Guided Inquiry-Based Learning Practices

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 471 - 487, 11.07.2023

Aslı Şensoy , Munise Güneş

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.795391

Abstract

This study was aimed to examine guided inquiry-based learning effect, which is in the "human body systems" unit at the seventh-grade level, on academic achievement and scientific process skills. In this direction, the study was conducted with 46 seventh-grade students. One of the groups consisting of 23 students constituted the experimental group where the guided inquiry practices designed by the researchers were performed. And the other group constituted the control group where learning was provided through the direct instruction method. Data were obtained by the scientific process skills test and academic achievement test. These tests applied before and after the lessons to both groups. When the data were analyzed, the academic achievement test mean score of the experimental group was higher if we compare with the control group. But the mean score was not statistically significant. In the mean scores of the scientific process skills test, it was concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in favor of the experimental group. Accordingly, it is thought that guided inquiry-based learning can contribute the basic scientific process skills of the students but there is no extra contribution found to academic achievement if the concepts are easy to remember.

Keywords

Guided inquiry-based learning, Academic achievement, Scientific process skills

Rehberlikli Araştırma-Sorgulamaya Dayalı Öğrenme Uygulamaları

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, yedinci sınıf düzeyinde "vücudumuzdaki sistemler" ünitesinde yer alan, rehberlikli araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenmenin akademik başarı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda araştırma 46 yedinci sınıf öğrencisi ile yürütülmüştür. Araştırmacılar tarafından tasarlanan Rehberlikli araştırma-sorgulama uygulamalarının gerçekleştirildiği deney grubunu 23 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Diğer grup ise doğrudan öğretim yöntemi ile öğrenmenin sağlandığı kontrol grubunu oluşturmuştur. Veriler bilimsel süreç becerileri testi ve akademik başarı testi ile elde edilmiştir. Bu testler her iki gruba da derslerden önce ve sonra uygulanmıştır. Veriler incelendiğinde, deney grubunun akademik başarı testi puan ortalamasının kontrol grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Ancak ortalama puanları arasındaki bu farklılık istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Bilimsel süreç becerileri testinin ortalama puanlarında deney grubu lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Buna göre, Rehberlikli araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenmenin öğrencilerin temel bilimsel süreç becerilerine katkı sağlayabileceği ancak kavramların hatırlanması noktasında akademik başarıya katkıda bulunmayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Rehberlikli araştırma-sorgulama, Akademik başarı, Bilimsel süreç becerileri

References

• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php
• Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
• Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students’ experiments—what kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749.
• Aydoğdu, B. (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde bilimsel süreç becerilerini etkileyen değişkenlerin belirlenmesi (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
• Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2005). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
• Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.
• Cairns, D. (2019). Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achievement in an inquiry-based learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 1-23.
• Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design – qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Dori, Y. J., Zohar, A., Fischer-Shachor, D., Kohan-Mass, J., & Carmi, M. (2018). Gender-fair assessment of young gifted students’ scientific thinking skills, International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 1-26.
• Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
• Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Rewiev of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 7(2), 9–33.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
• Inter Academy Partnership. (2010). Taking IBSE into secondary education report. Retrieved from http://www.interacademies.org/File.aspx?id=15174
• Johnson, K. E. (2004). Middle school science inquiry: connecting experiences and beliefs to practice (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver.
• Justice, C., Warry, W., Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Miller, S., Rice, J., & Sammon, S. (2002). A grammar for inquiry: linking goals and methods in a collaboratively taught social sciences inquiry course. Windsor: Special Publication of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education and McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
• Keys, C. W. ve Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the Failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
• Kuhn, D. (2016). What do young science students need to learn about variables? Science Education, 100(2), 392–403.
• Longo, C. M. (2012). Effects of an inquiry-based science program on critical thinking, science process skills, creativity, and science fair achievement of middle school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Connecticut State University, Danbury.
• Miller, D. K. G. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based, hands-on labs on achievement in middle school science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Liberty University, Lynchburg.
• 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.
• Nagy, M. H. (1953). Children's conceptions of some bodily functions. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 83(2), 199-216.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards [Adobe Digital Editions version]. doi: 10.17226/4962
• National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards [Adobe Digital Editions version]. doi: 10.17226/9596
• Newman, W., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J. & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257–279.
• Poderoso, C. (2013). The science experience: The relationship between an inquiry-based science program and student outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California State University, Fullerton.
• Prokop, P. & Faněoviěová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: do they really draw what they know?. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86–95.
• Ramadas, J & Nair, U. (1996). The system idea as a tool in understanding conceptions about the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 355-368.
• Reiss, M. J. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 383–399.
• Stout, B. (2001). Tools for scientific inquiry in a fifth-grade classroom. Primary Voices K – 6, 10(1), 23-27.
• Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394.
• Teixeira, F. M. (2000). What happens to the food we eat? Children's conceptions of the structure and function of the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 507-520.
• van Uum, M. S. J., Verhoeff, R. P. ve Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: Towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469.
• Vosniadou, S. (2003). How children learn. Educational Practices Series-7. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001254/125456e.pdf%0A%0A
• Worth, K., Duque, M. ve Saltiel, E. (2009). Desinging and implementing inquiry-based science units for primary education. Pollen Project. Retrieved from www.pollen-europa.net
• Wu, H-K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth grader's inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.
• Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.