Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:20:02.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - BioKIDS

An Animated Conversation on the Development of Curricular Activity Structures for Inquiry Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Nancy Butler Songer
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

The art of developing and utilizing curriculum materials to foster understanding involves, as Bruner puts it, an active conversation between learners and materials:

All one can do for a learner en route to her forming a view of her own is to aid and abet her on her own voyage. The means for aiding and abetting a learner is sometimes called a “curriculum,” and what we have learned is that there is no such thing as the curriculum. For in effect, a curriculum is like an animated conversation on a topic that can never be fully defined, although one can set limits upon it.

(Bruner, 1996, pp. 115–116)

For decades, scientists and science educators have struggled to develop curriculum materials that support frequently changing definitions of scientific literacy. Today, definitions of scientific literacy include understanding specific concepts in science, and also being able to engage in several kinds of complex reasoning including distinguishing salient from irrelevant information, explaining and predicting scientific events, reading with understanding, and evaluating and applying evidence and arguments appropriately (National Research Council, 1996).

Curricular reforms in science often represent one-shot interventions intended to develop an understanding of scientific facts or complex reasoning skills in as little as a few days or weeks, despite the suggestion from theories of learning (e.g., Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) that the development of conceptual knowledge in science takes years and multiple exposures. Although many science programs outside the United States support sequential building of concepts and reasoning (e.g. Japan; see Linn, Lewis, Tsuchida, & Songer, 2000), American precollege science curricula rarely take into account the organized, longitudinal development of science concepts or reasoning skills.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? Science Teacher 25, 45.Google Scholar
Barrett, K., & Willard, C. (1998). Schoolyard ecology: Teacher's guide. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, R., Buchwald, C., Crissman, S., Heil, D., Kuebis, P, Matsumoto, C., & McInerney, J. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, The National Center for Improving Science Education.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. L. (2000) Resources, instruction and research. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy Working Paper W-00–2. The University of Washington.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and overused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2004). The journal of the learning sciences: Special issue on scaffolding. Volume 13, Number 3. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
DPS Science Core Curriculum Outcomes. (2000). http://www.detroit.k12.mi.us/index.shtml.
Fletcher, S., Lawson, C. A., & Rawitscher-Kunkel, E. (1970). Organisms, teacher's guide. Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Rand McNally & Co.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. Basic Books, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Education 14(2), 169–175.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1992). Progression in understanding of ecological concepts by pupils ages 5 to 16. Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003) Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education. 25(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (submitted) Expanding an understanding of scaffolding theory using an inquiry-fostering science program. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. October, 2004.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. B. (2000) Beyond fourth grade science: Why do US and Japanese students diverge? Educational Researcher 29(3), 4–14.Google Scholar
Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research 65(1): 93–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, K. (2000). Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In Minstrell, J. and Zee, E. (Eds.) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
Michigan Curriculum Framework Science Benchmarks. (2000). http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-28753_28760-,00.html.
Minstrell, J., & Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
Parr, C., Jones, T., & Songer, N. B. (2004). Evaluation of a handheld data collection interface for science. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 13(2), 233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, D. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1996). Splintered Vision: An investigation of U.S. and mathematics education. U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Songer, N. B. (2004). Evidence of complex reasoning in technology and science: Notes from inner city Detroit, Michigan, USA. IPSI-2004 Pescara Conference, Italy.
Songer, N. B. (2005). Congressional testimony: Challenges to American competitiveness in math and science, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness. United States House of Representatives. http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/109th/21st/mathscience051905/wl051905.htm.
Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. (2005). Persistence of inquiry: Evidence of complex reasoning among inner city middle school students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1998). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In Matthews, M. R. (Ed.), Constructivism in science education (11–30). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students, Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • BioKIDS
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.022
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • BioKIDS
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.022
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • BioKIDS
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.022
Available formats
×