“Yin” in a guided ınquiry biology classroom – exploring student challenges and difficulties

Jed Aries F.   Castro; Marie Paz E.  Morales

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Jed Aries F. Castro Philippine Science High School – Pampanga, PHILIPPINES
Marie Paz E. Morales Philippine Normal University, PHILIPPINES

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Challenges and difficulties, Guided Inquiry Learning, Science Process Skills, Scientific Literacy, Inquiry-based learning – 5Es

Abstract

Student encountered challenges in performing guided inquiry learning (GIL) activities are a minority literature in science education, but may provide valuable inputs to developing science process skills vital to scientific literacy. This study determined the challenges and difficulties by science-oriented students in performing GIL activities in biology. Cluster sampling determined the participants in the pre-survey (69 grade 8 students) and the actual investigation (30 grade 8 students). A validated survey questionnaire pre-identified the six major difficulties of the students. Validated student and expert questionnaires assessed the level of difficulty in each of the task on the six pre-identified challenges. Results show that science-oriented students and the experts assessed the following with a fair difficulty level: background knowledge; performance of laboratory procedure; managing extended activities; designing an experiment; and writing a laboratory report. The same group assessed the task – data analysis to be “difficult.” The upper (high average to superior IQ) group and lower (average to above average) groups of science oriented students provided a non-significant difference in their difficulty assessment of all the tasks. However, replicating the study to include low cognition students from non-science oriented schools may provide a wider perspective of these student-encountered difficulties and challenges in GIL.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131-142.

Akben, N. (2015). Improving science process skills in science and technology course activities using the inquiry method. Education and Science 40(179), 111-132

Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Paper presented at Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and teaching. June 2008.

Aktamis, H., Hidge, E., & Ozden B. (2016). Effects of the inquiry-based learning method on students’ achievements, science process skills, and attitude towards science: A meta- analysis science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(4), 248-261

Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1998). Blueprints for Reform: Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Australian Council for Educational Research (2014). Retrieved from https://www.acer.edu.au/.

Beyer, B.K. (1979). Teaching thinking in social studies: Using inquiry in classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Beal, C. R., & Stevens, R. H. (2007). Student motivation and performance in scientific problem solving simulations. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 539-541). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, Full Report. (2006). Retrieved from http://bscs.org/sites/default/files/_media/about/downloads/BSCS_5E_Full_Report.pdf.

Broussard, S. C., & Garrison, M. E. (2004). The relationship between classroom motivation and academic achievement in elementary school-aged children. Family Consumer Science Research Journal, 33(2), 106-120.

Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science teachers views of inquiry. Science Education, 90, 784–802.

Bybee, R. (2002). Scientific inquiry, student learning, and the science curriculum. In R. Bybee (Ed.), Learning Science and the Science of Learning (pp. 25-36). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blinkenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003). Students’ learning approaches, reasoning abilities, motivational goals and epistemological beliefs in differing college science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18-23.

Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.

Colvill, M., & Pattie, I. (2002). The building blocks for scientific literacy. Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 18(3), 20-30.

Cooper, J. (2014). Guided inquiry by design: The story of student learning. School Library Monthly, 30(4), 18-20.

Culture Fair Intelligence. (2000). Retrieved from https://www.123test.com/culture-fair-intelligence-tests/

Dasgupta, A. Anderson,T. & Pelaez, N. (2014). Development and validation of a rubric for diagnosing students’ experimental design knowledge and difficulties. Purdue e-Pubs, Retrieved from Purdue University Libraries

website:http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=pibergpubs

Edelson, D., Gordin, D., Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.

Education Bureau (2008). Digital 21 strategy: Foreword. Retrieved from http://www.info.gov.hk/digital21/eng/strategy/2008/Foreword.htm.

Ergin, I., Kanli, U., & Unsal, Y. (2008). An example for the effect of 5E model on the academic success and attitude levels of students’: “Inclined Projectile Motion”. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 5(3), 47-59

Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 570-574. doi: 10.1021/ed076p570

Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415- 435.

Green, D. (2003). Assessing general education learning outcomes achieved in the inquiry-guided, self-designed major at North Carolina State University. The Journal of General Education, 52(4), 304-316. Doi:10.1353/jge.2004.0013.

Grilley, P. (2007). Taoist philosophy 101: understanding the meaning of yin and yang. Retrieved from http://www.yogajournal.com/article/yoga-101/learning-yin-and-yang/

Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072-1088.

Healey, M., & A. Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. York, United Kingdom: Higher Education Academy.

Hobson, A. (2006). Guest Editorial, “Science literacy and backward priorities,” Physics Teacher. 44, 488–489. DOI: 10:1119/1.2362936

Hocking, C. (1995). The RIBS Project: report writing in the biological sciences, Teaching matters – Proceedings of Symposium, Victoria University, Melbourne.

Johnson, C. (2011). Activities Using Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in the Foreign Language Classroom. A Journal of the American Association of Teachers of German, 14(1):30-38.

Johnson, J. O. (1996). Child psychology. Calabar, Nigeria: Wusen Press Limited.

Jin, G., & Bierma, T. J. (2011). Guided inquiry learning in environmental health. Journal of Environmental Health, 73(6), 80-85. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21306099

Kam, R, & Hoop, B. (2013). Facilitating Inquiry-Based Science Learning Online in a Virtual University. Higher Learning Research Communications, 3(2), 79-91.

