Advertisement

The Data Sets and Inquiry in Geoscience Education Project: Model Curricula for Teacher Capacity Building in Scientific Inquiry Tasks with Geospatial Data

  • Daniel R. ZallesEmail author
  • Amy Pallant
Chapter

Abstract

The NSF-funded Data Sets and Inquiry in Geoscience Education project (DIGS) developed a set of curriculum modules comprising units and assessments in which students use real geospatial visualizations and data sets to conduct extended inquiry on plate tectonics and local climate change. As befits the differences in research on the two topics, the modules present data-centered inquiry tasks that vary in the amounts of structure inherent in the problems the students are asked to solve. Yet, both modules use presorted authentic data, lead students through scripted yet open-ended investigations, and provide implementation supports through scoring guides, teacher directions, and all-inclusive student and teacher Web access to the materials. This chapter describes how the modules have educative value for teachers by exemplifying contrasting curriculum models for data-based inquiry, by showing how driving purposes that stimulate student thinking and expression can be articulated, and by showing how scaffolding can be strategically employed to enable successful student inquiry.

Keywords

Curriculum development Visualizations Data-based inquiry Geoscience 

Notes

Acknowledgements

 This article is based on the assessment and curriculum research and methods developed by Edys Quellmalz, who served as Principal Investigator from September 2005 to June 2007; Daniel Zalles, Co-principal Investigator from September 2005 to June 2007 and then Principal Investigator from June to October 2007; Janice, Co-principal Investigator; and Amy Pallant, curriculum developer on the Data Sets and Inquiry in Geoscience Education project (NSF-GEO# 0507828; Quellmalz & Zalles, 2002).

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(6–8), 14.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, B., Vye, N. J., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., et al. (1995). Creating contexts for community-based problem solving: The Jasper challenge series. In C. Hedley, P. Antonacci, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Thinking and literacy: The mind at work (pp. 47–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.Google Scholar
  5. Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2009). Designing Google earth activities for learning earth and environmental science. In M. Barnett, J. Makinster, & N. Trautmann (Eds.), Teaching science with geospatial technologies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially. (2006). The incorporation of geographic information Science across the K – 12 Curriculum. In Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edelson, D. C., Gordon, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenge of inquiry-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 392–450.Google Scholar
  9. Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gobert, J. D., Pallant, A. R., & Daniels, J. T. M. (2010). Unpacking inquiry skills from content knowledge in geoscience: A research perspective with implications for assessment design. International Journal of Learning Technologies, 5(3), 310–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halperin, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn. Educational Psychology, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marz, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313–350.Google Scholar
  15. Linn, M., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004a). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Linn, M., Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B. (2004b). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Manduca, C., Mogk, D., & Stillings, N. (2002). Bringing research on learning to the geosciences. (Report from a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Johnson Foundation.). Northfield, MN: Science Education Resource Center.Google Scholar
  20. McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 70–94.Google Scholar
  21. McLurg, P. A., & Buss, A. (2007). Professional development: Teachers use of GIS to enhance learning. Journal of Geography, 106, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Quellmalz, E. S. (2002). Design of student assessment tools for the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program. Final Report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  24. Quellmalz, E. S., Gobert, J., & Zalles, D. (2005). Using geoscience data sets to promote access inquiry. Proposal to the Geoscience Division of the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Quellmalz, E. S., & Hoskyn, J. (1997). Classroom assessment of reasoning strategies. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 103–130). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Quellmalz, E. S., & Zalles, D. (2002). Designing technology assessments cognitive-based modular design. Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  27. Quellmalz, E. S., & Zalles, D. R. (2009). Datasets for inquiry in geoscience: A design model. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  28. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., & Soloway, E. A. (2004). Scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem based learning. An instructional model and its constructionist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ lowercase understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Squire, K., MaKinster, J., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. A. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zalles, D. R., Gobert, J., Quellmalz, E. Q., & Pallant, A. (2007). Data sets and inquiry in geoscience education: Final report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at http://digs.sri.com.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.Concord ConsortiumConcordUSA

Personalised recommendations