Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inquiry-Based Science and Technology Enrichment Program: Green Earth Enhanced with Inquiry and Technology

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of a guided inquiry integrated with technology, in terms of female middle-school students’ attitudes toward science/scientists and content knowledge regarding selective science concepts (e.g., Greenhouse Effect, Air/Water Quality, Alternative Energy, and Human Health). Thirty-five female students who were entering eighth grade attended an intensive, 1-week Inquiry-Based Science and Technology Enrichment Program which used a main theme, “Green Earth Enhanced with Inquiry and Technology.” We used pre- and post-attitude surveys, pre- and post-science content knowledge tests, and selective interviews to collect data and measure changes in students’ attitudes and content knowledge. The study results indicated that at the post-intervention measures, participants significantly improved their attitudes toward science and science-related careers and increased their content knowledge of selected science concepts (p < .05).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alesandrini K, Larson L (2002) Teachers bridge to constructivism. Clear House 75:18–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexakos K, Antoine W (2003) The gender gap in science education: strategies to encourage female participation in science. Sci Teach 70(3):30–33

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks of science literacy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RD, Helms JV (2001) The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: needed research. J Res Sci Teach 38(1):3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker WP, Leyva K (2003) What variables affect solubility? Sci Act 40:23–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkam DT, Lee VE, Smerdon BA (1997) Gender and science learning early in high school: subject matter and laboratory experiences. Am Educ Res J 34:297–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee RW (2000) Teaching science as inquiry. In: Minstrell J, van Zee EH (eds) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp 20–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr M (1996) Interviews about instances and interviews about events. In: Treagust DF, Duit R, Fraser BJ (eds) Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 44–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo AML, Laubach TA (2001) Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in different learning cycle classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 38:1029–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn C, Hmelo-Silver C (2002) Authentic inquiry: introduction to the special section. Sci Educ 86:171–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawfold BA (2000) Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. J Res Sci Teach 37(9):916–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (2003) Scale development: theory and application, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1944) Democracy and education (first free press paperback-1966 edn). Macmillan Company

  • Duit R, Confrey J (1996) Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In: Treagust DF, Duit R, Fraser BJ (eds) Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 79–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, Burke MJ (1996) Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol Methods 1:170–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 53:109–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson DC (2001) Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of technology supported inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 38(3):355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdfelder E, Auer T, Hilbig BE, Aßfalg A, Moshagen M, Nadarevic L (2009) Multinomial processing tree models: a review of the literature. Z Psychol/J Psychol 217:108–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan I (2005) Controlled volcanism in the classroom: a simulation. Sci Act 42:21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk J, Drayton B (2004) State testing and inquiry-based science: are they complementary or competing reforms? J Educ Change 5:345–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd FJ, Widaman KF (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 7:286–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson HL (2002) Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes towards science. Sci Educ 86:693–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayden CT, O’Neill C, Meyer JE, Carballada RC, Sanford AL, Cohen SB et al (2004) Intermediate level science: core curriculum grades 5–8. Retrieved 13 June 2008 from http://www.emsc.nysed.goe/ciai/mst/pub/intersci.pdf

  • Heard PF, Divall SA, Johnson SD (2000) Can ‘ears-on’ help hands-on science learning for girls and boys? Int J Sci Educ 22:1133–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess AJ, Trexler CJ (2005) Constructivist teaching: developing constructivist approaches to the agricultural education class. Agric Educ Mag 77:12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce BA, Farenga SJ (1999) Informal science experience, attitudes, future interest in science, and gender of high-ability students: an exploratory study. Sch Sci Math 99:431–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik J, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Bass KB, Fredericks J (1998) Inquiry in project based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. J Learn Sci 7:313–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik J, Marx RW, Blumenfeld P, Soloway E, Fishman B (2000) Inquiry based science supported by technology: achievement among urban middle school students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Ann Arbor, MI

  • Lee VE, Burkam DT (1996) Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Sci Educ 80:613–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallow JV (1981) Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattern N, Schau C (2002) Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle-school students. J Res Sci Teach 39:324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistler-Jackson M, Songer NB (2000) Student motivation and Internet technology: are students empowered to learn science? J Res Sci Teach 37(5):459–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2000) The NAEP science scale. Retrieved 29 June 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/scale.asp

  • National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standard: a guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110

  • Novak AM, Gleason CI (2001) Incorporating portable technology to enhance inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In: Tinker RF (ed) Learning in context. Kluwer/Plenum, New York

  • Osborne JW, Costello AB (2004) Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 9(11). Retrieved 1 July 2008 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11

  • Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC (2002) Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behav Genet 32:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson FC, Suinn RM (1972) The mathematics anxiety rating scale: psychometric data. J Couns Psychol 19:551–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler PM, Whitney CA, Shore L, Deutsch F (1999) Visualization and representation of physical systems: wavemaker as an aid to conceptualizing wave phenomena. J Sci Educ Technol 8(3):197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner C, Sjøberg S (2004) Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (the relevance of science education)—a comparative study of students’ views of science and science education. Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell A (2002) Constructivism and student misconceptions: why every teacher needs to know about them. Aust Sci Teach J 48:24–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorge C, Newsome HE, Hagerty JJ (2000) Fun is not enough: attitudes of Hispanic middle school students toward science and scientists. Hispanic J Behav Sci 22:332–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake JE, Mares KR (2001) Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. J Res Sci Teach 38:1065–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Secker CE, Lissitz RW (1999) Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. J Res Sci Teach 36:1110–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace J, Louden W (2002) Introduction to “laboratories”. In: Wallace J, Louden W (eds) Dilemmas of science teaching. Routledge Falmer, New York, pp 36–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Rev Educ Res 72:131–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Motorola Foundation. I also thank the InSTEP teachers including Ms. Lewin, Watanabe, Coscarart, and Jolly who contributed to this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DePaul University, 2320 North Kenmore Ave, Chicago, IL, 60014-3250, USA

    Hanna Kim

Authors
  1. Hanna Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanna Kim.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 InSTEP lesson descriptions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, H. Inquiry-Based Science and Technology Enrichment Program: Green Earth Enhanced with Inquiry and Technology. J Sci Educ Technol 20, 803–814 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9334-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9334-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation