Reflection as a Vehicle toward Local and Global Understanding.

This paper presents a set of reflective strategies for inquiry to help students in the process of learning science by conducting their own investigations. Reflective strategies are actions students can take to evaluate their progress and understanding as they conduct their investigations in order to be more systematic and effective. We also present a set of instructional supports intended to foster these strategies. These supports are embedded both in the design of learning environments and in teacher practices. We present a case example of students conducting an investigation as part of a unit on natural selection in a regular level introductory biology class at a Chicago public high school. These examples illustrate the use of these strategies by students. In particular, they demonstrate how in a collaborative context reflective strategies take the form of questions and suggestions posed between students. Analyses of strategy use and discussions reveal that more attention was focused on articulating a story about the specific episode that the students were investigating, and less attention was devoted to understanding how this episode is an instance of natural selection. Yet, extending students' understanding of natural selection is also an important learning goal. We conclude with a proposal for future designs to address this issue.

[1]  Leona Schauble,et al.  Causal Models and Experimentation Strategies in Scientific Reasoning , 1991 .

[2]  Leona Schauble,et al.  Students' Understanding of the Objectives and Procedures of Experimentation in the Science Classroom , 1995 .

[3]  Stellan Ohlsson,et al.  The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education? , 1992 .

[4]  Joshua Radinsky,et al.  The progress Portfolio: promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments , 1997, CSCL.

[5]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher-student interactions in inquiry learning , 1997, CSCL.

[6]  J. Hawkins,et al.  Practices of novices and experts in critical inquiry , 1987 .

[7]  David Klahr,et al.  Designing Good Experiments to Test Bad Hypotheses , 1989 .

[8]  Elizabeth A. Davis,et al.  Metacognitive Scaffolding To Foster Scientific Explanations. , 1996 .

[9]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .

[10]  J. Lemke Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[11]  B. White ThinkerTools: Causal Models, Conceptual Change, and Science Education , 1993 .

[12]  W. Sandoval,et al.  Evolving explanations in high school biology , 1997 .

[13]  Brian K. Smith,et al.  Combining General and Domain-Specific Strategic Support for Biological Inquiry , 1996, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[14]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.