Scientific Explanation Ability Assessment Based on Context-Rich Problems for Biology Student Teachers
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The study aims to investigate the relationship between scientific explanation ability and biology conceptual understanding of biology student teachers. The Scientific Explanation Ability (SEA) test consisted of open-ended questions on ten daily biology problem contexts (Cronbach’s alpha equals to 0.84) and the Biology Conceptual Understanding (BCU) test consisted of ten open-ended questions related to content used in SEA test (Cronbach’s alpha equals to 0.78) were developed. The tests were administered to 31 fourth year biology student teachers. The data revealed that biology student teachers had quite low average score of scientific explanation abilities (40.33%) and quite high average score of biology conceptual understanding (73.33 %). There is no relationship between student teachers’ scientific explanation ability and biology conceptual understanding.
Article Details
References
สถาบันส่งเสริมการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี. (2561). ผลการประเมิน PISA 2015 วิทยาศาสตร์ การอ่าน และคณิตศาสตร์ ความเป็นเลิศ และความเท่าเทียมทางการศึกษา. กรุงเทพฯ: สถาบันส่งเสริมการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education. 22(8), 797 – 817.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 1– 30.
Chinn, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: a comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109 – 138.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393.
Enghag, M., Gustafsson, P., & Jonsson, G. (2007). From Everyday Life Experiences to Physics Understanding Occurring in Small Group Work with Context Rich Problems During Introductory Physics Work at University. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 449–467.
Enghag, M., Gustafsson, P., & Jonsson, G.. (2009). Talking physics during small-group work with context-rich problems – analysed from an ownership perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 455–472.
Federer, M. R., Nehm, R. H., Opfer, J. E., & Pearl, D. (2014). Using a Constructed-Response Instrument to Explore the Effects of Item Position and Item Features on the Assessment of Students’ Written Scientific Explanations. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 527–553.
Hartmann, S. Upmeier zu Belzen, Dirk, A., Dirk, K. & Pant, H. (2015). Scientific Reasoning in Higher Education. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 47–53.
Jonsson, G., Gustafsson, P., & Enghag, M. (2007). Context rich problems as an educational tool in physics teaching – a case study. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 26–34.
Kampourakis, K., Silveira, P. & Strasser, B. J. (2016). How Do Preservice Biology Teachers Explain the Origin of Biological Traits?: A Philosophical Analysis. Science Education, 100(6), 1124–1149.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Supporting Students Construction of Scientific Explanation through Generic versus Context-Specific Written Scaffolds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 2006.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. S.. (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. & Krajcik, J. S.. (2012). Supporting Grade 5 – 8 Students in Constructing Explanation In Science: The Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning Framework for Talk and Writing. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. S.. (in press). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Metz, K. E. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nehm, R. H., Beggrow, E., Opfer, J., & Ha, M. (2012). Reasoning about natural selection: Diagnosing contextual competency using the ACORNS instrument. The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 92–98.
Ningsi, S., Suhandi, A., Kaniawati, A., & Samsudin A. (2019). Development of scientific explanation skills test instrument. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3(1157), 1–6.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.
Ruiz-Primo, M., Tsai, S., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing One Premise of Scientific Inquiry in Science Classrooms: Examining Student, Scientific Explanations and Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.
Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. (1997). Evolving explanations in high school biology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Sandoval, W. A., Crawford, V., Bienkowski, M., Hurst, K., & Millwood, K. (2004). Effects of explanation support on learning genetics. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download doi=10.1.1.80.8436&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.
Sesen, B. A. (2013). Diagnosing pre-service science teachers' understanding of chemistry concepts by using computer-mediated predict–observe–explain tasks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 239-246.
Tang, K. S. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): an exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440.
Yang, H. T. & Wang, K. H. (2013). A Teaching Model for Scaffolding 4th Grade Students’ Scientific Explanation Writing. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 531–548.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 9–149.