Students’ Reflections on Implementation of Group Investigation in Korean Secondary Science Classrooms

  • Phil Seok OhEmail author
  • Myeong-Kyeong Shin


Student reflective ideas were examined with respect to Group Investigation (GI), which was employed in 11th grade Korean earth science classrooms. A modified GI method was implemented during the course of an action research effort consisting of two yearlong projects. Students’ writings, which had been produced twice a year, were analyzed to reveal their reflections concerning the GI method. The students were positive about how GI altered the ways their learning occurred in the classrooms. They also reported several positive learning outcomes resulting from the GI implementation. However, there were some students who considered the GI method inappropriate for them. At times, students had difficulties and experienced problems arising from implementing GI. Implications for use of cooperative inquiry learning methods in science classrooms are elaborated on and discussed.


action research cooperative learning Group Investigation inquiry Korean science classroom 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S.A. & Duffy, T.M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Google Scholar
  3. Brophy, J. (Ed.) (2002). Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints. Kidlington, UK: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. Google Scholar
  5. Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 185–225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Google Scholar
  6. Costenson, K. & Lawson, A.E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150–158. Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, B.A., Krajcik, J.S. & Marx, R.W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle school science classroom. Science Education, 83, 701–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffy, T.M. & Orrill, C. (2001). Constructivism. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from
  9. Ernest, P. (1994). Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies, and pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2, 1–14. Google Scholar
  10. Geelan, D.R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science & Education, 6, 15–28. Google Scholar
  11. Gilles, R.M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 137–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilles, R.M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iwasyk, M. (1997). Kids questioning kids: “Experts” sharing. Science and Children, 35(1), 42–46, 80. Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73. Google Scholar
  15. Joyce, W.B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74(5), 271–274. Google Scholar
  16. Kaartinen, S. & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R.H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 67–96). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Google Scholar
  18. Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 386–434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Google Scholar
  19. Kim, J.-H., Kim, Y.-M., Lee, Y.-R. & Noh, S.-G. (1993). The 6th national science curriculum of the Republic of Korea. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute. Google Scholar
  20. Kobayashi, Y. (1994). Conceptual acquisition and change through social interaction. Human Development, 37, 233–241. Google Scholar
  21. Lazarowitz, R. & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and students’ academic achievement, process skills, learning environment, and self-esteem in tenth-grade biology classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 123–149). New York, NY: Praeger. Google Scholar
  22. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Google Scholar
  23. Moscovici, H. & Nelson, T.H. (1998). Shifting from activitymania to inquiry. Science and Children, 35(4), 14–17, 40. Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  26. O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the “efficacy of social constructivism?” Review of Research in Education, 23, 25–71. Google Scholar
  27. Oh, P.S., Shin, M.-K. & Yager, R. E. (2004). Student perceptions of peer assessment in an action research context. The Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 25(3), 129–141. Google Scholar
  28. Oh, P.S. & Yager, R.E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and changes in student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education International, 15(2), 105–113. Google Scholar
  29. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11. Google Scholar
  30. Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. Google Scholar
  31. Roth, W.-M. (1993). Construction sites: Science labs and classrooms. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 145–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Google Scholar
  32. Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W. & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwab, J.J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14, 374–379. Google Scholar
  35. Shachar, H. & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12(4), 313–353. Google Scholar
  36. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271. Google Scholar
  37. Sharan, S., Ackerman, Z. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). Academic achievement of elementary school children in small-group versus whole-class instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 48(2), 125–129. Google Scholar
  38. Sharan, Y. & Sharan, S. (1989). Group Investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17–21. Google Scholar
  39. Sharan, Y. & Sharan, S. (1994). Group Investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 97–114). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Google Scholar
  40. Sherman, L.W. (1988). A comparative study of cooperative and competitive achievement in two secondary biology classrooms: The group investigation model versus an individually competitive goal structure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 55–64. Google Scholar
  41. Sherman, S.J. (1994). Cooperative learning and science. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 226–244). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Google Scholar
  42. Stahl, R.J., Stahl, N.N., Verdi, M.P. & Stahl, S.A. (1996). Using group investigation successfully in science classrooms. In R.J. Stahl (Ed.), Cooperative learning in science: A handbook for teachers (pp. 277–309). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  43. Tobin, K. (1987). Forces which shape the implemented curriculum in high school science and mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 287–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trowbridge, L.W., Bybee, R.W. & Powell, J.C. (2004). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Google Scholar
  45. Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389. Google Scholar
  46. Yager, R.E. (2000). Real-world learning: A necessity for the success of current reform efforts. ENC Focus, 7(3), 18–19. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science EducationEwha Womans UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Institute for Science Gifted EducationCheongju National University of EducationCheongjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations