 |
Roseanne Park a.k.a. Rosé of BLΛƆKPIИK
ABSTRACT
Put
simply, this work eplains scientific teaching. It provides a resource for those
who are new to elaborations of the learning model in science education,
including key terminology and brief definitions using references that could be
starting points for additional explorations.
Keywords: biology, learning model; physics;
science education; scientific teaching
A. INTRODUCTION
Herawati
Susilo of Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) had asked to me, “What scientific
approach in your research?” when I presented my paper at colloquium in
Universitas Negeri Surabaya (Unesa) on 23 March 2019. As long I was
undergraduate student advised by Setiya Utari in Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia (UPI), I had used ‘scientific approach’ that means ‘inquiry-based
learning’. I like this model because, in my opinion, it steps closest and
similiar with scientific methods, so I concluded scientific teaching is
inquiry-based learning itself. “Inquiry-based learning, Madam, but in this
learning practice I used guided, rather open, inquiry.” She smiled listen my
answer to her question. Then, however, we talk about science education when
pararrel secsion was finished.
In
this work—wrote based on my funny accident above, commentary to my
undergraduate thesis, also commemorates my first life in Bandung on 13 June
2012 as well—I have chosen several terms in this work that beginner will likely
encounter in any exploration of science education. To provide a framework for
how these terms might connect together for educator, I have used the organizing
framework of scientific teaching, in which there is no prescribed or correct
way to teach, rather, educators are expected to apply scientific principles to
their classroom teaching efforts. Scientific teaching is an intentional
approach to teaching by educators that focuses on the goal of student learning
and involves iterative questioning, evidence collection, and innovation
(Handelsman, et al., 2004).
For
each of these model, there is a brief overview, followed by a set of commonly
encountered terms related to that topic. For each key term, I provide an
introductory and descriptive paragraph using references that could be starting
points for additional explorations. Whenever possible, these references include
accessible review articles written primarily for a scientific audience. No
doubt, dozens of additional terms could be added to each section; however, this
work is intended to be a starting point for readers. Importantly, the entries
for these several terms may be read and explored in any So, onward, and enjoy
exploring the ideas and language of science education.
B. SCIENTIFIC TEACHING (SCIENTIFIC APPROACH)
Scientific
teaching—also referred to as scientific approach—is a pedagogical approach used
in science classrooms whereby teaching and learning is approached with the same
rigor as science itself. Scientific teaching involves active learning
strategies to engage students in the process of science and teaching methods
that have been systematically tested and shown to reach diverse students
(Handelsman, et al., 2004).
The
three major tenets of scientific teaching is:
a.
Active learning: A
process in which students are actively engaged in learning. It may include
inquiry-based learning, cooperative learning, or student-centered learning.
b.
Assessment: Tools
for measuring progress toward and achievement of the learning goals.
c.
Diversity: The
breadth of differences that make each student unique, each cohort of students
unique, and each teaching experience unique. Diversity includes everything in
the classroom: the students, the educators, the content, the teaching methods,
and the context.
These
elements should underlie educational and pedagogical decisions in the
classroom. In practice, scientific teaching employs a “backward design”
approach (Ebert-May & Hodder, 2008;
Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). The educator
first decides what the students should know and be able to do (learning goals),
then determines what would be evidence of student achievement of the learning
goals, then designs assessments to measure this achievement. Finally, the educator
plans the learning activities, which should facilitate student learning through
scientific discovery. There is science learning models that can support
educators in translating scientific teaching into practice.
1. Inquiry-Based Learning (Enquiry-Based Learning)
Inquiry-based
learning (enquiry-based learning in British English) is a form of active
learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios. Inquiry-based
Learning is often assisted by a facilitator rather than a lecturer. Inquirers
will identify and research issues and questions to develop knowledge or
solutions. Inquiry-based learning includes problem-based learning, and is
generally used in small scale investigations and projects, as well as research.
The inquiry-based instruction is principally very closely related to the
development and practice of thinking and problem solving skills (Dostál, 2015).
Inquiry
learning involves developing questions, making observations, doing research to
find out what information is already recorded, developing methods for
experiments, developing instruments for data collection, collecting, analyzing,
and interpreting data, outlining possible explanations and creating predictions
for future study. Specific learning processes that people engage in during
inquiry-learning include (Bell, et al., 2009):
a.
Creating questions
of their own;
b.
Obtaining supporting
evidence to answer the question(s);
c.
Explaining the
evidence collected;
d.
Connecting the
explanation to the knowledge obtained from the investigative process;
e.
Creating an argument
and justification for the explanation
There
are many different explanations for inquiry teaching and learning and the
various levels of inquiry that can exist within those contexts. There is
clearly outlines four levels of inquiry (Banchi & Bell, 2008):
a.
Level 1:
Confirmation Inquiry
The
teacher has taught a particular science theme or topic. The teacher then
develops questions and a procedure that guides students through an activity
where the results are already known. This method is great to reinforce concepts
taught and to introduce students into learning to follow procedures, collect
and record data correctly and to confirm and deepen understandings.
b.
Level 2: Structured
Inquiry
The
teacher provides the initial question and an outline of the procedure. Students
are to formulate explanations of their findings through evaluating and
analyzing the data that they collect.
c.
Level 3: Guided
Inquiry
The
teacher provides only the research question for the students. The students are
responsible for designing and following their own procedures to test that
question and then communicate their results and findings.
d.
Level 4: Open/True
Inquiry
Students
formulate their own research question(s), design and follow through with a
developed procedure, and communicate their findings and results. This type of
inquiry is often seen in science fair contexts where students drive their own
investigative questions.
Banchi
and Bell (2008)
explain that teachers should begin their inquiry instruction at the lower
levels and work their way to open inquiry in order to effectively develop
students' inquiry skills. Open inquiry activities are only successful if
students are motivated by intrinsic interests and if they are equipped with the
skills to conduct their own research study (Yoon, et al., 2011).
An important aspect of inquiry-based learning, however, is the use of open
learning, as evidence suggests that only utilizing lower level inquiry is not
enough to develop critical and scientific thinking to the full potential (Zion
& Sadeh, 2010;
Berg, et al., 2010; Yen &
Hunang, 2001).
Open
learning has no prescribed target or result that people have to achieve. There
is an emphasis on the individual manipulating information and creating meaning
from a set of given materials or circumstances. Open learning has benefit that
students do not simply perform experiments in a routine like fashion, but
actually think about the results they collect and what they mean. In open
learning there are no wrong results—even when all students is men!, and
students have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the results they
collect themselves and decide their value.
2. Think–Pair–Share
The
term “think–pair–share” refers to a teaching method that expects students think
individually about a solution to a problem for a moment, then pair with a
neighbor to share their ideas, and sometimes eventually report out to the large
group (Smith, et al., 2009; Tanner, 2009).
In three easy steps, every student in a class of any size can be engaged in
active learning through a think–pair–share. After posing a question, the educator
gives the class a few minutes to think and jot down their thoughts.
This
think time is key, since different students may have different cognitive
processing times because our brains all work differently. This think taime also
giving students more time to just think has been shown to increase the quality
of comments later shared and the number of students willing to share. Then
comes the “pair” time, a few minutes for each student to say his or her ideas
out loud to another student in the class.
For
the vast majority of students who do not have the confidence to ask or answer
questions in front of the whole class, this pair time may be the first time
they have uttered a word in an undergraduate science classroom. Pair time
allows students to articulate their ideas in the presence of another person;
compare their ideas with those of a peer; and identify points of agreement,
disagreement, and confusion. Finally comes the “share” part, in which several
students are asked to share with the whole class ideas that emerged in their
pair discussions.
This
phase should be very familiar to most educators, since it is comparable to
posing a question to an entire class. Setting up a think–pair–share activity
can be as simple as posing a question or problem for students to think about
and discuss, such as “Predict the outcome of this experiment,” “Propose at
least two hypotheses to explain these observations,” or “Answer the
multiple-choice question posted on this slide.”
3. Clickers
Clickers
are devices that can be used in classrooms of any size to ask multiple-choice
questions with the goal of engaging students with the course material as part
of active-learning exercises (Smith, et al., 2009; Wood, 2004).
It also referred to as personal response systems. While a variety of clicker
systems are available, the iClicker system has become widespread, likely
because these clickers do not require integration with a particular software
presentation system. While clickers can be used to check attendance, more
effective uses of clickers aim to engage students in answering questions that
check student understanding, challenge common misconceptions, and provide
immediate conceptual feedback for both students and educators alike. While
getting students to talk does not require clickers, clicker questions can be
the basis of multiple think–pair–share activities during a single class period.
A
key added value of using clickers is that this technological tool can give the educator
an instant summary of the distribution of student responses to a multiple-choice
question. This information can immediately guide an educator in deciding how to
proceed, depending on the proportion of students who select the most
scientifically accurate response. Clicker questions can be especially useful
when asked a week or so before a section of the course is taught. Using this
evidence from students, educators can identify common misconceptions held by
those students, plan class activities to address these misconceptions, spend
less time on those ideas that students already seem to know, and, finally,
share this clicker evidence with students to explain why course time is being
spent on some particular topics more than others.
4. Minute Paper
A
minute paper is a brief active-learning strategy that provides a mechanism for
students to stop, think, and write during or at the end of a class period
(Allen & Tanner, 2005; Cross & Angelo,
1993). The goal is
to provide a momentary break during which students can capture their thoughts
or questions. While referred to as a “minute” paper, these brief writings can
generally take one to several minutes, depending on the complexity of the
question being asked. Often, questions that are most effective at challenging
students’ ideas and promoting rich discussions are not multiple choice, in
which case clickers become less useful.
Minute
papers are often driven by these non–multiple choice questions. Example minute-paper
prompts might include: “What’s the most useful concept or idea you learned in
class today?,” or “What was the muddiest point in today’s class session that
was most confusing for you?,” or “ Push yourself to write down at least two
questions you have about the scientific evidence we explored in class today.”
Some educators require students to purchase a 100-pack of index cards as part
of their course materials to facilitate frequent use of minute papers. Students
are told that during each of their class meetings over the semester, they will
be asked to write down their ideas on these index cards. Most of the time, educators
will collect these cards, but sometimes they will not. A minute paper can serve
as one way to accomplish the “think” phase of a think–pair–share, since it
actively engages students in doing something to drive their thinking.
5. Group Work (Cooperative Learning)
Group
work, also referred to as cooperative learning, is a term that refers to
activities that require students to engage in active learning with others,
during which they work together toward a common outcome and practice improving
their collaborative skills (Johnson, et al., 2010; Tanner, et
al., 2003). Science is,
by nature, a collaborative endeavor, and all scientific careers to which
undergraduate students aspire will require extensive skills in working
collaboratively.
To
be successful, group work requires several critical elements. First, the task
must be clear, with students understanding both the final goal of the activity,
as well as key milestones along the way. Second, the assignment must be
sufficiently complex that it necessitates collaboration. Students are clever;
they know that being told to work together on a simple task is not a good use
of time and will then perceive the task as busy work. As such, group sizes
should reflect the complexity of the assigned task. Third, students need to know
their role and the educator’s expectations of them as individuals. Roles can be
assigned by the educator, or in some special cases, students can be charged
with self-organizing. Roles can be divided multiple ways, depending on the
task. For example, roles can reflect group functions, such as facilitator,
timekeeper/recorder, reporter, or equity monitor (the person who makes sure all
group members’ ideas are heard). Roles can also reflect authentic perspectives
on a problem or issue, such as scientist, policy analyst, financial officer,
business owner, or citizen/parent. Finally, group work requires the
establishment of trust, grounded in a set of group norms, which are guidelines
for working together that may be set by the educator or students in the course.
Examples
of group norms are that everyone will contribute during discussions, ideas will
be respectfully shared, and work will be fairly divided among group members.
Group work and cooperative learning is often assumed to include more than two
students, but usually no more than six. Importantly, the larger the size of the
student group, the more care the educator must take to clearly define tasks and
roles to ensure no students are left out of the group process.
6. Peer Instruction (Peer-Led Team Learning)
The
practice of students teaching students is not new and has taken many forms over
the years, as teaching an idea to someone else is often an effective way to
learn. Peer instruction is defined by the act of students teaching or reviewing
one another. In some peer-instruction scenarios, one student becomes an
“expert” on some topic and is then tasked to teach what he or she knows to
other students who are novices with respect to that material.
This
approach is often used as an active-learning strategy for exploring large
amounts of complex material in single class periods. For example, four research
articles can be explored in a single class session in which one-quarter of the
class has become expert on each paper through a prior homework assignment. During
class time, student experts for each of the four papers then take turns sharing
their insights and entertaining questions from peers.
Peer
instruction also refers to opportunities in classrooms wherein students teach
one another without there necessarily being different levels of expertise
between students (Smith et al., 2009; Crouch &
Mazur, 2001;
Mazur, 1997).
Research has shown that two students, neither of whom was able to correctly
answer a clicker question, could improve their understanding and correctly
answer similar clicker questions after engaging in a pair discussion, which is
another form of peer instruction (Smith et al., 2009).
Peer-led
team learning is a particular type of peer instruction, in which students who
have previously excelled in a course are invited back to serve as supplementary
course discussion leaders or in-class coaches for students currently taking the
course. Having most recently learned the concepts at hand, these
peers—sometimes called learning assistants—may be more socially accessible to
students and better able to remember the kinds of confusions students encounter
with the material.
7. Case-Based Learning and Problem-Based Learning
Case-based
and problem-based learning are teaching approaches that link course concepts to
real-world scenarios and problems with which students actively engage through
exploring and questioning and applying science content knowledge (Allen &
Tanner, 2003).
While the goal is similar for each, the approaches vary slightly. Problem-based
learning moves groups of students through a prescribed strategy of identifying
what they already know and what they need to know, then determining how to
access any additional information they need to solve a complex problem related
to biology, such as determining mechanisms of gene inheritance or designing an
experiment to distinguish between alternate hypotheses.
Case-based
learning evolved from the medical and business fields; the activities task
students with figuring out the underlying causes of a medical condition or a
business success. Similarly, in science instruction, case-based learning begins
with a situation or scenario that poses one or more issues the students need to
address. Depending on the goals of the case, students may be given more or less
structure in how to resolve it. Cases can range from fairly simple (one issue,
one solution) to complex, real-world scenarios that scientific researchers
themselves may not yet have been able to explain.
Importantly,
both case-based and problem-based learning usually involve students working in
structured groups in which they collaboratively identify questions and
confusions and seek out additional information to expand their understanding of
concepts related to the problem or case.
C.
A
BRIEF DISCUSSION OF ALL MODELS
As
a new educator, student resistance and the potential for poor student
evaluations at the end of the course can seem sufficient reason to avoid
attempting active learning and becoming more innovative in the classroom.
Student resistance is defined as unwillingness among one or more students to
comply with educator requests (Seidel & Tanner, 2017; Tanner, 2017).
This resistance can take the form of active resistance, including complaints to
department heads or vocal refusal to participate, as well as more passive forms
of resistance, such as just not following educator directions and doing
something else. Student resistance often seems to be rooted in students’ prior
experiences in classrooms and their expectations of what should be happening in
an undergraduate science course. If students have experienced lecture
throughout their school years, then their expectations may be unmet by this
shift from their normal experiences when they enter a course with extensive
active learning.
Student
evaluations, defined as information gathered about the course or the teaching
at some point during the semester, are a concern for most team teaching members.
For example, students may have previously experienced poorly structured active
learning or group work, resulting in generally unfavorable opinions of these
teaching approaches. This is where an educator’s transparency about the reasons
for choosing particular teaching strategies may be critical. In addition to
sharing their rationale for teaching choices, educators can also collect
student evaluations throughout the course, not just at the end. This not only
provides students a voice in the teaching and learning process but also gives educators
insight into how students are experiencing the course midway, offering the
opportunity for the educator to make adjustments.
Using
the minute-paper method described earlier, educators can ask each student
anonymously to share responses to: “So far, what aspects of the course are most
supporting your learning?” and “So far, what aspects of the course are least
supporting your learning?” Even the act of inviting student insights may go far
in quelling student resistance. Finally, it may be key for educators to be
quantitative in gauging the extent of student resistance and to be systematic in
hearing from all students. While a few students may express resistance, the
vast majority of students could deeply appreciate innovative teaching
approaches, and the educator would be unaware of this without inviting
midcourse student evaluation.
Educator
and researcher Benjamin Bloom conceives ‘bloom’s taxonomy’ by 1956. Bloom’s
taxonomy is a system with which educators can judge the nature of the
assessment questions they are asking their students (Bloom et al., 1956).
While many have argued about and revised the original categories of Bloom’s
taxonomy, the core ideas persist about how to judge the type of thinking that
may be elicited by an assessment question. Bloom proposed that learning could
be categorized into lower-order cognitive skills (such as knowing, remembering,
or describing) and higher-order cognitive skills (such as analyzing, evaluating,
inventing, or synthesizing).
Bloom’s
taxonomy is simple framework provides educators with a mechanism to evaluate
the extent to which their student learning objectives and their assessment
tools are targeting higher-order versus lower-order student thinking. Importantly,
educators can often judge the nature of their assessment questions based on
Bloom’s taxonomy by attending to the verbs used in the assessment. Lower-order
assessment questions are often those that ask students to: define, list,
describe, explain, summarize, or paraphrase. In contrast, higher-order
assessment questions are often those that ask students to: predict, design,
apply, defend, propose, or judge. Analysis of the verbs used in either course
student-learning outcomes or course assessments with reference to Bloom’s
taxonomy can be a useful exercise for educators who are re-evaluating their
approach to teaching.
Science
educators focus a great deal of time and energy on issues of “what” students
should be learning, as well as on the “how” of teaching. Yet the aspect of
classroom teaching that seems to be consistently underappreciated is the nature
of “whom” we are teaching. Undergraduate students often appear to be treated as
monolithic without attention to research on the pervasive influence that an
individual’s personal history and characteristics, culture, and prior
experiences in society and in classrooms all have on the teaching and learning
processes in our own classrooms. So I recommends in science education, the most
important aspect is understanding, communicating about, and gaining insight
into “whom” we are teaching and the efforts underway across the nation to make
science teaching and learning more fair. It is why I use different models, even
when I teach same content for guide students to one goal: achieving scientific
literacy.
D. CONCLUSION
Based
on this highlights, it seem that the first cornerstone of scientific teaching
is active learning. All science educators has traditionally focused much of our
conversation about teaching and learning on issues of “what” exactly students
should be learning, however, attention is increasingly being paid to the “how”
of teaching. Multiple lines of research efforts in a variety of disciplines
have provided evidence that traditional lecture approaches to teaching are much
less effective than teaching approaches that actively engage students in the
learning process (Freeman, et al., 2014; Bransford, et
al., 2000;
Handelsman et al., 2004).
Active-learning approaches to teaching encompass a range of strategies—from
simple to complex, from activities that last just a few minutes to longer
projects, from inside class time to outside class time. Common to all these
active-learning strategies is the acknowledgment that learning is a phenomenon
of the human brain, and the individuals doing the learning must be actively
involved in constructing meaning, examining their prior ideas, and resolving
conceptual confusions, just as scientists do in their own efforts to learn how
the natural world works. Finally, the most important aspect is understanding,
communicating about, and gaining insight into “whom” we are teaching and the
efforts underway across the nation to make science teaching and learning more
fair.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Let
me record that most of this work was written during my daily listen BLΛƆKPIИK's
songs, and I would like to acknowledge Roseanne Park (Rosé), an amazing
vocalist for making the hobby of writing in everyplace on everytime such an
enjoyable battle at my neuron. Don’t know what to do without you. Rosé in my
ear-eye aaa.
REFERENCES
Allen,
Deborah E., & Tanner, Kimberly D. (2003,
Spring). Learning in context: problem-based learning. Cell Biology Education,
2: 73–81. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.03-04-0019
Allen,
Deborah E., & Tanner, Kimberly D. (2005, Winter).
Infusing active learning into the large enrollment biology class: seven
strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4):
262–268. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.05-08-0113
Banchi,
Heather, & Bell, Randy. (2008,
October). The many levels of inquiry. Journal of Science and. Children,
15(4): 516–529. URL: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-187423616/the-many-levels-of-inquiry-inquiry-comes-in-various
Bell,
Thorsten, et al. (2009, 02 June).
Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International
Journal of Science Education, 3 (1): 349–377. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09500690802582241
Berg,
C. Anders R., et al. (2010, 26 November).
Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and
outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version to the same
experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (3): 351–372.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145738
Bloom,
Benjamin S, et al. (1956).
A taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: cognitive domain.
McKay. URL: https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Bloom%20et%20al%20-Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives.pdf
Bransford,
John D., et al. (2000).
How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National
Academies Press. URL: https://www.desu.edu/sites/flagship/files/document/16/how_people_learn_book.pdf
Cross,
Patricia K., & Angelo, Thomas A. (1988). Classroom
assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. The National Center
for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED317097.pdf
Crouch,
Catherine H., & Mazur, Eric. (2001,
March). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American
Journal of Physics, 69: 970–977. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
Dostál,
Jiří. (2015).
Inquiry-based instruction : concept, essence, importance and contribution.
Palacký University. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5507/pdf.15.24445076
Ebert-May,
Diane, & Hodder, Janet. (2008). Pathways
to scientific teaching. W. H. Freeman.
Freeman,
Scott, et al. (2014, 12 May).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Handelsman,
Jo, et al. (2004,
23 April). Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521–522. URL: http://scientificteaching.wisc.edu/documents/ScientificTeaching.pdf
Johnson,
David W, et al. (2010, 25 March).
Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? Change,
4: 26–37. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629
Mazur,
Eric. (1997).
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice-Hall. URL: https://issuu.com/alobatnic/docs/preview_peer_instruction_a_user___s
Seidel
Shannon B., & Tanner Kimberly D. (2017, 13 October).
What if students revolt?— considering student resistance: origins, options, and
opportunities for investigation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4):
586–595. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
Smith,
M.K., et al. (2009, 02 January).
Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions.
Science, 323: 122–124. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
Tanner,
Kimberly D. (2009, Spring).
Talking to learn: why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how
to make it happen. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8: 89–94. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.09-03-0021
Tanner,
Kimberly D. (2017, 13 October).
Moving theory into practice: a reflection on teaching a large introductory
biology course for majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2): 113–122.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0029
Tanner,
Kimberly, et al. (2003, Spring).
Cooperative learning in the science classroom: beyond students working in
groups. Cell Biology Education, 2: 1–5. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.03-03-0010
Wiggins,
Grant, & McTighe, Jay. (1998). Understanding
by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wood,
William B. (2004). Clickers: a
teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7(6): 796–798. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2004.11.004
Yen,
Chiung-Fen, & Hunang, Shin-Chieh. (2001).
Authentic learning about tree frogs by preservice biology teachers in an
open-inquiry research settings. Proceedings of the National Science Council
Republic of China (D), 11: 1–10. URL: https://ejournal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/items/download?viId=3889B502-8692-48C1-A979-E28C893C9E80
Yoon,
Hye-Gyoung, et al. (2011, 22 March).
The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in
elementary classrooms: difficulties on and under the scene. Research in
Science & Technological Education, 42(3): 589–608. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9212-y
Zion,
M.ichal, & Sadeh, Irit. (2010,
13 December). Curiosity and open inquiry learning. Journal of Biological
Education, 41 (4): 162–168. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00219266.2007.9656092