks, and aquaria.

show abstract

The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry‐based laboratory activities on students' views of nature of science

Cited by 84 publications

References 41 publications

Outcomes of a Self-Regulated Learning Curriculum Model

Outcomes of a Self-Regulated Learning Curriculum Model

Changing Students’ Approach to Learning Physics in Postsecondary Gateway Courses

Why Don’t People Think Evolution Is True? Implications for Teaching, In and Out of the Classroom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About