Advertisement

QUESTIONING BEHAVIOR OF STUDENTS IN THE INQUIRY CHEMISTRY LABORATORY: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECTORS AND GENDERS IN THE ISRAELI CONTEXT

  • Ron BlonderEmail author
  • Shelley Rap
  • Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
  • Avi Hofstein
Article

Abstract

The present research is part of a longitude research study regarding the questioning behavior of students in the inquiry chemistry laboratory in Israel. We found that students who were involved in learning chemistry by the inquiry method ask more and higher-level questions. However, throughout the years, we have observed that differences between the two groups of students, control and the inquiry, have been reduced. The results of our study indicated that the gap between the Jewish and Arab students regarding their questioning ability is minor and inconsistent. If we assume that the source of this difference lies in the culture and different standards for teachers’ qualifications in the two sectors, our current results suggested that the differences between chemistry teachers in the two sectors are now diminished. Teachers from both sectors utilized the inquiry program as part of their teaching repertoire, and the students in the two sectors learned the inquiry skill of asking questions.

Keywords

chemistry education chemistry laboratory gender inquiry laboratory sectors students’ questions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahami, E. (2001). What happens to girls and boys in the education system: The meaning of education for equality of opportunity between the sexes. In R. Laor & D. Man (Eds.), Gender and education (Hebrew) (pp. 85–106). Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University.Google Scholar
  2. Abu-Asbah, K. (2007). The Arab education in Israel: Dilemmas of a national minority. Jerusalem, Israel: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. A. & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayalon, H. & Yogev, A. (1996). The alternative worldview of state religious high schools in Israel. Comparative Education Review, 40(1, Special issue on religion), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baram-Tsabari, A. & Kaadni, A. (2009). Gender dependency and cultural independency of science interest in an open distant science learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), 1–22.Google Scholar
  6. Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A. & Kelly, D. L. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years: IEA's third International Mathematics & Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  7. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing—The development of self body and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Biddulph, F. & Osborne, R. (1982). Some issues relating to children’s questions and explanations LISP (P) working paper no. 106. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  9. Birenbaum, M., Nasser, F. & Tatsuoka, C. (2007). Effects of gender and ethnicity on fourth graders’ knowledge states in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38, 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blonder, R., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Hofstein, A. (2008a). Analyzing inquiry questions of high-school students in a gas chromatography open-ended laboratory experiment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 250–258. doi: 10.1039/B812414K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blonder, R., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008b). Increasing science teachers’ ownership through the adaptation of the PARSEL modules: A “bottom-up” approach. Science Education International, 19(3), 285–301.Google Scholar
  12. Bloom, B. S. & David, R. K. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans.Google Scholar
  13. Blosser, B. F. (1983). The role of laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  15. Brotman, J. S. & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 971–1002. doi: 10.1002/tea.20241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryce, T. G. K. & Robertson, I. J. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M. & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Res. Pract, 18, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chin, C. (2001). Learning in science: What do students' questions tell us about their thinking? Education Journal, 29(2), 85–103.Google Scholar
  19. Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1080/03057260701828101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284. doi: 10.1080/10508400903530036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J. & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237–258. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of students questioning. Curriculum studies, 20(3), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dkeidek, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Hofstein, A. (2011). Effect of culture on high-school students' question-asking ability resulting from an inquiry-oriented chemistry laboratory. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1305–1331. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9261-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dkeidek, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Hofstein, A. (2012). Assessment of the laboratory learning environment in an inquiry-oriented chemistry laboratory in Arab and Jewish high-schools in Israel. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 141–169. doi: 10.1007/s10984-012-9109-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Domin, D. S. (1999). A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of higher-order cognitive tasks. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 109–111. doi: 10.1021/ed076p109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dori, Y. J. & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199904).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z. & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 4–8.Google Scholar
  28. Ellis, H. (1965). The transfer of learning. London, England: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Elstgeest, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Primary science: Taking the plunge (pp. 36–46). London, England: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  30. Garcia, G. E. & Pearson, P. D. (1990). Modifying reading instructions to maximize its effectiveness for all students. (Thec. Rep. No. 4889) Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  31. Garnett, P. J. & Hacking, M. W. (1995). Refocusing the chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-based investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(2), 26–32.Google Scholar
