Measuring inquiry: new methods, promises & challenges

Contemporary views of science education regard scientific inquiry and the ability to reason scientifically as the essential core of science education (American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1993; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; NRC, 1996; Krajcik et al, 1998; Songer et al, 2003). According to White and colleagues, scientific inquiry is an active process comprised of four primary components: theorizing, questioning and hypothesizing, investigating, analyzing and synthesizing (White & Frederiksen, 1998; White, Frederiksen & Collins, in preparation). Measuring these inquiry processes as well as the products that result from the processes has long been a challenge for educators and researchers (Marx et al, 2004); however, advances in technology and measurement are creating new possibilities for assessing both process and product (Pellegrino, Chudowsky & Glaser, 2001; Behrens, 2009). There are three themes that this symposium is addressing: what inquiry is and is not, the best way to teach inquiry, and the best way to measure inquiry. We have chosen a widely accepted definition of what inquiry is by White et al, described above, and are focusing our work on the latter, how to best measure inquiry.

[1]  Hee-Sun Lee,et al.  Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard , 2003 .

[2]  T. Jong,et al.  Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The development of the what-if test , 1996 .

[3]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[4]  A. Collins,et al.  Cognition and learning. , 1996 .

[5]  D. Hickey,et al.  Engaged Participation: A Sociocultural Model of Motivation With Implications for Educational Assessment , 2005 .

[6]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology? , 1991 .

[7]  Daniel T. Hickey,et al.  Balancing varied assessment functions to attain systemic validity: Three is the magic number , 2006 .

[8]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students , 1998 .

[9]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction , 2005 .

[10]  J. Gee.  Opportunity to Learn: A language-based perspective on assessment , 2003 .

[11]  Ann Jones,et al.  Support for evidence-based inquiry learning: Teachers, tools and phases of inquiry , 2009 .

[12]  James G. Greeno,et al.  Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn: Opportunities to Learn in Practice and Identity , 2008 .

[13]  Ann C. H. Kindfield,et al.  Integrating Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Evaluation in a Technology-Supported Genetics Learning Environment , 2003 .

[14]  Daniel T. Hickey,et al.  Classroom Discourse as a Tool to Enhance Formative Assessment and Practise in Science , 2007 .

[15]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Using Co-Lab to build System Dynamics models: Students' actions and on-line tutorial advice , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[16]  John Dewey,et al.  Democracy in Education , 1903, The Elementary School Teacher.

[17]  Daniel T. Hickey,et al.  Enhancing Inquiry, Understanding, and Achievement in an Astronomy Multimedia Learning Environment , 2006 .

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

[19]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[20]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Coordinating the effects of multiple variables: a skill fundamental to scientific thinking. , 2009, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[21]  Michael J. Padilla,et al.  The relationship between science process skill and formal thinking abilities , 1983 .

[22]  Steve Benford,et al.  Learning 21st century science in context with mobile technologies , 2008 .

[23]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Constructivism in an age of non-constructivist assessments , 2009 .

[24]  C. Hmelo‐Silver,et al.  Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) , 2007 .

[25]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research , 2004 .

[26]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Technological Advances in Inquiry Learning , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Weinstock,et al.  The development of epistemological understanding , 2000 .

[28]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

[29]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment , 2001 .

[30]  S. Herring,et al.  Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts , 2007 .

[31]  Jong Ton.  Event-related potentials as a window on external representations , 2010 .

[32]  Milena K. Nigam,et al.  The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning , 2022 .

[33]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science , 2002 .

[34]  Christine Chin,et al.  Using Concept Cartoons in Formative Assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation , 2009 .

[35]  R. Almond,et al.  Focus Article: On the Structure of Educational Assessments , 2003 .

[36]  Sufen Chen,et al.  Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science , 2006 .

[37]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students , 1998 .

[38]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform , 2004 .

[39]  R. Tannenbaum,et al.  The Development of the Test of Science Processes. , 1971 .

[40]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Promoting Self-Directed Learning in Simulation-Based Discovery Learning Environments Through Intelligent Support , 2000, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[41]  Daniel T. Hickey,et al.  chapter 11 Situative Approaches to Student Assessment: Contextualizing Evidence to Transform Practice , 2007 .

[42]  Jody Clarke,et al.  Design for Scalability: A Case Study of the River City Curriculum , 2009 .

[43]  D. Ketelhut.  The Impact of Student Self-efficacy on Scientific Inquiry Skills: An Exploratory Investigation in River City, a Multi-user Virtual Environment , 2007 .

[44]  James Paul Gee,et al.  The Idea of Testing: Psychometric and Sociocultural Perspectives , 2005 .

[45]  D. Kuhn,et al.  What Needs to Develop in the Development of Inquiry Skills? , 2008 .

[46]  R. Duschl.  Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals , 2008 .

[47]  Stuart Naylor,et al.  Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science : an evaluation , 1999 .

[48]  Daniel T. Hickey,et al.  Designing Assessments and Assessing Designs in Virtual Educational Environments , 2009 .