Development of INoSIT (Integration Nature of Science in Inquiry with Technology) Learning Models to Improve Science Literacy: A Preliminary studies
DOI:
10.29303/jppipa.v8i1.957Published:
2022-01-03Issue:
Vol. 8 No. 1 (2022): JanuaryKeywords:
INoSIT(Integration Nature of Science in Inquiry with Technology), Literacy science, Inquiry-based learning, BSCS 5EResearch Articles
Downloads
How to Cite
Downloads
Metrics
Abstract
Has successfully created the INoSIT learning paradigm to increase students' science literacy competency. This design aims to integrate information and communication technology (ICT) with inquiry and nature of science (NoS) models to teach scientific literacy to junior high school students using a multi-representation method. The BSCS 5E model (Involvement of Biological Science Curriculum Study, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and Evaluation) and the IBL model (Investigation-based learning) have many phases whose implementation requires many processes. So, the INoSIT model is designed to simplify multiple phases or sub-phases. As a result, IBL (inquiry-based learning) is ineffective and inefficient in terms of learning time. It is also challenging to teach scientific literacy of abstract concepts using this method. The study employs a descriptive analysis method in conjunction with a literature review pattern. The INoSIT model with the syntax Eliciting, Hypothesis, Testing Hypothesis, Elucidation, and Reflection was created from the results of the investigation of the weaknesses of the BSCS 5E (Biological Science Curriculum Study Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and Evaluation) and the IBL (Inquiry-based learning) models. To construct students' knowledge of literacy and the study is anticipated to contribute to creativity, originality, and the development of a proclivity for inquiry and research
References
Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help-seeking with a Cognitive Tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(2), 101-128. Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-10773-002
Anderson (2010). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing; Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=C63B3F3F2399C6971A5F504DAECF23F9
Arends, R.I. (2012). Learning to Teach. 9th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. https://hasanahummi.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/connect-learn-s...pdf
Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280207
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The reading teacher, 61(1), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.61.1.7
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 24(1), 61-100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167267
Bruce, B. C., & Casey, L. (2012). The practice of inquiry: A pedagogical ‘sweet spot’for digital literacy?. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.657994
Butterick, K. (2012). Pengantar Public Relations: Teori dan Praktik. Jakarta: PT RajaGrafindo Persada
Bybee, R.W. (2002). Scientific inquiry, student learning, and the science curriculum. Learning science and the science of learning, 25-35. Retrieved from: https://my.nsta.org/resource/240
Cimer, A. (2007). Effective teaching in science: A review of literature. Journal of Turkish science education, 4(1), 20-44.
Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, 347-361. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053386-26
Dagys, D. (2017). Theoretical Inquiry-Based Learning Insights on Natural Science Education: from the Source to 5E Model. Pedagogika, 126(2), 83–98. https://doi:10.15823/p.2017.21
Daily, Q. (2010). Explicit Nature of Science Instruction and the 5E Learning Cycle: A Gateway to Scientific Literacy. Thesis. Department of Master Science Educatiom, Montane State University.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::aid-tea5>3.0.co;2-l
De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional science, 38(2), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
DragoÅŸ, V., & Mih, V. (2015). Scientific literacy in school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 167-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.273
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 163-166. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E Instructional Model: A Learning Cycle Approach for Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Science Education Review, 3(2), 49-58. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058007
Ergül, R., Şımşeklı, Y., Çaliş, S., Özdılek, Z., Göçmençelebı, Ş., & Şanli, M. (2011). The Effects Of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching On Elementary School Students'science Process Skills And Science Attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy, 5(1).
Fan, X., & Geelan, D. (2012). Integrating information technology and science education for the future: a theoretical review on the educational use of interactive simulations. In Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Computers in Education Conference (pp. 2-5).
Fensham, P. (2008). Science education policy-making. Eleven Emerging Issues, 1-47.
Fugelsang, J. A., Stein, C. B., Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2004). Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: Evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(2), 86. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085799
Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils' conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3954-8
Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416839
Hagerman, C. L. (2012). Effects of the 5E learning cycle on student content comprehension and scientific literacy. A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Science Education.Montana State University Bozeman, Montana July 2012.
Harlen, W. (2004). The Assessment of Scientific Literacy in the OECD/PISA Project. In Helga Behrendt dkk (Eds). Research in Science Education-Past, Present, and Future (p. 49-60). New York, US: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Haribhai, T. S., & Dhirenkumar, G. P. (2012). Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness of Computer-Aided Instruction Method. Quest-The Journal of UGC-ASC Nainital, 6(3), 479-488. https://doi.org/10.5958/j.0974-5041.6.3.038
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1374-1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549
Hwang, F. K., & Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy java simulations: An interactive science learning tool. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 5(2).
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Johnson, O., & Kozma, A. (1977). Effects of concurrent verbal and musical tasks on a unimanual skill. Cortex, 13(1), 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(77)80049-x
Jornet, A., & Roth, W. M. (2015). The joint work of connecting multiple (re) presentations in science classrooms. Science Education, 99(2), 378-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21150
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780
Keller, J. M. (2010). The Arcs model of motivational design. In Motivational design for learning and performance (pp. 43-74). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
Khalaf, B. K. (2018). Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic Critical Review. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 545-564. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11434a
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3).
Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: A case study approach. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 301-311.
Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N., Giannakoudakis, A., Roberts, D., & Otto, O. (2007). The integration of a viscosity simulator in a chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 220-231. https://doi.org/10.1039/b6rp90032a
Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., & Gowlett, C. (2014). Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985. 2014.911725
Moreno, R. (2010). Educational Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Son Inc.
Nishimoto, M. C. (2018). The Importance of Teacher Induction for Improving Teaching and Learning. The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning, 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118955901.ch19
Norwood, M. (2019). The Impact of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E Model on Middle-Level Students' Content Knowledge (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina).
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework, Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD Publications.
Okada, A. (2013). Scientific literacy in the digital age: tools, environments and resources for co-inquiry. European Scientific Journal, 4, 263-274. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2013.v9n10p%25p
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337-386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep3801_ 1
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Patel, D. A. (2019). Effects of 5E learning Cycle Model on Achievement in Social Science of Std-8. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(3), 1836–1837. https://doi:10.31142/ijtsrd21726
Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science education, 88(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113
Santrock, J.W. (2011).Educational Psychology, 5th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saputro, A. N. C., Suhelayanti, S., Chabibah, N., Bermuli, J. E., Sinaga, K., Fauzi, A., & Fayanto, S. (2021). Pembelajaran Sains. Medan: Yayasan Kita Menulis.
Sari, M. (2021). Pengaruh Model Inquiry terhadap Kemampuan Memahami Teks Deskripsi pada Siswa SMP. At-Tarbawi, 8(1), 33-42. https://doi.org//10.32505/tarbawi.v13i1.2716
Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology resources can be used to represent personal inquiry and support students' understanding of it across contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 516-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.0 0414.x
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective sixth Edition. US: Pearson.
Slavin, R, E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practices. Bostn: Allyn anc Bacon
Susilo, T. (2020). Pengembangan Pembelajaran Inquiry Bervisi Sets Pada Sistem Pencernaan Untuk Meningkatkan Kecerdasan Emosional Dan Prestasi Belajar. Khazanah Pendidikan, 14(1).
Tanner, K. D. (2010). Order matters: using the 5E model to align teaching with how people learn. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082
Tobin, K. G. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale: Psychology Press.
Türkmen, H. (2009, April). An effect of technology based inquiry approach on the learning of" Earth, Sun, & Moon" subject. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching. 10(1).
Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for reâ€thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055-2078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903334849
Wenning, C. J. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 3(4), 3-14.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_3
White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10, 151-182.
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiryâ€based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329
Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9089-6
Author Biographies
Amiruddin Takda, Halu Oleo University
Budi Jadmiko, State University of Surabaya
Erman Erman, State University of Surabaya
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Amiruddin Takda, Budi Jadmiko, Erman Erman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
