Advertisement

Framing and Assessing Scientific Inquiry Practices

  • Russell TytlerEmail author
  • Peta White
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue that the focus on STEM as an interdisciplinary construct has placed greater emphasis on the contextual applications of science and mathematics practices. For science, this has resulted in a need to more clearly articulate the nature of scientific epistemic practice, including supporting and assessing scientific inquiry skills. We describe a project that involved the development and trialing of secondary level practical inquiry activities representing contemporary STEM practices and ideas. Teachers and students engaging with these activities were introduced to an inquiry scaffold tool that articulated key features of scientific practices and made explicit how to develop and refine practical work to focus on specific skills. We argue, from this experience with secondary science teachers, the need to develop strategies to focus on these specific practices and the need to develop compatible assessment approaches. As examples of how these skills might be assessed in practice, we draw on a separate project in which we refined a set of assessment tasks that situated inquiry skills within engaging contexts and procedures for teachers to make judgments about student performance levels. We outline our experiences of working with teachers with examples of tasks and rubric development.

Keywords

Science inquiry skills development Inquiry skills assessment processes Formative assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

ASELL for Schools—Victorian Node academic team included Leader Associate Professor Kieran Lim and Dr. John Long along with Dr. Peta White. The ASELL for Schools project was funded under the Australian Maths and Science Partnership Program. Science Inquiry Assessment team included Professor Russell Tytler, Dr. Gail Chittleborough, and Dr. Peta White. The development and validation process was funded by the Victorian Department of Education and Training.

References

  1. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Assessment, Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (2013). Australian curriculum: Science. Sydney, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/content-structure.
  3. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). ‘An experiment is when you try it and see if it works’: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, H.-L. S., & Tytler, R. (2017). Inquiry teaching and learning: Forms, approaches, and embedded views within and across cultures. In M. Hackling, J. Ramseger, & H.-L. S. Chen (Eds.), Quality teaching in primary science education: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 93–122). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44383-6_5.Google Scholar
  5. Deakin University. (n.d.). Inquiry scaffold tool: Victorian curriculum [Weblog]. Retrieved from https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/asell-for-schools-vic/wp-content/uploads/sites/160/2018/03/Inquiry-Scaffold-Tool-VIC-FINAL.pdf.
  6. Dewey, J. (1996). Essays. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected work of John Dewey, 1882–1953: The electronic edition. Charlottesville, VA: InteLex.Google Scholar
  7. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, England: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Gooding, D. (2004). Visualization, inference and explanation in the sciences. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Studies in Multidisciplinarity (Vol. 2, pp. 1–25)., Multidisciplinary approaches to visual representations and interpretations Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). Research report: The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/status_and_quality_of_science_schools.htm.
  11. Hassard, J., & Dias, M. (2008). The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovations in middle school and high school. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Holmes, N. G., & Wieman, C. E. (2016). Examining and contrasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Masters, G. N. (2015, Feb 26). Learning assessments—Designing the future. Teacher. Retrieved from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/columnists/geoff-masters/learning-assessments-designing-the-future.
  16. Ministry of Education. (2013). Curriculum guidelines for compulsory education (Grade 1–9): The learning areas of science and technology. Taipei, Taiwan: Author. Retrieved from http://teach.eje.edu.tw/data/files/class_rules/nature.pdf.
  17. National Institutes of Health. (2005). Doing science: The process of scientific inquiry. Bethesda, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for-states-by-states.
  20. Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. Proceedings of the ACER conference: Boosting Science Learning—What will it take? Camberwell, Australia: ACER.Google Scholar
  21. Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A conceptual analysis of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 13(4), 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 1–30). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  24. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  26. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2015). Victorian curriculum: Science. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and EducationDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations