Studies in science education 52 (2016) 2, S

Transkript

1 Rönnebeck, Silke; Bernholt, Sascha; Ropohl, Mathias Jan Searching for a common ground - a literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities Studies in science education 52 (2016) 2, S Empfohlene Zitierung/ Suggested Citation: Rönnebeck, Silke; Bernholt, Sascha; Ropohl, Mathias Jan: Searching for a common ground - a literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities - In: Studies in science education 52 (2016) 2, S URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs Nutzungsbedingungen Dieses Dokument steht unter folgender Creative Commons-Lizenz: - Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen sowie Abwandlungen und Bearbeitungen des Werkes bzw. Inhaltes anfertigen, solange Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an. Terms of use This document is published under following Creative Commons-License: - You may copy, distribute and render this document accessible, make adaptations of this work or its contents accessible to the public as long as you attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated conditions of use. Kontakt / Contact: pedocs Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung (DIPF) Informationszentrum (IZ) Bildung pedocs@dipf.de Internet:

2 StudiesinScienceEducation ISSN: (Print) (Online)Journalhomepage:htp:/ Searchingforacommonground Aliterature reviewofempiricalresearchonscientificinquiry activities SilkeRönnebeck,SaschaBernholt& MathiasRopohl Tocitethisarticle: SilkeRönnebeck,SaschaBernholt& MathiasRopohl(2016)Searchingfor acommonground Aliteraturereviewofempiricalresearchonscientificinquiryactivities, StudiesinScienceEducation,52:2, ,DOI: / Tolinktothisarticle: htp:/dx.doi.org/ / TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyInforma UKLimited,tradingasTaylor&Francis Group Viewsupplementary material Publishedonline:01Aug2016. Submityourarticletothisjournal Articleviews:949 Viewrelatedarticles ViewCrossmarkdata FulTerms&Conditionsofaccessandusecanbefoundat htp:/ Downloadby:[ ] Date: 21December2016,At:01:56

3 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION,2016 VOL.52,NO.2, htp:/dx.doi.org/ / Searchingforacommonground Aliteraturereviewofempirical researchonscientifcinquiryactivities SilkeRönnebeck a,saschabernholt b andmathiasropohl b OPENACCESS a DepartmentofEducationalResearch,Leibniz-InstituteforScienceandMathematicsEducation(IPN),KielUniversity, Kiel,Germany; b DepartmentofChemistryEducation,Leibniz-InstituteforScienceandMathematicsEducation(IPN), KielUniversity,Kiel,Germany ABSTRACT Despitetheimportanceofscientifcinquiryinscienceeducation,researchers andeducatorsdisagreeconsiderablyregardingwhatfeaturesdefnethis instructionalapproach.whilealargebodyofliteratureaddresestheoretical considerations,numerousempiricalstudiesinvestigatescientifcinquiryon quitediferentlevelsofdetailandalsoondiferenttheoreticalgrounds.here, onlylitlesystematicresearchhasanalysedthediferentconceptualisations andusagesoftheoverarchingconstructofscientifcinquiryindetail.toclose thisgap,areviewoftheresearchliteratureonscientifcinquirywasconducted basedonawidespreadapproachtodefningscientifcinquiryasactivities thatstudentsengagein.themaingoalistoprovideasystematicoverview abouttherangeandspectrumofdefnitionsandoperationalisationsused withregardtosingleactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesinempiricalstudies. Thefndingsfromthereviewfrstandforemostilustratethevariabilityin the waystheseactivitieshavebeenoperationalisedandimplemented. Foreachactivity,studiesdifersignifcantlynotonlywithrespecttothe focus,explicitnesandcomprehensivenesoftheiroperationalisationsbut alsowithregardtotheconsistencyoftheirimplementationintheformof instructionalorinterventionalcomponentsinthestudyand/orinthefocus oftheasesmentofstudentperformance.thishassignifcantimplications regardingthevalidityandcomparabilityofresultsobtainedindiferent studies,e.g.inthecontextofdiscusionsconcerningtheefectivenesof inquiry-basedinstruction.inaddition,theinterelationbetweenscientifc inquiry,scientifcknowledgeandthenatureofscienceseemstobe underexplored.theconclusionsmakethecaseforfurthertheoreticalwork aswelasempiricalresearch. KEYWORDS Scientificinquiry;students activities;definitions; operationalisations;review Introduction Inthelastfewdecades,engagingstudentsinthethinkingprocesesandactivitiesofscientists often referedtoasscientifcinquiryorinquiry-basedinstruction hasbecomeafundamentalapproachin scienceteachingandlearning(nationalresearchcouncil,1996,2012).duetoitsimportance,ahuge bodyofresearchregardingtheefectivenesofscientifcinquiryexists resulting,however,tosome extentininconclusivefndings(foranoverview,seee.g.blanchardetal.,2010).althoughconsiderable evidenceexiststhatinquiry-basedinstructionpositivelyafectsdiferentoutcomemeasuresincluding CONTACTSilkeRönnebeck roennebeck@ipn.uni-kiel.de Supplementaldataforthisarticlecanbeacesedherehtp:/dx.doi.org/ / TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyInformaUKLimited,tradingasTaylor&FrancisGroup. ThisisanOpenAcesarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAtributionLicense(htp:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.