  32. Gilligan, C. (1982). In different voice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gottlieb, A. (2007). Learning and thinking together. Besde Hemed, 1–3 (Hebrew). Retrieved 10.7, 2011, from http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sde_chem/gotlib-1.htm
  34. Harskampa, E., Ning Dinga, N. & Suhreb, C. (2008). Group composition and its effect on female and male problem-solving in science education. Educational Research, 50(4), 307–318. doi: 10.1080/00131880802499688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harwood, W. (2004). An activity model for scientific inquiry. Science Teacher, 71(1), 44–46.Google Scholar
  36. Head, J. (1996). Gender identity and cognitive style. In P. F. Murphy & C. V. Gipps (Eds.), Equity in the classroom (pp. 59–69). London and Washington, DC: Flamer Press and UNESCO.Google Scholar
  37. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical working school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33–40.Google Scholar
  38. Hofstein, A., Levi-Nahum, T. & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hofstein, A., Shore, R. & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601–627. doi: 10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–130). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Levy Nahum, T., Ben-Chaim, D., Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O. & Zoller, U. (2010). Does STES-oriented science education promote 10th-grade students’ decision-making capability? International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1315–1336. doi: 10.1080/09500690903042533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–264). Dordrecht: Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A. & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Maskill, R. & Pedrosa de Jesus, M. H. (1997). Pupils’ questions, alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 781–799. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education, 37(2), 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.Google Scholar
  52. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, B. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. Resnick & L. Kloper (Eds.), Towards the thinking curriculum:current cognitive research (pp. 19-39). Alexandria, VA: The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  53. Pedrosa de Jesus, M. H. & Moreira, A. C. (2008). The role of student’ questions in aligning teaching, learning and assessment: A case study from undergraduate sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 193–208. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pedrosa de Jesus, M. H., Teixeira-Dias, J. J. C. & Watts, M. (2003). Questions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 1015–1034. doi: 10.1080/09500690305022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinto', R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinto', R., Couso, D. & Gutierrez, R. (2005). Using research on teachers’ transformations of innovations to inform teacher education: The case of energy degradation. Science Education, 89, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Romi, S. (2004). Disruptive behaviour in religious and secular high schools: Teachers’ and students’ attitudes. Research in Education, 71, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C. & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self regulation in children’s knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Sigel, I. E., Kress, J. S. & Elias, M. J. (2007). Beyond questioning: Inquiry strategies and cognitive and affective elements of Jewish education. Journal of Jewish Education, 73, 51–66. doi: 10.1080/15244110601175178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smail, D. (1984). Reality and illusion: The meaning of anxiety. London, England: Dent.Google Scholar
  62. Taitelbaum, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Carmeli, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). Evidence for teachers’ change while participating in a continuous professional development programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 593–617. doi: 10.1080/09500690701854840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tamir, P. & Caridin, H. (1993). Characteristics of the learning environment in biology and chemistry classes as perceived by Jewish and Arab high school students in Israel. Research in Science and Technological Education, 11(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1080/0263514930110102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities. In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Watts, M., Alsop, S., Gould, G. & Walsh, A. (1997a). Prompting teachers’ constructive reflection: Pupils’ questions as critical incidents. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 1025–1037. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watts, M., Gould, G. & Alsop, S. (1997b). Questions of understanding: Categorizing pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review, 79(286), 57–63.Google Scholar
  67. Wu, G. D., Cahen, D., Graf, P., Naaman, R., Nitzan, A. & Shvartz, D. (2001). Direct detection of low-concentration NO in physiological solutions by new GaAs-based sensor. Chemistry-A European Journal, 7, 1743–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yaar, A. & Shavit, Z. (Eds.). (2001). Trends in Israeli society. Tel Aviv, Israel: The Open University (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  69. Yarden, A., Brill, G. & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zohar, A. & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zohar, A. & Gershikov, A. (2008). Gender and performance in mathemcatical tasks: Does the context make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 677–693. doi: 10.1007/s10763-007-9086-7.
  72. Zohar, A. & Sela, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: Gender issues in Israeli advanced placement physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 245–268. doi: 10.1080/09500690210126766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability: A meaningful aspect of problem-solving in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 510-null. doi:  10.1021/ed064p510

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron Blonder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shelley Rap
    • 1
  • Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
    • 1
  • Avi Hofstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations