Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
High School Students’ Semantic Networks of Scientific Method in an International Science Olympiad Context
1
Rice University Wiess School of Natural Sciences, Houston, TX, USA
2
Research Scientist, Harmony Public Schools, Houston, TX, USA
3
University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA
4
North American University, Houston, TX, USA
Publication date: 2018-07-22
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(10):em1604
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This study examines students’ conceptualization of scientific method from three perspectives: (a) participation in an international science fair, (b) gender differences, and (c) participation from different geographic regions worldwide. An online Word Association Test (WAT) with 10 stimulus words that are associated with scientific method was administered to high school students from more than 35 countries. Findings indicated that the semantic network of students who participated in the I-SWEEEP Olympiad had stronger connections among the 10 key concepts compared to that of non-I-SWEEEP students. Findings also revealed that male participants overall had a more complex semantic network of scientific method than their female counterparts. In addition, students from Americas, mostly U.S., had a more complex conception of scientific method than their counterparts from Eastern Europe and Asia. Results have implications about understanding affordances of science fairs in conceptualization of scientific method and about addressing gender and geographic differences.
REFERENCES (64)
1.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., … Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10....
2.
Alexakos, K. (2010). Teaching the practice of science, unteaching the “scientific method”. Science Scope, 33(9), 74–79.
3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Anderson, J. (2016). The origin of silicon valley’s gender problem. Retrieved from http://qz.com/853435/the-origi....
5.
Ayers, J., & Ayers, K. (2007). Teaching the scientific method: It’s all in the perspective. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7....
6.
Bahar, M., & Hansell, M. H. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663....
7.
Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Sutcliffe, R. G. (1999). Investigation of students’ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/002192....
8.
Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2...<70::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L.
9.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10....
10.
Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
11.
Deese, J. (1965). On the structure of associative meaning. Psychology Review Journal, 69, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00458....
12.
Eisenhart, M. A. (1991). Conceptual frameworks for research circa 1991: ideas from a cultural anthropologist: Implications for mathematics education researcher. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the PMENA. Blacksburg, VA.
13.
Garskof, B. E. & Houston, J. P. (1963). Measurement of verbal relatedness: An idiographic approach. Psychological Review, 70(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00418....
14.
Gulacar, O., Sinan, O., Bowman, C. R., & Yildirim, Y. (2015). Exploring the changes in students’ understanding of the scientific method using word associations. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
15.
Gussarsky, E., & Gorodetsky M. (1988). On the chemical equilibrium concept: Constrained word associations and conception. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.36....
16.
Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2005). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students’ abilities. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
17.
Hovardas, T., & Korfıatis, K. J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science education. Learning and Instruction, 16, 416–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lear....
18.
International Sustainable World Energy, Engineering, and Environment Project. (2014). Student handbook: Science research and scientific methods. Retrieved from http://isweeep.org/wp-content/....
19.
International Sustainable World Energy, Engineering, and Environment Project. (2015). The objective of I-SWEEEP. Retrieved from https://isweeep.org/about-us/.
20.
Jona, K., & Adsit, J. (2008). Goals, guidelines, and standards for student scientific investigations. North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fullt....
21.
Jonassen, D. H. (1993), Effects of semantically structured hypertext knowledge bases on users’ knowledge structures. In C. McKnight, A. Dillon, & J. Richardson (Eds.) Hypertext: A Psychological Perspective (pp. 153–168). Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
22.
Jung, C. G., Adler, G., & Hull, R. (2014). Collected works of CG Jung, volume 6: Psychological types. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
Knabb, M. T. (2006). Assessing inquiry process skills in the lab using a fast, simple, inexpensive fermentation model system. American Biology Teacher, 68, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7....
24.
Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
25.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.36....
26.
Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., & Bell, P (2004). Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
27.
McPherson, G. R. (2001). Teaching and learning the scientific method. The American Biology Teacher, 63(4), 242–245. https://doi.org/10.2307/445109....
28.
Meece, J. L. & Eccles, J. (1993). Introduction: Recent trends in research on gender and education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326....
29.
Nakiboglu, C. (2008). Using word associations for assessing non major science students’ knowledge structure before and after general chemistry instruction: The case of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(4), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1039/B81846....
30.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
31.
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/....
32.
National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education of the 1980’s. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). The next generation science standards: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org.
34.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35.
Nikolova, N., & Stefanova, E. (2014). Inquiry-based science education in secondary school informatics – challenges and rewards. 1st International Symposium on Innovation and Sustainability in Education (InSuEdu 2012). Thessaloniki, Greece. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
36.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfi....
37.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/978926....
38.
Peppard, J. (2007). Exploring relationship between word-association and learners’ lexical development. Retrieved from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/do....
39.
Prior A., (2004). Exploring the nature of associations: semantic factors in the formation of word associations (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
40.
Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientific method based upon research scientists’ conceptions of scientific inquiry. Proceedings of the Annual International conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Charlotte, NC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/full....
41.
Ritchie, S. M. & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<799::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-I.
42.
Robeck, E. (2014). The NGSS and STEM instruction: Two intersecting initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.mheonline.com/asse....
43.
Rock, B. N., & Lauten, G.N. (1996). K–12th grade students as active contributors to research investigations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0167....
44.
Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistomology for the Masses: The origins of “the scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748....
45.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
Schwartz, R. S. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practices: A cross-discipline comparison of scientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.
47.
Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00326....
48.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne L. (2002). Guiding principles for scientific inquiry. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
49.
Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2006). Committee on high school laboratories: Role and vision. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/download/1....
50.
Sinopalnikova A., & Smrz, P. (2004), Word association thesaurus as a resource for extending semantic networks. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v....
51.
Solomon, J. (1991). Teaching about the nature of science in the British national curriculum. Science Education, 75, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.37....
52.
Stevens, A. (1994). Jung: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
Student Science. (2016). Intel ISEF alumni by year. Retrieved from https://student.societyforscie....
54.
Sutton C. R. (1980). The learner’s prior knowledge: a critical review of techniques for probing its organization. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/014052....
55.
Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94, 299–47.
56.
Taylor, C. (1962). Some educational implications of creativity research findings. School Science and Mathematics, 62, 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949....
57.
Toulmin, C., & Groome, M. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math agenda. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/full....
58.
Trautmann, N., Avery, L, Krasny, M., & Cunningham, C. (2002). University science students as facilitators of high school inquiry-based learning. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA.
60.
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. (pp. 382–402). New York, NY: Academic press.
61.
Watson, S. (2004). The scientific method: Is it still useful? Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.....
62.
Weseley, A., Fineburg, A., Chew, S., Daniel, J., McCarthy, M., Park, D., & Smith, R. A. (2016). Conducting psychological research for science fairs: A teacher’s guide and resource manual. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/education/k....
63.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In R. C. Calfee & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 148–185). New York: Prentice Hall International.
64.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
