Authentic Inquiry VS Simple Task Inquiry


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Authentic Inquiry VS Simple Task Inquiry

  1. 1. Epistemologically Authentic Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks Muhammad Husnul Khuluq F131877 Article by: Clark A. Chinn and Betina A. Malhotra
  2. 2. Beyond the Research Promoting Scientific Reasoning THE IDEA OF INQUIRY LEARNING Good citizen and Science INQUIRY IN CLASSROOMVS Authentic scientific inquiry Follow 3 standards: -Explain array of evidence -Decide what evidence to use -Critique the explanation and procedure Simple inquiry task (from textbook) Blamed to oversimplify the three standards in authentic scientific inquiry
  3. 3. What are in the Research? How the Research Reveal it? How does “authentic inquiry” differ from “simple inquiry task”? What are the consequences? Review from the aspect of “cognitive process” and “epistemological differences” Analysis to “current inquiry tasks” Using the framework produced in the first part FRAMEWORK for analyzing inquiry tasks EVALUATION toward the current inquiry implementation
  4. 4. AUTHENTIC INQUIRY INQUIRY IN SCHOOLVS COGNITIVE PROCESS ASPECTS Questions Designing (from selecting to observing) Results Theories Other Reports Provided for students Ready-used design Certain and straight forward No empirical regulation No need By researcher Purely by researchers with many variables Uncertain and need inference Develop theories Relate to other reports Students fail to reason scientifically
  5. 5. AUTHENTIC INQUIRY INQUIRY IN SCHOOLVS EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES Students see scientific reasoning as a simple certain algorithm ASPECTS Research Purpose Theory-Data Coordination Theory-Method Reasoning Anomalous Data Socio-construct Build and revise theories Complex and Global Partially laden Heuristic, multiple, uncertain Rationally and regularly discount Collaborative, building previous research, institutional norms Understanding provided theory Simple, observable, and Local Not theory laden Algorithmic, single, certain Little scope to rationally discount Sometimes collaborative, not to build theory, no institutional norm
  6. 6. Analyzing Inquiry Tasks 468 inquiry tasks from 9 textbooks 26 inquiry tasks developed by researchers CODING (according to the feature of inquiry developed in the previous part) (see table 4, page 201-203) RESULTS The inquiry tasks developed by psychologists and educational researchers incorporate MANY MORE FEATURES. Inquiry tasks in textbook CONSISTENTLY FAILED in authentic scientific reasoning.
  7. 7. Further Result Aspects Inquiry tasks by researchers Inquiry tasks in textbooks Authentic scientific reasoning More (2.9 of 11 features per task) Less (less than 0.5 of 11 features per task) Researcher-generated 50% 2% Think of controlling variables Very common Uncommon (4%) Multiple observation More than 1/3 17% (simple) Analogue model 15% (sound analogue of real) 15% (with no reflection to real) Data transformation/ Bias 42% / 12% Little/ No Developing theories involving mechanism 35% Generally no
  8. 8. Strengths Weakness The plot is really clear (brief guidelines are given in the beginning of each part) The research is quite complex (it reviews theories, develop a product, and then use it) We do not know the applicability of the proposed solutions No clear definition of how the not- oversimplified inquiry setting is IMPLICATIONS Much works are required to transform schools into places that nurture authentic scientific inquiry The action of transformation into authentic inquiry should be based on the 3 standards of scientific inquiry
  9. 9. “Education begins with the curiosity of the learner” (John Dewey) Thank you for your attention