Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8
De Van Vo, Geraldine Mooney Simmie
{"title":"Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques","authors":"De Van Vo, Geraldine Mooney Simmie","doi":"10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While national curricula in science education highlight the importance of inquiry-based learning, assessing students’ capabilities in scientific inquiry remains a subject of debate. Our study explored the construction, developmental trends and validation techniques in relation to assessing scientific inquiry using a systematic literature review from 2000 to 2024. We used PRISMA guidelines in combination with bibliometric and Epistemic Network Analyses. Sixty-three studies were selected, across all education sectors and with a majority of studies in secondary education. Results showed that assessing scientific inquiry has been considered around the world, with a growing number (37.0%) involving global researcher networks focusing on novel modelling approaches and simulation performance in digital-based environments. Although there was modest variation between the frameworks, studies were mainly concerned with cognitive processes and psychological characteristics and were reified from wider ethical, affective, intersectional and socio-cultural considerations. Four core categories (formulating questions/hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions) were most often used with nine specific components (formulate questions formulate prediction/hypotheses, set experiment, vary independent variable, measure dependent variable, control confounding variables, describe data, interpret data, reach reasonable conclusion). There was evidence of transitioning from traditional to online modes, facilitated by interactive simulations, but the independent tests and performance assessments, in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats remained the most frequently used approach with a greater emphasis on context than heretofore. The findings will be especially useful for science teachers, researchers and policy decision makers with an active interest in assessing capabilities in scientific inquiry.</p>","PeriodicalId":14267,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While national curricula in science education highlight the importance of inquiry-based learning, assessing students’ capabilities in scientific inquiry remains a subject of debate. Our study explored the construction, developmental trends and validation techniques in relation to assessing scientific inquiry using a systematic literature review from 2000 to 2024. We used PRISMA guidelines in combination with bibliometric and Epistemic Network Analyses. Sixty-three studies were selected, across all education sectors and with a majority of studies in secondary education. Results showed that assessing scientific inquiry has been considered around the world, with a growing number (37.0%) involving global researcher networks focusing on novel modelling approaches and simulation performance in digital-based environments. Although there was modest variation between the frameworks, studies were mainly concerned with cognitive processes and psychological characteristics and were reified from wider ethical, affective, intersectional and socio-cultural considerations. Four core categories (formulating questions/hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions) were most often used with nine specific components (formulate questions formulate prediction/hypotheses, set experiment, vary independent variable, measure dependent variable, control confounding variables, describe data, interpret data, reach reasonable conclusion). There was evidence of transitioning from traditional to online modes, facilitated by interactive simulations, but the independent tests and performance assessments, in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats remained the most frequently used approach with a greater emphasis on context than heretofore. The findings will be especially useful for science teachers, researchers and policy decision makers with an active interest in assessing capabilities in scientific inquiry.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估科学探究:任务、工具和技术的系统文献综述
尽管国家科学教育课程强调探究式学习的重要性,但评估学生的科学探究能力仍是一个争论不休的话题。我们的研究通过对 2000 年至 2024 年的文献进行系统回顾,探索了与科学探究评估相关的构建、发展趋势和验证技术。我们结合文献计量学和认识论网络分析,使用了 PRISMA 准则。我们选取了 63 项研究,涉及所有教育部门,其中大多数研究涉及中学教育。结果表明,世界各地都在考虑对科学探究进行评估,越来越多的研究(37.0%)涉及全球研究人员网络,重点关注新型建模方法和基于数字环境的模拟性能。尽管各框架之间的差异不大,但研究主要关注认知过程和心理特征,并从更广泛的伦理、情感、交叉和社会文化考虑因素中重新整合。最常用的是四个核心类别(提出问题/假设、设计实验、分析数据和得出结论)和九个具体 组成部分(提出问题、提出预测/假设、设置实验、改变自变量、测量因变量、控制混杂变量、 描述数据、解释数据、得出合理结论)。有证据表明,在交互式模拟的推动下,教学模式正在从传统模式向在线模式过渡,但选择题和开放式两种形式的独立测试和成绩评估仍然是最常用的方法,与以往相比,这种方法更加注重情境。这些研究结果对于积极关注科学探究能力评估的科学教师、研究人员和政策决策者尤为有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: The objective of this journal is to publish original, fully peer-reviewed articles on a variety of topics and research methods in both science and mathematics education. The journal welcomes articles that address common issues in mathematics and science education and cross-curricular dimensions more widely. Specific attention will be paid to manuscripts written by authors whose native language is not English and the editors have made arrangements for support in re-writing where appropriate. Contemporary educators highlight the importance of viewing knowledge as context-oriented and not limited to one domain. This concurs with current curriculum reforms worldwide for interdisciplinary and integrated curricula. Modern educational practice also focuses on the use of new technology in assisting instruction which may be easily implemented into such an integrated curriculum. The journal welcomes studies that explore science and mathematics education from different cultural perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers' Competencies in Distance Education: An Empirical Investigation Utilizing Micro-Teaching and Peer Assessment The Effectiveness of AI on K-12 Students’ Mathematics Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Dimensionality and Invariance of Contemporary Mathematical Instruction Competence across Educational Systems Generalization among 5-Year-Olds in a Functional Context with Programmable Robot Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1