Kochmer, C. (2016). What is yin yang? Retrieved from http://personaltao.com/teachings/questions/what-is-yin-yang/

Kong, S. C., & Song, Y. (2014). The impact of a principle-based pedagogical design on inquiry-based learning in a seamless learning environment in Hong Kong. Educational

Technology & Society, 17(2), 127–141. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/17_2/11.pdf.

Konikova, M. (2016). IQ, motivation, and success in life: It’s less about the intelligence and more about the incentives. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/artful-choice/iq-motivation-and-success-in-life-its-less-about-the-intelligence-and-more-about-the-incentives.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx,R. W., Bass, K. M.,Fredericks, J.,& Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3), 215-234.

Kuhlthau, C, & Maniotes, L. (2012). Residential institute for designing guided inquiry. Presentation, the Center for International Librarianship Summer Institute at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, June 27-29, 2012.

Leach, J., and P. Scott. (2002). The concept of learning demand as a tools for designing teaching sequences. Science Education, 38, 115–142.

Leach, J., and P. Scott. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science Education, 12(1), 91–113.

Lee, V. S. (2012). Opportunities and challenges in institutionalizing inquiry-guided learning in colleges and universities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. doi: 10.1002/tl.20011.

Lee, V.S. (2011). The power of inquiry as a way of learning. Innovative Higher Education, 36(3), 149-160.

Marshall, J., Horton, R., & White, C. (2009). Equipping teachers. Science Teacher, 76(4), 46– 53.

Martin, J. R. (1990), Literacy in Science; Learning to handle Text as Technology. In F. Christie (ed), Literacy for a Changing World, ACER, Melbourne.

Mohamed, A.-R., (2008). Effects of active learning variants on student performance and learning perceptions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ ijsotl

Morales, M. (2014). Non-traditional Design and Development of Culture and Language. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 1(2), 26-37.

Moscovici, H. (2003). Using the dictator, the expert, and the political activist prototypes with secondary science preservice teachers: Shifting practices towards inquiry science teaching and learning. Paper prepared for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, PA

Nevile, M. (1996). Literacy culture shock: Developing academic literacy at university, Prospect, 19(1), 38-51.

Ozdemir, O. & Isik, H. (2015). Effect of inquiry-based science activities on prospective elementary teachers’ use of science process skills and inquiry sStrategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 12(1), 43-56

O’Toole, M. (1994). Access and utilisation: A classroom-based approach to increasing student literacy in science and technology. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 17(3), 198-211.

Özsevgeç, T. (2006). Determining effectiveness of students guiding material based on the 5E model in “Force and Motion Unit”. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 3(2), 24-27

Nidup, T. & Yodyingyong, S. (2015). Inexperience students’ perception, difficulties and challenges towards implementation of lab-based inquiry approach: a case study in Bhutan. Retrieved from http://worldconferences.net/proceedings/gse2015/

Pewnima, K., Ketpichainaronga, W., Panijpanb, B., Ruenwongsaa, P. (2011). Creating young scientists through community science projects. Science Direct. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, 2956–2962 Retrieved from: http://www.il.mahidol.ac.th/office/ra/images/research/pdf/2554/18-2554.pdf

Rajan, N., & Marcus, L. (2009). Student attitudes and learning outcomes from process oriented guided-inquiry (POGIL) strategy in an introductory chemistry course for non-science majors: An action research study. TheChemical Educator, 14(2), 85-93.

Repinc, U., & Juznic, P. (2013). Guided inquiry projects: enrichment for gifted pupils. School Libraries Worldwide, 19(1), 114-127. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2952410531/guided-inquiry-projects-enrichment-for-gifted-pupils

Rola, A., Abrantes, I., Gomes, C. (2004). Students’ difficulties in biology and geology project work, in Portuguese secondary education. Retrieved from

http://conference.pixel-online.net/science/common/download/Paper_pdf/229-STM21 FP-Rola-NPSE.pdf

Sandra, D. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest and academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2006). Self-concept and self-efficacy in mathematics: Relation with mathematics motivation and achievement. Paper presented at the proceedings of The International Conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana.

Shen-Nong Limited (2005). Basic principles of Yin yang. Retrieved from http://www.shen- nong.com/eng/principles/whatyinyang.html

Siebert, E.D. & McIntosh, W.J. (2001). College pathways to the science education standards. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Spencer, J. N. (2006). New approaches to chemistry teaching: 2005 George C. Pimental Award. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 528–533.

Song, Y., & Looi, C.-K. (2012). Linking teacher beliefs, practices and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL environment: A tale of two teachers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 129-159.

Tan, M. (2004). Nurturing scientific and technological literacy through environmental education. Journal of International Cooperation in Education 7(1) 115-131.

Wilke, R., & Strait, W. (2005). Practical advice for teaching inquiry-based science process skills in the biological sciences. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9), 534-540.

Yeo, J., & Tan, S. C. (2010). Constructive use of authoritative sources in science meaning‐ making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1739-1754.

Zhu, Y., & Leung, F. K. S. (2011). Motivation and achievement: Is there an East Asian model? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1189-1212.