Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 747–760 | Cite as

Inquiry-Based Educational Design for Large-Scale High School Astronomy Projects Using Real Telescopes

  • Michael Fitzgerald
  • David H. McKinnon
  • Lena Danaia
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we outline the theory behind the educational design used to implement a large-scale high school astronomy education project. This design was created in response to the realization of ineffective educational design in the initial early stages of the project. The new design follows an iterative improvement model where the materials and general approach can evolve in response to solicited feedback. The improvement cycle concentrates on avoiding overly positive self-evaluation while addressing relevant external school and community factors while concentrating on backward mapping from clearly set goals. Limiting factors, including time, resources, support and the potential for failure in the classroom, are dealt with as much as possible in the large-scale design allowing teachers the best chance of successful implementation in their real-world classroom. The actual approach adopted following the principles of this design is also outlined, which has seen success in bringing real astronomical data and access to telescopes into the high school classroom.

Keywords

High school Inquiry-based teaching Astronomy education Educational design 

References

  1. Alfieri L, Brooks PJ, Aldrich NJ, Tenenbaum HR (2011) Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? J Educ Psychol 103(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990) Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RD (2002) Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. J Sci Teach Educ 13(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beichner R (2000) SCALE-UP project summary. North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett J (2001) Science with attitude: the perennial issue of pupils’ responses to science. Sch Sci Rev 82(300):59–67Google Scholar
  6. Bybee RW (1997) Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practical action. Heinemann, PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  7. Capps DK, Crawford BA, Constas MA (2012) A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. J Sci Teach Educ 23(3):291–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education (CRTTE) (2003) Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics agenda for action. Department of Education, Science and Training, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi M (2008) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Danaia L, McKinnon D, Parker Q, Fitzgerald M, Stenning P (2012) Space to grow: LCOGT.net and improving science engagement in schools. Astron Educ Rev 11(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danaia L, Fitzgerald M, McKinnon D (2013) Student perceptions of high school science: what has changed over the last decade? Res Sci Educ 43(4):1501–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. den Brok P, Bergen T, Brekelmans M (2006) Convergence and divergence between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional behaviour in Dutch secondary education. In: Fisher D, Khine M (eds) Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunkhase JA (2003) The coupled-inquiry cycle: a teacher concerns-based model for effective student inquiry. Sci Educat 12(1):10–15Google Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald M (2015) Design principles, implementation and evaluation for inquiry-based astronomy: an investigation of the issues surrounding sufficient teacher professional development in large-scale astronomical initiatives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald M, Criss J, Lukaszewicz T, Frew DJ, Catelan M, Woodward S, Danaia L, McKinnon DH (2012) RR Lyrae stars in the globular cluster NGC 6101. Publ Astron Soc Aust 29(1):72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald MT, Inwood L, McKinnon DH, Dias WS, Sacchi M, Scott B, Zolinkski M, Danaia L, Edwards R (2014a) Photometric and proper motion study of neglected open cluster NGC2215. Manuscript in reviewGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald M, Danaia L, McKinnon D, Deehan J (2014b) A large scale inquiry based astronomy intervention project: impact on high school students’ performance and perceptions in science. Manuscript in reviewGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald M, Hollow R, Rebull LM, Danaia L, McKinnon DH (2014c) A review of high school level astronomy student research projects over the last two decades. Publ Astron Soc Aust 31:e037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodrum D, Rennie L (2007) Australian school science education national action plan 2008–2012. Department of Education Science and Training, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodrum D, Hackling M, Rennie L (2001) The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in australian schools. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  21. Hackling MW, Goodrum D, Rennie LJ (2001) The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Aust Sci Teach J 47(4):6–17Google Scholar
  22. Hall G, Hord S (2001) Implementing change: patterns, principles, and potholes. Allyn and Bacon, Needham HeightsGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoorens V (1993) Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 4(1):113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kesidou S, Roseman J (2002) How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. J Res Sci Teach 39(6):522–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 41(2):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larkin J, McDermott J, Simon D, Simon H (1980) Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science 208(4450):1335–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawrance GA, Palmer DH (2003) Clever teachers, clever sciences: preparing teachers for the challenge of teaching science, mathematics and technology in 21st century Australia. Department of Education, Science and Training, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  28. Loughran J, Berry A, Mullhall P (2006) Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Sense Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer RE (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. Am Psychol 5(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore G (2006) Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling disruptive products to mainstream customers. Harper Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Osborne J (2006) Message from the President. E-NARST News 49:1–2Google Scholar
  34. Osborne J, Collins S (2000) Pupils and parents’ view of the school science curriculum. Sch Sci Rev 79(288):27–33Google Scholar
  35. Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S (2003) Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. Int J Sci Educ 25(9):1049–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pintrich PR (2003) A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Educ Psychol 95(4):667–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Redish E (2005) Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses. Invited talk, world view on physics education in 2005: focussing on change, Delhi, August 21–26, 2005Google Scholar
  38. Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Schroeder CM, Scott TP, Tolson H, Huang T-Y, Lee Y-H (2007) A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. J Res Sci Teach 44(10):1436–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shernoff D, Csikszentmihalyi M, Schneider B, Shernoff E (2003) Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. Sch Psychol Q 18(2):158–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slater SJ, Slater TF, Shaner A (2008) Impact of backwards faded scaffolding in an astronomy course for pre-service elementary teachers based on inquiry. J Geosci Educ 56(5):408–416Google Scholar
  42. Slater SJ, Slater TF, Lyons DJ (2010) Engaging in astronomical inquiry. W.H. Freeman Publishing and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Tao P-K, Gunstone R (1999) The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. J Res Sci Teach 36(7):859–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tytler R (2007) Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Council for Educational Research, CamberwellGoogle Scholar
  45. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Wubbels T, Brekelmans M (2005) Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. Int J Educ Res 43(6):6–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Fitzgerald
    • 1
    • 2
  • David H. McKinnon
    • 2
  • Lena Danaia
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Physics and AstronomyMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  3. 3.School of Teacher EducationCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations