How to open inquiry teaching? An alternative teaching scaffold to foster students' inquiry skills

被引:8
|
作者
Baur, Armin [1 ]
Emden, Markus [2 ]
机构
[1] Heidelberg Univ Educ, Biol & Biol Didact, Neuenheimer Feld 561, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Zurich Univ Teacher Educ, Res & Dev, Lagerstr 2, CH-8090 Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
guided inquiry; open inquiry; scaffolding; scientific inquiry; structured inquiry; SCIENCE TEACHER; ACHIEVEMENT; DISCOVERY; WORK; INSTRUCTION; ATTITUDES; EDUCATION;
D O I
10.1515/cti-2019-0013
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Students are expected to learn scientific inquiry. It consists of several individual processes that need to be coordinated. Recent teaching concepts have suggested fading students into a limited set of interconnected processes, mostly using backwards-fading techniques. The efficiency of open approaches to learning has been criticized repeatedly in science education research. Following a brief discussion of previous scaffolded inquiry teaching concepts developing students into "open inquiry", it is argued that these have been interpreted too strictly in science classrooms: (i) restricting inquiry to too few processes; (ii) delivering support to students in an all-or-nothing fashion; (iii) understanding opening of inquiry as a one-way-street insensitive to needs of momentary closing. This is not justified by the situated character of pedagogical considerations that depend on learners' needs and potentials, teachers' strengths and insecurities, and potential constraints from content. An alternative matrix for teaching inquiry is suggested that distinguishes five processes in four variations of openness. An example from chemistry shows that the achieved degree of openness is derived from situated considerations and is not ruled by a priori decisions on openness. Nor is this decision governed by faithfully adhering to a schematic sequence (confirmatory -> structured -> guided -> open inquiry).
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] OPEN TO QUESTION - THE ART OF TEACHING AND LEARNING BY INQUIRY - BATEMAN,WL
    DAVIS, SJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF READING, 1991, 35 (01): : 78 - 79
  • [32] Teaching & Learning Inquiry Reviews
    Kupatadze, Ketevan
    [J]. TEACHING & LEARNING INQUIRY-THE ISSOTL JOURNAL, 2022, 10 : 1 - 2
  • [33] Design of an ITS for inquiry teaching
    Wong, LH
    Looi, CK
    Quek, HC
    [J]. CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY: PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD WORLD CONGRESS ON EXPERT SYSTEMS, VOLS I AND II, 1996, : 421 - 428
  • [34] Classroom teaching through inquiry
    Buch, NJ
    Wolff, TF
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE, 2000, 126 (03) : 105 - 109
  • [35] TEACHING OF ETHICS - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
    CALLAHAN, D
    [J]. HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 1977, 7 (06) : S1 - S1
  • [36] TRAINING FOR INQUIRY TEACHING - IS IT REALISTIC
    SILVERBL.F
    [J]. EDUCATION, 1973, 93 (03): : 228 - 229
  • [37] Practices of inquiry in teaching and research
    Hammer, D
    Schifter, D
    [J]. COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION, 2001, 19 (04) : 441 - 478
  • [38] TEACHING AND RESEARCH AS FORMS OF INQUIRY
    BENNETT, JB
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THOUGHT, 1979, 14 (02) : 105 - 108
  • [39] Teaching Electrolysis with Guided Inquiry
    Gelder, John I.
    Abraham, Michael R.
    Greenbowe, Thomas J.
    [J]. SPUTNIK TO SMARTPHONES: A HALF-CENTURY OF CHEMISTRY EDUCATION, 2015, 1208 : 141 - 154
  • [40] Teaching for understanding inquiry kit
    不详
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, 1996, 54 (04) : 94 - 94