A Review of the Assessment Tools for the Student-Led Cognitive Outcomes/Contributions in the Sense of Inquiry-based Teaching

Year 2018, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 0 - 0, 31.07.2019

Yılmaz Soysal

https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466372

Cited By: 3

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to summarise an array
of tools both for science teachers and particularly for science teacher
educators to reconsider student-led cognitive outcomes that are initiated and
maintained within the in-class science inquiry activities. For this purpose,
first, the essential characteristics of the inquiry-based teaching are
described and Bloomian taxonomies in assessing the student-led outcomes and
student-led intellectual contributions to the classroom discourse is
interrogated. Based on the multifaceted and social-interactive characteristics
of the inquiry-based teaching, four assessment tools are displayed, justified
and exemplified for the pedagogical purposes of the science teaching and
learning. The assessment tools are gathered from six different groups of
scholars’ research efforts. As a whole, the tools are able to assess the
quantitative-qualitative student-led outcomes, the students’ capacities of
operating inquiry skills and practices, the students’ abilities to attain evidence-based
reasoning and the students’ capabilities to generate varying degrees of
argumentation. Concrete and fictional instances and potential in-class uses of
the offered tools are clarified for the science educators and science teachers.     

Keywords

Inquiry-based teaching, cognitive outcomes, intellectual contributions

References

• Abrami, P. C., Cohen, P. A., & d’Apollonia, S. (1988). Implementation problems in meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58, 151-179. *Anderson, L., Krathwohl, R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (Eds.) (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy. New York, NY: Longman. *Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745-1765. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ Benedict-Chambers, A., Kademian, S. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2017). Guiding students towards sensemaking: teacher questions focused on integrating scientific practices with science content. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 1977-2001. **Biggs, j. B. & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy (New York, Academic Press). **Biggs, J. B., (1992). Modes of learning, forms of knowing, and ways of schooling. In Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., and Efklides, A. (Eds.), Neo‐Piagetian Theories of Cognitive Development. London: Routledge. (pp. 31‐51). **Biggs, J.B. (1993). What do inventories of students` learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3‐19. *Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan. **Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The Evidence-Based Reasoning Framework: Assessing Scientific Reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123-141. **Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M. & Wilson, M. (2010b). A Framework for Analyzing Scientific Reasoning in Assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142-174. Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Educational Research, 61, 157-178. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371. *Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The Nature of Elementary Student Science Discourse in the Context of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449. Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M., (2012). The Importance of Embedding Argument Within Science Classrooms. In M.S. Khine (ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 (pp. 39-53). **Chan, C. C., Hong, J. H. & Chan, M. Y. C. (2001). Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: a comparative review. (Unpublished manuscript, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University) . **Chick, H. (1998). Cognition in the formal modes: research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(2), 4-26. *Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346. **Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. **Collis, K.F. and Davey, H.A. (1986). A technique for evaluating skills in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 651‐663. *Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. *Driscoll, A. and Wood, S. (2007). Developing Outcomes‐based Assessment for Learner‐centred Education: A Faculty Introduction. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. **Ennis, Robert H. (2002). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. In Arthur L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds (3rd Edition). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (pp. 44-46.) **Ennis, Robert H. (2004). Applying soundness standards to qualified reasoning. Informal Logic, 24(1), 23-39. **Ennis, R. (2011). Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective, Part I. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(1), 4-18. **Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933. **Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. "The Delphi Report," Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. (ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423). **Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J. & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A Framework for Analyzing Evidence-Based Reasoning in Science Classroom Discourse, Educational Assessment, (15), 3-4, 175-196. Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (2003). Metaanalysis: Formulation and interpretation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1376–1379. **Grimberg, B. I. & Hand, B. (2009) Cognitive Pathways: Analysis of students' written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503-521. *Gunel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers’ implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term professional development program on the Science Writing Heuristic. Unpublished PhD thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa. **Hardy, I. Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The Analysis of Classroom Discourse: Elementary School Science Curricula Advancing Reasoning with Evidence. Educational Assessment, 15, 197-221. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer. *Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. **Lake, D. (1999). Helping students to go SOLO: teaching critical numeracy in the biological sciences. Journal of Biological Education, 33(4), 191-198. Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English national literacy strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 701-737. Lin, T.C., Lin, T.J. & Tsai, C.C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346-1372. *Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38. *McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. *McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. *McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2; 2), 233-268. *McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific Discourse in Three Urban Classrooms: The Role of the Teacher in Engaging High School Students in Argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203-229. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1(2), 137-168. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concept NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from:http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for-states-by-states **Panizzon, D. (2002). Using a cognitive structural model to provide new insights into students` understanding of diffusion. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1427-1450. Pimentel, D. S. & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394. *Potter & Kustra (2012). Course Design for Constructive Alignment. Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Windsor (accessed from uwindsor.ca/ctl/system/files/PRIMER-on-Learning-Outcomes.pdf on 15.01.2017) **Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. R. (2010). Science Classroom Discussion as Scientific Argumentation: A Study of Conceptually Rich (and Poor) Student Talk. Educational Assessment, 15, 222-250. *Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 137-162. Soysal, Y. (2012). Sosyobilimsel Argümantasyon Kalitesine Alan Bilgisi Düzeyinin Etkisi: Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalar. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Bolu. Soysal, Y., & Radmard, S. (2017). Sosyal Oluşturmacı Öğretimin Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme ve Öğretmeye Yönelik İnançlarına ve Sınıf içi Uygulamalarına Etkisinin İncelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 16(4), 1505-1531, DOI: 10.17051/ilkonline.2017.342972. Soysal, Y., & Radmard, S. (2018). Social negotiations of meanings and changes in the beliefs of prospective teachers: A vygostkian perspective, Educational Studies, 44(1), 57-80, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2017.1345676. *Sugrue, B. (2002). Problems with Bloom's taxonomy. Retrieved on January 20, 2017, from: https://eppicinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/sugrue_bloom_critique_perfxprs.pdf Suri, H. & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research systhesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395-430. **Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument (Updated edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van D. Booven (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.