Investigating the immersion of inquiry in lecture in improving students’ understanding about scientific inquiry

Muntholib Muntholib, Sri Rahayu, Naif Alsulami, Mohd Shafie Rosli

Abstract


This study aimed to examine the extent to which scientific inquiry procedures during a lecture improvelead to an improvement in students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. The study implemented a one-group pretest-posttest design. Participants were 53 first-year students from the Chemistry Department atin a public university in Malang Ccity. Students’ understandings of scientific inquiry were assessed before and after the instruction using the Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. TThe participants’ responses were analysed descriptively and classified into three categories: informed, partially informed, and naïve, with Cohen’s inter-rater reliability value of 0.81.he participants’ responses were analysed descriptively and classified into three categories, namely informed, partially informed, and naïve views with Cohen’s inter-rater reliability value of 0.81. The results showed that (1) before treatment, students' understanding of scientific inquiry was at the level of partially informed and naïve, and (2) the immersion of scientific inquiry procedures in lectures improved students' understanding of scientific inquiry with the improved strength of Cohen's d-effect size was 1.10 (much larger than the typical category) or average normalized gain was 0.3 (medium category).

Keywords


scientific inquiry; scientific inquiry-based lecture; views of scientific inquiry

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adisendjaja, Y. H., Rustaman, N. Y., Redjeki, S., & Satori, D. (2017). Science Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Inquiry In Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 812, 12054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/812/1/012054

Anggraeni, N., Adisendjaja, Y. H., & Amprasto, A. (2017). Profile of High School Students’ Understanding of Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895, 12138. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012138

Antink-Meyer, A., Bartos, S., Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2016a). Using Science Camps To Develop Understandings About Scientific Inquiry—Taiwanese Students in a U.S. Summer Science Camp. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(October), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9576-3

Antink-Meyer, A., Bartos, S., Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2016b). Using Science Camps to Develop Understandings about Scientific Inquiry—Taiwanese Students in a U.S. Summer Science Camp. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(S1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9576-3

Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does research tell us? Center on Instruction, 1–41.

Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the Nature of Science through Inquiry to Prospective Elementary Teachers: A Tale of Two Researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<177::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Y

Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning Science and the Science of Learning: Science Educators’ Essay Collection. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). http://www.myilibrary.com?id=175819

Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H., & Chapman, H. (2010). Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9151-x

Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-Based Instruction and Teaching About Nature of Science: Are They Happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z

Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., Loving, C. C., & Gobert, J. D. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513599

Coletta, V. P., & Steinert, J. J. (2020). Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 10108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010108

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.

Gaigher, E., Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2014). Knowledge about Inquiry: A study in South African high schools. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3125–3147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.954156

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hodson, D. (2014). Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

Ilie, M. D. (2014). An adaption of Gagné’s instructional model to increase the teaching effectiveness in the classroom: the impact in Romanian Universities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 767–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9353-6

Kapelari, S. (2015). Garden Learning: A Study on European Botanic Gardens Collaborative Learning Processes. Ubiquity Press. http://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/10.5334/bas/

Kinder, D., & Carnine, D. (1991). Direct instruction: What it is and what it is becoming. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00957004

Krathwohl, A. and. (2002). ( A REVISION OF BLOOM ’ S TAXONOMY ) Sumber. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–219.

Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and Validation of a Multimedia-based Assessment of Scientific Inquiry Abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326–2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (2016). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data Published by : International Biometric Society Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310 Accessed : 29-02-2016 10 : 41 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Ter. 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMA.2010.328

Lazonder, A. W., & Wiskerke-Drost, S. (2015). Advancing Scientific Reasoning in Upper Elementary Classrooms: Direct Instruction Versus Task Structuring. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9522-8

Leblebicioglu, G., Metin, D., Capkinoglu, E., Cetin, P. S., Eroglu Dogan, E., & Schwartz, R. (2017). Changes in Students’ Views about Nature of Scientific Inquiry at a Science Camp. Science and Education, 26(7–9), 889–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9941-z

Leclerc, B.-S., & Dassa, C. (2010). Interrater reliability in content analysis of healthcare service quality using montreal’s conceptual framework. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 24(2), 81–102. https://utorontopress.com/us/canadian-journal-of-program-evaluation

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire: VASI Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125

Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J., & Antink-Meyer, A. (2013). Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147. https://ijemst.net/index.php/ijemst/article/view/19

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. C. N.-H. . L. 2015. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation (Fifth edit). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Levine, D. U. (1985). Improving student achievement through mastery learning programs. In The Jossey-Bass higher education series CN - LC1032 .L48 1985 (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.

Lom, B. (2012). Classroom activities: Simple strategies to incorporate student-centered activities within undergraduate science lectures. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 11(1), 64–71.

Maandig, R. B., Lomibao, L. S., & Luna, C. A. (2017). Structured Content Reading Instruction vs. Direct Instruction: Their Implication on Students’ Achievement, Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking in Mathematics. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 574–578. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-5-5-16

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347

MoEC. (2016). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2016 tentang Standar Proses Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. http://repositori.kemdikbud.go.id

Muntholib, Pratiwi, Y. N., Yahmin, & Parlan. (2019). Chemistry Teachers’ Views about Scientific Inquiry: A Study in East Java Province of Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1227(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1227/1/012007

NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962

NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9596

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. In PISA. OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-assessment-and-analytical-framework_b25efab8-en

Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20263

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351

Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20326

Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7(4), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90011A

Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., Schweingruber, H. A., (U.S.), N. R. C., & Vision, C. on H. S. S. L. R. and. (2006). America’s lab report: investigations in high school science. National Academies Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10103968

Sireci, S. G. (1998). Gathering and Analyzing Content Validity Data. Educational Assessment, 5(4), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0504_2

Stemler, S. (2004). A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9, 1–19.

Steward, M. D., Martin, G. S., Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2010). Using the madeline hunter direct instruction model to improve outcomes assessments in marketing programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475309360152

Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919

Strippel, C. G., & Sommer, K. (2015). Teaching Nature of Scientific Inquiry in Chemistry: How do German chemistry teachers use labwork to teach NOSI? International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 2965–2986. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1119330

Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Southerland, S., & Enderle, P. J. (2016). Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1098–1113. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00093b

Walker, Joi Phelps, & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn: Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Chemistry Students Learn How to Construct Arguments and Engage in Argumentation During a Laboratory Course: Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21082

Walker, Joi Phelps, Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry: An Introduction to a New Instructional Model for Use in Undergraduate Chemistry Labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048–1056. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h

Wattanakasiwich, P., Taleab, P., Sharma, M., & Johnston, I. D. (2013). Development and implementation of a conceptual survey in thermodynamics. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 29–53.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v41i3.33020

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


 

Social Media:

     

 

 Creative Commons License
Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan by Lembaga Pengembangan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan UNY is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/cp/index.

Translator
 
 web analytics
View Our Stats