Advertisement

INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND READING ABILITIES

  • Jing-Ru WangEmail author
  • Yuh-Chao Wang
  • Hsin-Jung Tai
  • Wen-Ju Chen
Article

ABSTRACT

This study examined the differential impacts of an inquiry-based instruction on conceptual changes across levels of prior knowledge and reading ability. The instrument emphasized four simultaneously important components: conceptual knowledge, reading ability, attitude toward science, and learning environment. Although the learning patterns and effect size analyses indicated that students from all subgroups demonstrated substantial gains on weather concepts, students from the low prior conceptual knowledge group demonstrated greater gains in conceptual knowledge than subgroups with more prior knowledge; and these gains remained stable 3 weeks after the instruction ceased. However, students from the low language proficiency group showed the least gains in conceptual knowledge. Students’ prior knowledge and reading ability were found to be positively and significantly associated to conceptual development. Recent perspectives on the role of language in science education and suggestions that support learning during instruction are briefly described.

KEY WORDS

classroom learning environment inquiry teaching language Taiwan weather concepts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1989). Teaching text structure to improve reading and writing. Reading Teacher, 43(2), 130–137.Google Scholar
  3. Atkin, J. M., & Coffey, J. E. (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington: NSTA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, W. F., & Samarapungavan, A. (1991). Children’s theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge? In R. R. Hoffman & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 209–232). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L. (1990). Domain-specific principles affect learning and transfer in children. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 107–133.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, C.-Y., & Mao, S.-L. (1998, April). The effects of an IBI method on earth science students’ achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 858.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, C.-Y., & Mao, S.-L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chinese Youth Growth Cultural and Educational Foundation. (2008). The origin of the weather map [in Chinese]. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.bud.org.tw/Ma/Ma02.htm.
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, L., & Mayer, R. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2001). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  18. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  21. Henriques, L. (2002). Children’s ideas about weather: A review of the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hewson, P. W. (2004). Resources for science learning: Tools, tasks, and environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, O. (2003, March). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  24. Lin, B. Y. (2003). A study of 3–4 grade elementary school students’ misconceptions of weather. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taichung University, Taichung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  25. Lin, B.-G., & Chi, P.-H. (2000). The development of test of reading comprehension. Bulletin of Special Education, 19, 79–104.Google Scholar
  26. Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mao, S.-L., Chang, C.-Y., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1998). Inquiry teaching and its effects on secondary-school-students’ learning of earth science concepts. Journal of Geoscience Education, 46, 363–368.Google Scholar
  28. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCarthey, S. J., & Raphael, T. E. (1992). Alternative research perspectives. In J. W. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 2–30). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  30. McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministry of Education. (2001). The 1–9 grades school science and life technology curriculum standards. Taipei: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  32. Phillips, L. M. (1988). Young readers’ inference strategies in reading comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 5(3), 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1993). Short story science: Using historical vignettes as a teaching tool. The Science Teacher, 60(6), 18–21.Google Scholar
  35. Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Putting people back into science: Using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 95(7), 365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Oakland: The Regents of the University of California.Google Scholar
  37. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. J., Jr., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spiegel, G. F., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1994). The effects of a combination of text structure awareness and graphic post-organizers on recall and retention of science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 913–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United States National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. United States National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in non-major biology: An interpretive study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 986–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, J.-R., & Lin, S.-W. (2009). Evaluating elementary and secondary school science learning environments in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 853–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jing-Ru Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuh-Chao Wang
    • 2
  • Hsin-Jung Tai
    • 3
  • Wen-Ju Chen
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science EducationNational Pingtung University of EducationPingtungRepublic of China
  2. 2.Chuang Ching Elementary School, ROCKaohsiung City(R.O.C.)
  3. 3.Chung Hsiao Elementary School, ROCPingtung CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations