Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices
Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices
复制标题
利用实验室让所有学生参与科学实践
DOI：
10.1039/c6rp00093b
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
P. Enderle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Walker;V. Sampson;S. Southerland;P. Enderle
本研究探讨在一般化学实验室课程中使用的教学类型在多大程度上影响学生使用核心思想从事科学实践的能力。我们使用福特（2008）对科学实践性质的描述，将学生在实验室中所做的事情分为经验性的和代表性的。实验室教学的一种方法是让学生参与科学的实证实践，但以传统的规定方式来演示和验证内容。第二种方法，论证驱动的探究（ADI），让学生参与科学的实证和代表性实践。一个实际的考试被用来比较学生在每种情况下的学习。该评估针对学生参与特定科学实践的能力，包括规划和进行调查、分析和解释数据以及根据证据进行论证。接受ADI（N = 81）或传统（N = 76）教学的学生对ACS-GCST考试内容的理解相当，但ADI部分的学生在实践考试中的平均分数明显更高。结果还表明，所有学生，包括女生、代表性不足的少数民族学生和过去学业成绩较低的学生，在ADI部分的实际考试平均成绩明显较高。在传统的实验室部分有一个显着的差异，在实践考试的平均成绩为URM学生相对于大多数，这是不存在的ADI部分。然而，对于过去学业成绩低的学生，情况正好相反;与传统部分相比，ADI部分学生的实践考试平均分明显较低。
This study examines the extent to which the type of instruction used during a general chemistry laboratory course affects students’ ability to use core ideas to engage in science practices. We use Ford’s (2008) description of the nature of scientific practices to categorize what student do in the laboratory as either empirical or representational. One approach to lab instruction, engages students in the empirical practices of science but in a traditional prescriptive manner designed to demonstrate and verify content. The second approach, Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI), engages students in both the empirical and representational practices of science. A practical exam was used to compare student learning in each condition. The assessment targeted student ability to participate in specific scientific practices, including planning and conducting investigations, analyzing and interpreting data and arguing from evidence. Students who were taught with either ADI (N = 81) or Traditional (N = 76) had equivalent understanding of content based on the ACS-GCST exam, however the mean score on the practical exam was significantly higher for students in the ADI sections. Results also indicate that the mean scores on the practical exam were significantly higher in the ADI sections for all students including female students, under-represented minority (URM) students, and students with lower past academic achievement. In the traditional laboratory sections there was a significant difference in the mean scores on the practical exam for the URM student relative to the majority, which was not present in the ADI sections. However, the opposite was found for students with low past academic achievement; the mean score on the practical exam was significantly lower for the students in the ADI sections in comparison to the traditional sections.