Inquiry-based learning and E-learning: how to serve high and low achievers

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 7 - Trang 1-15 - 2020
Sofoklis A. Sotiriou1, Angelos Lazoudis1, Franz X. Bogner2
1Ellinogermaniki Agogi, R&D Department, Athens, Greece
2University of Bayreuth, Centre of Math & Science Education (Z-MNU), Chair of Biology Education, University Campus NW-1, Bayreuth, Germany

Tóm tắt

Large-scale implementations of effective inquiry-based learning are rare. A European-wide initiative gave teachers access to innovative e-learning tools (ranging from virtual labs, virtual games and simulations to augmented reality applications) for lesson planning and classroom implementation. We examined 668 such implementations across 453 schools within the period of one school year. Teachers could use a platform with digital resources and tools and were encouraged to adopt five different phases of inquiry-based learning: orientation, hypothesizing, planning, analysis, and conclusion. Additionally, an integrated interface for lesson implementation tracked each students’ problem-solving competence (during the inquiry lessons), culminating in about 12,000 datasets. Every user generated an average of 22 digital inquiry-based digital scenarios, each of which required approximately 50.14 min for completion. These scenarios, using high quality resources adapted to school conditions, yielded significant learning outcomes for participating students (age: 14.4 years, gender balanced). While the PISA study identified 10% high achievers on average, we exceeded this number in our framework scoring 20–29% high achievers and 37–42% low achievers (which was close to the 45% PISA average). Offering tools to teachers, which help creating individual inquiry scenarios and monitoring students’ achievement, does not yield any insurmountable obstacles for classroom-implementation of inquiry-based lessons: Compared to the PISA study, levels of high achievers increased even if complex problem-solving competence was required.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Alberts, B. (2009). Redefining Science Education. Science, 323, 427. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170933.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What Research says about Inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982.

Barrow, L. H. (2006). A Brief History of Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahvah: Erlbaum Associates.

Berg, C. A., Bergendahl, V. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. E. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version to the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education., 25(3), 351–372.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.

Burris, J. (2012). It’s the teacher. Science, 335, 146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218159.

Bybee, R. (Ed.) (2002). Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington: NSTA Press. https://doi.org/10.2505/9780873552080.

Chu, K. W. S. (2009). Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types of teachers and the school librarian. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1671–1686.

Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Quinn, D. J. (2016). Personal Inquiry and Online Research: Connecting Learners in Ways That Matter. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1450.

Cooper, M., & Ferreira, J. M. M. (2009). Remote laboratories extending access to science and engineering curricular. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2, 342–353.

David, J. (2008). What research says about project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 65, 80–82.

Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.

Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (Eds.) (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Acad. Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11102.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068.

European Commission (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science with and for Society. Brussels: ISBN 978–92–79-43637-6.

Falik, O., Eylon, B., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating teachers to enact Free-Choice PBL in Science and Technology (PBLSAT): Effects of a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education., 19, 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9113-8.

Franke, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). Conceptual change in students’ molecular biology education: tilting at windmills? Journal of Educational Research, 104(1), 7–18.

Fremerey, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2015). Learning about Drinking Water: How important are the three dimensions of knowledge that can change individual behaviour? Education Sciences, 4(4), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040213.

Gialouri, E., Uzunoglou, M., Gargalakos, M., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). Teaching Real-Life Science in the Lab of Tomorrow. ASL (Advanced Science Letters), 4, 3317–3323.

Goldschmidt, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Learning about genetic engineering in an outreach laboratory: Influence of motivation and gender on students’ cognitive achievement. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 6(2), 166–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1031293.

Goldschmidt, M., Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Instructional efficiency of different discussion approaches in an outreach laboratory: Teacher-guided versus student-centered. Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.917601.

Gordin, D. N., Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (1994). The Climate Visualizer: Sense-making through scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 203–226.

Guàrdia, L., Crisp, G., & Alsina, I. (2017). Trends and Challenges of E-Assessment to Enhance Student Learning in Higher Education. Spain: UOC. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0531-0.ch003.

Hämäläinen, R., & Cattaneo, A. (2015). New TEL Environments for Vocational Education – Teacher’s Instructional Perspective. Vocations and Learning, 8, 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9128-1.

Harlen, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.

Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & Inquiry-Based Science Education: Issues in Policy and Practice. Italy: Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) Science Education Programme (SEP).Wynne. Harlen. Assessment.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.

Kelly, R., Lesh, A., & Baek, J. Y. (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching, (pp. 219–245). London: Routledge.

Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115.

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Langheinrich, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Computer-related self-concept: The impact on cognitive achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 763–804). Charlotte: Inf. Age Publ.

Lieberman, A. (1992). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 5–12.

Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.

Linn, M. C., Gerard, L., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K., Liu, O. L., & Rafferty, A. N. (2014). Computer-Guided Inquiry to Improve Science Learning. Science, 344(6180), 155–156.

Marth, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). Does the issue of bionics within a student-centred module generate long-term knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55, 117–124.

Meissner, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). Science Teaching based on Cognitive Load Theory: Engaged Students, but Cognitive Deficiencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.002.

Mierdel, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). Investigations of modellers and model viewers in an out-of-school gene-technology laboratory, Research in Science Education (online published). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-019-09871-3.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347.

Moran, M. J. (2007). Collaborative action research and project work: Promising practices for developing collaborative inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 418–431.

OECD (2006). Think Scenarios, Rethink Education. New York. ISBN: 926402364X.

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving (Volume V): Students' Skills in Tackling Real-Life Problems. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264208070-en.

Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Gender, age and subject matter: Impact on teachers’ ecological values. The Environmentalist, 30(2), 111–122.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.

Pilkington, R. M. (2004). Developing discussion for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00080.x.

PISA (2015). Results in Focus. Paris: OECD.

Randler, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2009). Efficacy of two different instructional methods involving complex ecological content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9117-4.

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., & Walberg-Henriksson, H. (2007). Science Education Now: a Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

Rust, F., & Myer, E. (2006). The bright side: Teacher research in the context of educational reform and policy-making. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 69–86.

Schaal, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Human visual perception—Learning at workstations. Journal of Biological Education, 40(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9656006.

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Instructional Efficiency of Changing Cognitive Load in an Out-of-School Laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 829–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902948862.

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students' activities during experimentation in an outreach gene-technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9177-2.

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2013a). Instructional efficiency of tutoring in an outreach gene-technology laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1267–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9309-y.

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2013b). Teaching gene technology in an outreach lab: Students' assigned cognitive load clusters and the clusters' relationships to learner characteristics, laboratory variables, and cognitive achievement. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9251-4.

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). A New Role-Change Approach in Pre-service Teacher Education for Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Context of a Student Outreach Lab. Research in Science Education, 46(5), 743–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9478-6.

Schmid, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2015). Effects of Students’ Effort Scores in a Structured Inquiry Unit on Long-Term Recall Abilities of Content Knowledge. Education Research International, (Article ID 826734. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/826734.

Schwab, J. J. (1960). Enquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. Science Teacher, 36, 6–11.

Shamos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. Chicago: Rutgers Univ. Press.

Shulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not explain earlier intuitions. Cognition, 124, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005.

Shulman, L. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). The Pathway to High Quality Science Teaching. Pallini: EPINOIA. ISBN Number: 960-8339-60-X.

Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2008). Visualizing the Invisible: Augmented Reality as an Innovative Science Education Scheme. Advanced Science Letters, 1(1), 114–122.

Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). Inspiring Science Learning: Designing the Science Classroom of the Future. Advanced Science Letters, 4, 3304–3309.

Sotiriou, S., Bogner, F. X., & Neofotistos, G. (2011). Quantitative analysis of the usage of the COSMOS science education portal. Journal of Science and Technology Education, 20, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9256-1.

Sotiriou, S., Bybee, R., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). PATHWAYS – A Case of Large-Scale Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Scientific Inquiry-Based Science Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p8.

Sotiriou, S., Riviou, K., Cherouvis, S., Chelioti, E., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Introducing large-scale innovation in schools. Journal of Technology, Science and Education, 25(4), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9611-y.

TALIS (2014). An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Brussels. Paris: OECD Publishing https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261.

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory into Practice, 45, 239–248.

Trautmann, N. M. (2013). Citizen Science: 15 Lessons that Bring Biology to Life, 6–12. Washington, D.C: NSTA Press.

Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2008). Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade classroom: an attempt to overcome alternative conceptions about light and color. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 309–336.

Wecker, C., Kohnlet, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 133–144.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.

Wilhelm, J., Sherrod, S., & Walters, K. (2008). Project-based learning environments: Challenging preservice teachers to act in the moment. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 220–233.

Wilhelm, J. G., & Wilhelm, P. J. (2010). Inquiring minds learn to read, write and think: Reaching all learners through inquiry. Middle School Journal, 5, 39–46.

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 7

1-15

Thông tin tác giả