A Study of Teaching for the Development of Scientific Inquiry Competence of Science Teachers in Lower Secondary Level
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research objective was to study teaching for the development of scientific inquiry competence of science teachers in lower secondary level. Sample used in this research was 372 science teachers who teach in lower secondary level, sample size was calculated using Yamane’s formula at the confidence level of 95 percent, all of whom were obtained by multi-stage random sampling. Research tool was a questionnaire about teaching for the development of scientific inquiry competence of science teachers in lower secondary level. Data were analyzed by finding the frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
Research results showed that the science teachers in lower secondary level teaching for the development of scientific inquiry competence in the following order. 1) Ask students to formulate questions/participate in asking questions according to situations presented to the students (97.1%). 2) Ask students to conduct experiments as planned (94.1%) 3) Ask students to analyze data from situations/surveys/experiments (91.2%) 4) Ask students to generate hypothesis about what they suspect (85.3%) 5) Ask students to survey as planned (79.4%) 6) Ask students to design experiments (63.6%), and 7) Ask students to design surveys (52.9%). When considering the features of questions, hypotheses, designing surveys and experiments, and analyzing data that the teachers ask students to do to develop scientific inquiry competence, it was found that several features were less than 50%, particularly in the top 3 lowest levels were telling trend or implications for the next surveys/experiments (3.1%), assessing the credibility of the data (18.8%), and allowing students evaluate processes for improving surveys/experiments from data (18.8%) which deserve further improve.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ในกรณีที่กองบรรณาธิการ หรือผู้เชี่ยวชาญ ซึ่งได้รับเชิญให้เป็นผู้ตรวจบทความวิจัย หรือ บทความทางวิชาการมีความเห็นว่าควรแก้ไขความบกพร่อง ทางกองบรรณาธิการจะส่งต้นฉบับให้ ผู้เขียนพิจารณาจัดการแก้ไขให้เหมาะสมก่อนที่จะลงพิมพ์ ทั้งนี้ กองบรรณาธิการจะยึดถือความคิด เห็นของผู้เชี่ยวชาญเป็นเกณฑ์
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, J.C., Boone, W.J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Assessment of competencies in scientific inquiry through the application of Rasch measurement techniques. Education Science, 8, 184; doi:10.3390/educsci8040184.
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, 2719–2749.
Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students’ performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 133–145.
Chang, H-P., Chen, C-C., Guo, G-J., Cheng, Y-J., Lin, C-Y., & Jen, T-H. (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science: Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1213–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9256-x
DfES/QCA (Department for Education and Skills/Qualification and Curriculum Authority). (2004). Science—The National Curriculum for England; HMSO: London, UK.
Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2000). Intermediate General National Vocational Qualification (GNVQ) Science: A missed opportunity for a focus on procedural understanding? Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(2), 201-214, DOI: 10.1080/713694978
Germann, P.J., & Aram, R.J. (1996). Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 773–798.
Klahr, D., Fay, A.L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.
Kultusminister Konferenz (KMK). (2005). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz—Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss; Luchterhand: München, Germany.
Lubben, F., & Millar, R. (1996). Children’s ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 955-968, DOI: 10.1080/0950069960180807NGSS
Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States. Available online: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards (accessed on 12 January).
Nowak, K.H., Nehring, A., Tiemann, R., & zu Belzen, A.U. (2013). Assessing students’ abilities in processes of scientific inquiry in biology using a paper-and-pencil test. Journal of Biological Education, 47, 182–188.
NRC/National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA.
NRC/National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA.
Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.
Temiz, B.K., Tasar, M.F., & Tan, M. (2006). Development and validation of a multiple format test of science process skills. International Education Journal, 7, 1007–1027.
Vogt, F., & Schmiemann, P. (2020). Assessing biology pre-service teachers’ professional vision of teaching scientific inquiry. Education Science, 10(11), 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110332
Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row Publication.