4 162 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. cognitiveachievement,conceptualunderstanding,processkils,criticalthinkingandatitudestowards science(anderson,2002;blanchardetal.,2010;furtak,seidel,iverson,&briggs,2012;haury,1993; Minner,Levy,&Century,2010;Schroeder,Scot,Tolson,Huang,&Lee,2007),criticsofinquiry-based teachinghaverepeatedlychalengeditsefcacy(kirschner,sweler,&clark,2006;klahr&nigam,2004). Partofthedisagreementmaybeduetothefactthattheterminquiryhastakenondiferentmeanings withinthescienceeducationliterature.inquiryrefersnotonlytoaninstructionalapproachbutalsoto curiculummaterials,awayforstudentstolearnscienceandscientifcwaysofobtainingknowledge (Bybee,2000;Furtaketal.,2012).Moreover,evenwhenfocusingoninquiryasaninstructionalapproach, considerabledisagreementcanbeobservedamongresearchersandeducatorswithrespecttoitsdefnition(blanchardetal.,2010;furtak,shavelson,shemwel,&figueroa,2012;hmelo-silver,duncan,& Chinn,2007),rangingfromminimalyguided,discovery-orientedapproachesinwhichstudentsengage inhands-onactivities(e.g.kirschneretal.,2006)toelaboratelistsofactionsforthestudentsandtheir teachers(e.g.nationalresearchcouncil,1996).inrecentyears,thesituationhasbecomeevenmore complicatedsincethefeldofscienceeducationintheunitedstateshasmovedawayfromusingthe terminquiryandnowreferstoscientifcpractices(nationalresearchcouncil,2012).thus,theterminologyusedtodescribeinquiry-basedapproachesinscienceteachingandlearningisdiverse.forthe purposeofthisreview,theseapproachesare mainlysubsumedunderthetermscientifcinquiryto facilitatereading.however,whendescribingspecifcstudies,theterminologyemployedinthestudy isusedtorefectthediversityofthediferentapproaches. Lookingattheconceptualisationsofscientifcinquiryfoundintheliterature,two maindimensionsofinquiry-basedteachingcanbedistinguished:thetypeandrangeofactivitiesthatstudents engagein(e.g.abdelkhalicketal.,2004;nationalresearchcouncil,2000)andthedegreeofguidance providedbytheteacher(e.g.furtaketal.,2012).empiricalstudiesinvestigatingtheefectivenesof scientifcinquirymayvaryconsiderablyalongthesetwodimensions.thisisespecialycrucialforthe validityofmeta-analysesthatatempttosynthesisethecausalinferencesmadebyindividualstudies. Inarecentmeta-analysis,Furtaketal.(2012)arguethat insufcientatentionhasbeengiventothe operationalizationoftheinquiryconstructinthecaseofpriormeta-analysesofinquiry-basedteaching andthatthishasmaskedimportantdiferencesintheefcacyofdistinctfeaturesofthisinstructional approach (p.304).intheiranalysis,theauthorsintroducedaframeworkforinquiry-basedteaching thatdistinguishedbetweencognitivefeaturesoftheactivity(i.e.procedural,epistemic,conceptual andsocial)andthedegreeofguidancegivenbytheteacher.thecognitivefeaturesaredescribedby specifcactivitiesthatstudentsconductwhentheyengageinscientifcinquirylike,e.g.askingscientificalyorientedquestions(procedural),drawingconclusionsbasedonevidence(epistemic)andarguing scientifcideas(social).overal,theauthorsfoundamediummeanefectsize;however,aconsiderable variabilityamongefectsizeswasobservedwhentheywereconsideredasafunctionofthecognitive andguidancedimensionsofinquiry.themostpositiveefectswereobservedforactivitiesrelatedto theepistemicoracombinationoftheprocedural,epistemicandsocialdomainsofinquiry;withrespect totheguidancedimension,theresultssuggestedthatteacher-ledinquirylesonshaveagreaterefect onstudentlearningthanthosethatarestudentled. Earliermeta-analysesmostlyreliedonexpansivedefnitionsofinquiry-basedteaching,often,however,withoutsystematicalyaddresingthediferencesintheconceptualisationsofthisinstructional approach.here,smaltomediummeanefectsizeswerereported(furtaketal.,2012).asimilarmedium meanefectwasfoundina meta-analysisbyschroederetal.(2007)whodefnedinquiryteaching strategiesquitegeneralyasstudent-centredstrategiesrequiringstudentstoanswerscientifcresearch questionsbyanalysingdata. Backgroundandobjectivesofthereview Intheirmeta-analysisofexperimentalandquasi-experimentalstudiesofinquiry-basedscienceteaching, Furtaketal.(2012)arguedthat codinginquiryasadichotomy,asopposedtoexistingonaspectrum, failstocapturetherangeofactivitiesandthinkingprocesesinwhichstudents mightbeengaged

5 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 163 (p.304).theyaddresedthisisuebycategorisingthestudiesaccordingtothecognitivefeaturesof theinquiryactivities.thisimplies,however,thattheseactivitiesaredefnedandoperationalisedina similarwayacrosstudies whichmaynotalwaysbethecase.inastudybychenandklar(1999),e.g. studentsdesignedandevaluatedexperimentsandmadeinferencesfromtheexperimentaloutcomes (p.1098);mcelhanyandlinn(2011)similarlyaskedstudents todesigninformativeexperiments and toexplainthemechanisms ofaspecifcphenomenon(p.746).studentsintheformerstudy,however, conductedhands-onexperimentswithrealequipmentwhilestudentsinthelaterstudyworkedin avirtualexperimentationenvironment.folowingtheargumentbyfurtaketal.(2012),asdescribed above,itseemsnecesarytonotfocussolelyoninquiryasaglobalconcept,butonthediferentactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesinwhichstudentsengage.thereviewthusaimstoanswerthequestion howcoherentlytheseactivitieshavebeendefnedandoperationalisedinempiricalstudieswithinthe broadercontextofscientifcinquiry. Inordertodoso,aframeworkforinquiry-basedteachingandlearninginscienceisusedthatconceptualisesscientifcinquiryasaprocesconsistingofactivitiesthatstudentsconductandtheunderlying competencesthattheseactivitiesrequire,respectively(e.g.bel,urhahne,schanze,&ploetzner,2010; Linn,Davis,&Bel,2004;NationalResearchCouncil,1996,2000,2012;Pedasteetal.,2015).Despitethe widespreaduseofthisapproachinthescienceeducationliterature,however,researchvariesconsiderablywithrespecttoboththeactivitiesthatareregardedascentraltotheprocesofscientifcinquiry andespecialytheterminologythatisusedtolabelthoseactivities(abdelkhalicketal.,2004;pedaste etal.,2015). OneofthemostprominentlistsofactivitiesstemsfromthepublicationsoftheNationalResearch Council.TheframeworkforK-12scienceeducation(NationalResearchCouncil,2012)listseightscientifcpractices:1.Askingquestions,2.Developingandusing models,3.planningandcaryingout investigations,4.analysingandinterpretingdata,5.usingmathematicsandcomputationalthinking, 6.Constructingexplanations,7.Engaginginargumentfromevidenceand8.Obtaining,evaluatingand communicatinginformation.itisexplicitlystresedthattheeightpracticesarenotseparatebutthat theyintentionalyoverlapandinterconnect. Otherwel-knownmodelsinthefelddistinguishspecifcphasesintheinquiryproces.Examples are,e.g.the5elearningcycle model(bybeeetal.,2006)thatlistsfveinquiryphases(engagement, exploration,explanation,elaborationandevaluation)andtheinquirycycleproposedbywhiteand Frederiksen(1998)thatalsoidentifesfvephasesbutlabelsthemasquestion,predict,experiment, modelandapply.inastudyanalysingmodels,toolsandchalengesofcolaborativeinquirylearning, Bel,Urhahne,SchanzeandPloetzner(2010)comparedthespecifcationsusedinprominentmodels ofinquirylearningwiththeaimoffndingcommonalities.theycameupwithninecategoriesofmain inquiryactivities(labeledasproceses):orientingandaskingquestions,hypothesesgeneration,planning,investigation,analysisandinterpretation,model,conclusionandevaluation,communicationand prediction.inarecentreview,pedasteetal.(2015)triedtofurthersystematisethevariousterminologies usedtodescribetheactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesinordertodevelopasynthesisedinquirycycle.they distinguishedfvegeneralphasesofwhichthreearedividedintosub-phases:orientation,conceptualisation(dividedintothesub-phasesquestioningandhypothesisgeneration),investigation(dividedinto thesub-phasesexploration,experimentationandinterpretation),conclusionanddiscusion(divided intothesub-phasesrefectionandcommunication).thelatertwostudiesstresthattheinquiryproces doesnotimplyafxedchronologicalorderofthediferentactivitiesbutthattherearemultipleposible pathwaysincludingsub-cyclesandrepetitions;moreover,inbothmodels,communicationisregarded asanoverarchingabilitythatisimportantforalstepsoftheproces. The modelusedintheanalysespresentedinthisreviewisasynthesisofexistingactivity-based conceptualisationsofscientifcinquiryintheliterature(abdelkhalicketal.,2004;beletal.,2010; Bybeeetal.,2006;Linnetal.,2004;Mulis,Martin,Ruddock,O Sulivan,&Preuschof,2009;National ResearchCouncil,1996,2000,2012;Pedasteetal.,2015;White&Frederiksen,1998).Itdistinguishes nineactivities:1.identifyingquestions,2.searchingforinformation,3.formulatinghypothesesand generatingpredictions,4.planning,designingandcaryingoutinvestigations,5.analysing,interpreting

6 164 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. andevaluatingdata,6.developingexplanations,7.constructingmodels,8.engaginginargumentation andreasoningand9.communicating.inlinewithearliermodels,nofxedchronologicalorderisimplied andtheactivitiesmightoverlapandinterconnect. Someoftheseinquiryactivitieshaveevolvedasresearchfeldsoftheirownduringthelastdecades,resultingindedicatedreviews.Reviewsofresearchinmodelingandargumentationprovidesome evidencethatthevariationobservedinthedefnitionsofscientifcinquirycanalsobefoundatthe levelofdistinctiveinquiryactivities(cavagneto,2010;jiménez-aleixandre&erduran,2007;nicolaou &Constantinou,2014).Inarecentreviewoftheasesmentofmodelingcompetence,Nicolaouand Constantinou(2014),e.g.foundthatstudiesusualyaddresonlypartsofwhatcanbeconceptualisedas modelingcompetenceandoftendiferentdefnitionsareusedevenwhenfocusingonacommonaspect. Inthefeldofargumentation,Jiménez-AleixandreandErduran(2007)reviewedmeaningsofargument andargumentationintheliterature.accordingtotheirreview,diferentunderstandingsofargumentas welasargumentationexist.whereassomeauthorsagreethatargumenthasbothanindividual(refering toanypieceofreasoneddiscourse)andasocial(referingtoadisputeordebatebetweenpeople)meaning,othersrestrictargumenttothesocialmeaning.withrespecttoscientifcargumentation,again,two diferentviewpointsexist:argumentationasknowledgejustifcationandargumentationaspersuasion. Whereastheformerisdefnedastheprocesofconnectingclaimsandevidencethroughjustifcation,the laterisrelatedtotheprocesofconvincinganaudience.thisdiscusioniscloselyrelatedtothequestion whetherornotoneshoulddistinguishargumentationandexplanation.osborneandpaterson(2011) arguefortheimportanceofthisdistinctionbecauseexplanationandargumentationhavediferentgoals: Explanationsandtheconstructionofexplanationsareesentialtothecreationofnewknowledge.The pedagogicvalueofargumentation,however,liesinitsvalueforexploringthejustifcationofbeliefand promotingadialecticbetweenconstructionandcritique (p.636).otherauthors,however,confatethe twoconstructsbymixingelementsofargumentsandexplanations(e.g.mcneil&krajcik,2008).inhis reviewofargumentinterventionsinthecontextofscientifcliteracy,cavagneto(2010)foundthatthe interventionsvariedwithrespecttothenatureandpurposeoftheactivityandtheaspectsofscience includedinit.thelearningofargumentisapproachedusingthreestrategies:immersioninpractice, explicitinstructioninthestructureofargumentandemphasisoftheinteractionofscienceandsociety. Inimmersion-orientedinterventions,argumentconstitutesanintegralpartofinvestigations;itisnotconsideredassomethingthatconcludesaninvestigationbutispresentthroughouttheprocesasstudents identifyquestions,caryoutexperiments,interpretdataanddefendevidence-basedknowledgeclaims. Onthecontrary,structure-orientedinterventionsfocusonexplanatoryactivitiesandseparateargument andinvestigations;argumentisthusconsideredmoreaproductofinvestigationsthananenmeshed component.science-and-society-orientedinterventionseventualyusesocio-scientifcisuestocontextualiseargument(cavagneto,2010).theseresultsfromthefeldsofargumentationandmodelingshow thatthedefnitionsandoperationalisationsoftheseinquiryactivitiesvaryconsiderablyacrosstudies. Toourknowledge,noreviewsfortheotherinquiryactivitiesexistwhichaddresthisisueofdiversity indefnitions,conceptionsand/oroperationalisations.thepurposeofthepresentarticleisthustotake afrststeptowardsclosingthisgapbyprovidinginsightintotherangeandspectrumofdefnitionsand operationalisationsrelatedtoactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesthathavebeenusedinempiricalstudies withinthefeldofscientifcinquiry. Insteadoflookingatscientifcinquiryfromaholisticperspective,thisreviewthustakesarather atomisticapproach(seefigure1).itanalysestheoperationalisationsofthediferentinquiryactivities inempiricalstudieswithrespecttothree majoraspects:(1)howaretheactivitiesdefned?(2)how aretheactivitiesimplementedinthelearningenvironmentorintervention?and(3)howarestudents competenceswithrespecttotheseactivitiesasesed?inotherwords,theanalysisintendstoextract fromthereviewedempiricalstudiestheoperationalisationsofthediferentinquiryactivitiesasthey becomemanifestinthetheoreticalconsiderationsoftheauthors(i.e.theirdefnitions),intheimplementationoftheactivitiesinformofinstructionalorinterventionalcomponentsofthestudyand/or inthefocusofanasesmentofstudentperformancerelatedtotheactivities.

7 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 165 Figure1.Analysingtheconstructscientificinquiryondifferentlevelsinthisreview. Usingsuchanatomisticapproachisbasedontheasumptionthatunderstandingthediferent partsisaprerequisiteforbeterunderstandingthewhole,acknowledging,however,thatthewholeis certainlymorethanthesumofitsparts.ifwewanttoariveatamoreuniform,coherentandholistic understandingofscientifcinquirythough,wefrstneedtounderstandthediferentactivitiesthat arecommonlyconsideredtobethebasisofthisconcept(beletal.,2010;linnetal.,2004;national ResearchCouncil,1996,2000,2012;Pedasteetal.,2015). Method Oneofthemainchalengesforaliteraturereviewistoensurethatasfewasposiblerelevantpublicationsaremisedintheliteraturesearch.Thisisespecialytrueiftheresearchfeldisasdiverseasin thecaseofscientifcinquirywherearichvocabularyexiststodescribeinquiry-relatedapproachesin instruction,including,e.g.scientifcinquiry,inquiry-basedteachingandlearning,authenticinquiry, project-basedscience, modelingandargumentation,hands-onscienceandconstructivistscience (Furtaketal.,2012).Onestrategytoaddresthischalengeistoapplysearchcriteriathatareasbroad andcomprehensiveasposible.theunderlyingideaistogenerateaninitialliteraturedatabasethat incaseofdoubtincludespublicationsthatarenotrelatedtotheobjectivesofthereviewratherthan riskingmisingimportantcontributionstothefeldofinterest.atthesametime,however,theresultinginitialnumberofpublicationsmuststilbereasonableandmanageableforfurtheranalysiswith regardtoinclusionandexclusioncriteria.inthecaseofthisreview,diferentsearchstrategieswere pursued namelysearchinginrelevantdatabases,inrelevantjournalsandinthereferencelistsof relevantpublicationsfoundusingthefrsttwostrategies andbycarefulyselectingthekeywordsto beusedinthedatabasesearches.

8 166 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Forthechoiceofkeywords,wefrstanalysedpreviousreviewsinthefeldofscientifcinquirywith respecttothekeywordstheyhadused(e.g.furtaketal.,2012;heinz,lipowsky,gröschner,&seidel, 2012).Second,trialsearcheswereconductedwithdiferentcombinationsofthesekeywordsthatvaried withrespecttotheirspectrum,i.e.theextenttowhichtheyincludedalternativeteachingandlearning approachesthatarerelatedtoscientifcinquiry.theaimofthesetrialswastofndareasonablecompromisebetweencomprehensivenes,ontheonehand,andsizeoftheinitialliteraturedatabasefor furtheranalysis,ontheother.twolibrarydatabases,webofscienceanderic,weresearchedtoprovide thisinitialdatabase.thesearchwasrestrictedtopublicationsthat(a)werepublishedbefore1april2013 andafter1april1998and(b)werewriteninenglish.thefolowingkeywordswerefnalychosenfor describingtheapproachofscientifcinquiry:inquiry,colaborativelearning,discoverylearning,cooperativelearning,constructivistteaching,problem-basedlearningandargumentation.sincethefocus ofthisreviewisonempiricalresearchinscientifcinquiryfromk-12,thesekeywordswerecrosedwith thefolowingkeywordsrepresentingtheareaofevaluationandasesment:asesment,evaluation, validation,achievementorfeedbackanddiscourse,efectivequestioning,asesmentconversations, accountabletalk,quizzes,self-asesment,peerasesment,portfolio,learnlog,mindmap,conceptmap, rubrics,sciencenotebook,multiple-choice,constructedresponseoropen-endedresponse.additional keywordswereusedtofurtherlimittheselectiontothesubjectofscienceattheschoollevel.after eliminatingduplicates,thesearchledtoasampleofn =331publications(seeFigure2).Inasecond step,thosejournalsthatappearedtoproducethegreatestnumberofarticlesinthedatabasesearches (JournalofResearchinScienceTeachingandScienceEducation)werespecifcalyexaminedtoensure thataltherelevantliteraturetheyoferedisincludedintheliteraturedatabaseforthisreview.sincethe reviewhasaspecialfocusonempiricalresearch,threejournalsfromthefeldofeducationalasesment (AppliedMeasurementinEducation,AsesmentinEducationandEducationalAsesment)werealso includedinthissecondstep.eventualy,thereferencelistsofselectedarticlesweresearchedforrelevant articlesnotalreadyinthedatabase. CombiningthesethreestepsledtoaninitialliteraturedatabaseofN =459publications.These studieswerethenfurtheranalysedbyreadingabstractsand,ifnecesary,fultextswithrespecttothe folowinginclusioncriteria:(a)studiesarebasedonempiricaldata,(b)arerelatedtoscientifcinquiry, (c)aresituatedattheschoollevel,i.e.inkindergarten,primary,loweroruppersecondarylevel,and (d)werepublishedinapeer-reviewedjournal.therewereseveralreasonsforthefocusonjournal articles,themostimportantbeingthepeerreviewprocessincethisprovidessomecheckofquality ofthepresentedresearch. Moreover,journalarticlesarethetypeofliteraturebestaccesibleusing systematicsearchingprocedures.applyingthesecriterialedtoafnaldatabaseofn =96publications (thecompletesearchandselectionprocesisdepictedinfigure2). TheseN =96publicationswerethenreadbytheauthorsandanalysedwithrespecttogeneralinformationaboutthestudies(e.g.yearofpublication,country,typeofstudyandsamplecharacteristics)and theactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesthattheyaddresedeitheraspartofthelearningenvironment(e.g. curiculumorinstructionalunit)oraspartoftheasesmentemployedinthestudy.moststudiesinthe reviewemphasiseparticularinquiryactivities.however,15studieshaveamoregeneralfocusonthe efectsofimplementinginquiryink-12clasrooms,inparticulartheimpactofdiferentinquiry-oriented curiculaorinstructionalapproaches.theoutputmeasuresinthesestudiesdiferbetweenstudents contentknowledgeandconceptualunderstanding,viewsonthenatureofscience,atitudes,interest andmotivation.althoughthesestudiesarerelevantforthisreviewfromtheperspectivethattheyare integratedinaninquiry-orientedtheoreticalbackground,theyoftenprovideonlyfewdetailsaboutthe implementationofinquiryactivitiesintheirdesigns.theinformationaboutstudents activitiesisoften rathergenerallike,e.g. studentsuseinquiry-basedcuriculaandaninternetsoftwareprogrammeto studygeneralweathertopicssuchaswind,precipitation,temperatureandpresure,andcloudsand humiditycolaborativelywithstudentsandprofesionalscientists (MistlerJackson&Songer,2000, p.464).thisisnottocriticisethesestudiesorpublications,butdetailsabouttheimplementationof scientifcinquiryintheclasroomorlearningenvironmentareaconditionprecedenttothisreview. Hence,these15studieswereexcludedfromthesubsequentpresentationofresults.Thefnaldatabase

9 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 167 Figure2.Schematicrepresentationoftheliteraturesearchandselectionproces. thusconsistedofn =81publications.Acompletelistofalpublicationsanalysedinthisreviewwith descriptiveinformationaboutthestudiescanbefoundintheonlinesupplementarymaterial. Analysis Thisreviewintendstoprovideinsightsintotherangeandspectrumofdefnitionsandoperationalisationsusedwithregardtosingleactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesinthediferentstudies.Theresultsof theanalysisarepresentedinninesectionsrelatedtonineinquiryactivities,acknowledging,however, thatthereisnotalwaysasharpdistinctionandthatinpractice,theseactivitiesareoftenveryclosely related(nationalresearchcouncil,2013).ineachsection,informationisprovidedwithrespecttothe theoreticalbackgroundaswelastheoperationalisation bothwithrespecttotheimplementation oftheactivityinthelearningenvironmentandtheasesmentofstudents competencesrelatedtoa specifcactivity.

10 168 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Figure3.Distributionofstudiesfocusingonspecificinquiryactivitiesandprovidingconceptualdetailsofthisactivity.Thelarger bars(lightgrey)indicatetheratioofstudiesaddresingaspecificactivityinrelationtothetotalnumberofstudiesreviewed(n=81). Thedarkgreybarsindicatetheportionofstudiesprovidingconceptualdetailswithineachactivitycategory.Theannotationabove eachpairofbarsprovidestheabsolutenumbersforthiscomparison,givingthenumberofstudiesprovidingconceptualdetailsand thetotalnumberofstudiesforeachactivitycategory,e.g.12studiesfocusedontheinquiryactivityofidentifyingquestionsand9 outofthese12studiesprovidedconceptualdetailsaboutthisactivity. Identifyingresearchquestions Fortheanalyseswithinthisreview,theactivityofidentifyingresearchquestionswasdistinguished fromthemoregeneralandcontent-(orcomprehension-)relatedactivitiesofquestioning(e.g.chin& Osborne,2010)andquestion-posing(e.g.Kaberman&Dori,2009).Questioningrequiresstudentsto engagewiththeircurentunderstanding,probeintoalternativewaysofexplainingphenomena,and askwhycertainexplanationsarebeterthanothers (Chin&Osborne,2010,p.886).Aguiar,Mortimer andscot(2010)calthiskindofquestionswondermentquestions becausethey requireintegrationof complexanddivergentinformationfromvarioussources,andrefectcuriosity,puzzlement,scepticism orspeculation (p.175). Thefocusofthisreview,however,isontheidentifcationofresearchquestions.Twelvepublications addresthisisue,butdetailsconcerningthisconstructareprovidedinonlynineofthem(seefigure3). AnexplicitdefnitionofaresearchquestionisonlygiveninthestudybyWhiteandFrederiksen(1998) wherestudentsshouldformulate awel-formed,investigableresearchquestionwhosepursuitwil advancetheirunderstandingofatopictheyarecuriousabout (p.10).otherstudiesmainlyfocuson oneofthetwocharacteristics,respectively,theneedforresearchquestionstobetestable(changetal., 2011;Ebenezer,Kaya,&Ebenezer,2011)ortheirpotentialtoadvanceunderstanding(Cavagneto,Hand, &Norton-Meier,2010).AthirdcharacteristiciseventualyaddresedinastudybySamarapungavan, PatrickandMantzicopoulos(2011)whofocusonstudents abilitytousescienceconceptsinthegenerationofscientifcresearchquestions. AspecifcfocusontheidentifcationofresearchquestionsisfoundinastudybyHofstein,Navon, KipnisandMamlok-Naaman(2005).Theyinvestigatedtheefectsofinquiry-typelaboratoryactivitieson students abilitytoaskmoreandbeterquestionsandtochooseresearchquestionsforfurtherresearch. Theresultsshowedthatstudentsimprovedtheirabilitytoaskbeterandmorerelevantquestionsasa resultofgainingexperiencewiththeinquiry-typeexperiments.additionalstudiesasesedtheability

11 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 169 toidentifyresearchquestionsaspartofstudents inquiryabilities,mostlywithrespecttointerventions fosteringtheseabilities.ebenezeretal.(2011),e.g.analysedtheefectsofparticipatinginlong-term scientifcresearchprojectsoninquiryabilitiesusingrubricsconsistingof11criteriatoasesstudents projectreports.theiranalysesshowedthatstudentsreachedthehighestprofciencyvalueswithrespect tothosetwocriteriathatwererelatedtotheformulationofresearchquestions.inasimilarway,so (2003)includedstudents abilitytojudgeprimarystudents researchreportsinasurveystudy.intwo studiesbysamarapungavan,mantzicopoulos,andpatrick(2008)andsamarapungavanetal.(2011), dealingwiththelearningofsciencethroughinquiryinkindergarten,anelectronicportfoliosystemwas usedtocolectandevaluateevidenceofchildren slearningthroughclasroominquiryactivities.the portfolioscontainedtwotypesofdata,studentartefacts(e.g.recordsinsciencenotebooksorposters) anddigitalvideosandtranscriptionsoftheinterventionactivities.onecriterionfortheportfolioanalysis wastheraisingofresearchquestionsandpredictions(samarapungavanetal.,2011).resultsshowed thattheinquiryinterventionledtosignifcantimprovementswithrespecttochildren sabilitytoraise researchquestionsandpredictions.finaly,students abilitytoformulateresearchquestionswasincluded asonefacetofinquirycompetenceinaself-reportquestionnairethatwasevaluatedinastudyby Changetal.(2011). Insummary,alstudiesfocusonstudents abilitytoidentifyorraiseresearchquestions,mainlyby meansofopen-endedformatsorportfolios.toevaluatethequalityofthesequestions,diferentcharacteristicsareused,e.g.theneedforresearchquestionstobetestable(changetal.,2011;ebenezer etal.,2011),theirpotentialtoadvanceunderstanding(cavagnetoetal.,2010)ortheapplicationof scienceconceptsinthegenerationofresearchquestions(samarapungavanetal.,2011).however,no studyfocusesonthequestionhowtheasesmentformatimpactstheevaluationofstudents abilities toidentifyandraiseresearchquestionsandwhetherthereisapreferableformatwhenfocusingon specifcaspectsofthisactivity.fewstudiesaddresfosteringstudents abilitiesinidentifyingresearch questions.moreover,thesestudiesfocusentirelyonanimmersionapproachofparticipatingininquirytypelaboratoryactivitiesorresearch-likeprojects.hence,apartfromrepeatedpractice,litleisknown aboutinstructionalactivitiestodevelopstudents abilitytoidentifyresearchquestions,ingeneral,as welaswithregardtothediferentcharacteristicsofthisinquiryactivity. Searchingforinformation Afocusonsearchingforinformationisoftenrelatedtoil-structured,real-lifeproblemsincolaborative learningenvironmentslike,e.g.project-basedscience(butler&lumpe,2008;so,2003),problem-based learningorproblem-solvingactivitiesingeneral(e.g.beland,glazewski,&richardson,2011;chiou, Hwang,&Tseng,2009;Simons&Klein,2007;Toth,Suthers,&Lesgold,2002;Tsai,Hwang,Tsai,Hung,& Huang,2012;Wong&Day,2009)andcomputer-basedvirtualcolaborativeenvironments(e.g.Ketelhut &Nelson,2010;Taasoobshirazi,Zuiker,Anderson,&Hickey,2006).Elevenstudiesinthisreviewinvestigateandprovidefurtherdetailsaboutthisinquiryactivity(seeFigure3).Searchingforinformation ismostlyaddresedasoneactivity amongothers thatcontributestoaproblem-solvingorinquiry proces.studentsarerequiredtosearchdiferentsourcesforinformationthatmayhelpthemsolve theproblemathand(e.g.taasoobshirazietal.,2006).commonsourcesaredigitallibraries(butler& Lumpe,2008;Tsaietal.,2012),linkstorelevantwebsites(Simons&Klein,2007),schoollibraries(Wong &Day,2009)andinteractionswithvirtualcharacterslike,e.g.computerisedresidentsin multi-user virtualenvironments(ketelhut&nelson,2010;spires,rowe,mot,&lester,2011). Thereare,however,alsostudiesthatplacespecifcemphasisonthesearchprocesandtheunderlyingstrategies.Here,twolinesofresearchcanbeidentifed.Thefrstlineisrelatedtoscafolding whichshouldhelpstudentsdeterminewhatinformationisneeded,howtofndthisinformationand howtoorganiseit(belandetal.,2011;butler&lumpe,2008;simons&klein,2007).butlerandlumpe (2008),e.g.analysedtheuseandefectsofcomputerscafolds.Inaproject-basedscienceunit,searchingfeatures(i.e.howoftendostudentsperformasearch,usethedictionary,usethethesaurus,read thewebsitedescriptionorviewtheactualwebsite)wereinvestigatedasoneofthefvescafolding

12 170 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. categoriestoresultinadescriptivestatisticofscafolduse.theauthorsfoundthatstudentsusedthe searchingfeatures morethanhalfofthetimeand moreoftenthananyotherscafoldingcategory. Moreover,asignifcantcorelationbetweentheuseofthesearchingfeaturesandthestudentscores forself-efcacyforlearningandperformancewasobserved. Thesecondlineofresearchisrelatedtothecomputer-asistedanalysisofstudents searchbehaviour andtheirunderlyingproblem-solvingabilities(chiouetal.,2009;tothetal.,2002;tsaietal.,2012).toth etal.(2002),e.g.focusedontheselectionandevaluationofevidencefrommultiplesources.students hadtosearchhypertext-based,simplifedresearchpapersforhypothesesanddataandestablishlinks betweenthem.theresultinginformationsearchmeasurewasbasedonthenumberoftopic-relevant piecesofinformationthathadbeenrecordedandhowmanyofthesehadbeenlabeledasdataand hypotheses.thestudycomparedtwotechnology-basedknowledgerepresentationtools,evidence mappingandprosewriting.theauthorsfoundthatthemeannumberoflabeledinformationpieces wassignifcantlyhigherinthe mappinggroupsthanintheprosegroups.thediferencebetween treatmentconditionswasatributednottostudents abilitytocategoriseinformationintohypotheses anddata,buttotheirexplicitrecognitionofthenecesitytodoso.anautomaticscoringmechanism toasistteachersinevaluatingtheweb-basedinformation-searchingandproblem-solvingabilityof individualstudentswasdevelopedandevaluatedbychiouetal.(2009).theiranalysisofstudents information-searchingbehaviourwasbasedonthebig6model:taskdefnition,information-seeking strategies,locationandacces,useofinformation,synthesisandevaluation.acorelationanalysis resultedinlargepositivecorelationsbetweenteacherandautomaticscoresforalindicatorsexcept information-seekingstrategies. Inesence,thediferentstudiesfocuseitherontheinformationorthesearchaspectofthisinquiry activity. Whenfocusingontheinformationaspect,students abilityisoftenevaluatedwithregardto thedegreetowhichthecolectedinformationcontributestotheproblem-solvingorinquiryproces. Otherstudiesareinterestedeitherininvestigatingstudents searchbehaviour(e.g.bylogflesofcomputer-basedlearningenvironments)orinidentifyingmeanstoscafoldandsupportstudents search proces(e.g.byprovidingstrategiestoselect,procesandorganisethecontextualyrelevantinformation). Bothlinesofresearchoftenmakeuseofil-structuredproblems,colaborativelearningenvironments andmultipleresources(digitalortraditionallibraries,webquests,etc.)andfocusmainlyondescribing thestudents searchbehaviour,whileonlylitleemphasiscanbefoundwithregardtotheasesment ofthisactivity(cf.tothetal.,2002). Formulatinghypothesesandgeneratingpredictions Intotal,students abilitytoformulatehypothesesorgeneratepredictionsisexplicitlyaddresedin25 publications.despitethislargenumberofstudies,only13studiesdisentanglethisaspectofinquiryin detail(seefigure3).intheother12studies,theformulationofhypothesesismentionedasanimportantaspectofinquiry,butlitledetailisgivenaboutitsfunctionandoperationalisationinthelearning environmentortheasesment. Regardingthedefnition,hypothesesareseenastherelationbetweeninputandoutputvariables (Gijlers&deJong,2005).Themainpurposeofformulatinghypothesesisoftenstatedastoalowstudents tolearnandexperiencesciencewithgreaterunderstandingandtopracticetheirmetacognitive abilities andtoprovidethem withtheopportunitytoconstructtheirknowledgebyactualydoing scientifcwork (Hofsteinetal.,2005,p.795).However,withinthereviewedstudies,students perspectiveonthefunctionofgeneratinghypothesesisseldomaddresed.herenkohl,palincsar,dewater andkawasaki(1999)askedstudentsaboutthefunctionofformulatingthiskindofpredictions,but thecodingofstudents answerswaslimitedtodecidewhethertheseanswerswereatleastatthelevel ofguesoreducatedgues. Diferentformatsareusedtoasesstudents abilitytoformulatehypothesesorgeneratepredictions. Theserangefromclosedmultiple-choiceformats(Gobert,Palant,&Daniels,2010)toopen-endeditems (Furtak&Ruiz-Primo,2008),students discourse(gijlers&dejong,2005)andarepartofconducting

13 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 171 hands-on(hofsteinetal.,2005),computer-based(ketelhut&nelson,2010)orthoughtexperiments (Herenkohl,Tasker,&White,2011). Studiesvariedaccordingtotheevaluationofthequalityofstudents hypotheses.ifdetailswere provided, moststudiesdiferentiatedbetweenhypothesesthataretestable(i.e.corecthypotheses) andthosethatarenot.withregardtostudents abilityinformulatingatestablehypothesis,ebenezer etal.(2011)expectstudentsto beabletostateahypothesisthatlendsitselftotesting.also,thehypothesisshouldbeaccompaniedbycoherentexplanation(s) (p.103).adetailedtaxonomyisprovidedby KabermanandDori(2009)whodiferentiatedcontent(whetheronlythephenomenonathandora moregenerallevelwasaddresed),thinkinglevel(accordingtobloom staxonomy)andchemistry understandinglevels(macroscopic,microscopic,symbolicandproceslevels).findingssuggestthat boththenumberandthecomplexityofstudents hypothesesincreasedduetoaninterventionbased onthisframework(kaberman&dori,2009). Severalinterventionshavebeensuggestedtopromotestudents abilityinformulatinghypotheses. Spiresetal.(2011)usedagameplayapproachthatrequiredsolvingasciencemysterybasedonmicrobiologycontent: Resultsindicatedthattheefectiveexplorationandnavigationofthehypothesis space[ ]waspredictiveofstudentlearning (Spiresetal.,2011,p.453).Usingconstructedresponse items,lavoie(1999)examinedtheefectsofaddingapredictionordiscusionphasewherestudents individualywroteoutpredictionswithexplanatoryhypothesesatthebeginningofalearningcycle. Byintroducingthisphase,theauthorintendedtopromptstudentstoconstructanddeconstructtheir proceduralanddeclarativeknowledge.theevaluationofthisinterventionrevealedsignifcantgains withrespecttoprocesandlogicalthinkingskils,theunderstandingofscientifcconceptsandstudents atitudestowardsscience. Kyza(2009)examinedstudents inquirypracticesinconsideringalternativehypotheses.sheanalysed students discourse,actions,inquiryproductsandinteractionswiththeirteachersandpeers.despite signifcantlearninggainswhenimplementingasupportivelearningenvironment(i.e.teacher-and task-basedscafolding),theauthorpointedoutseveralepistemologicalproblemsrelatedtostudents perceptionoftheusefulnesofexaminingandcommunicatingalternativeexplanations,i.e.byrelying primarilyonaverifcationstrategyofhypothesistesting.herfndingsindicatetheimportanceofepistemologicalytargeteddiscoursealongsideguidedinquiryexperiencesforovercomingthesechalenges. Throughoutthereviewedstudies,formulatinghypothesesisregardedasacorefeatureofscientifc inquiryandashighlyimportanttolearnandexperiencesciencewithgreaterunderstanding(cf.hofstein etal.,2005).asmentionedabove,however,fewdetailsaboutthefunctionandoperationalisationof formulatinghypothesesinthelearningprocesareprovided.inaddition,students perspectiveson thefunctionofgeneratinghypothesesandtheinfuenceoftheirperceptiononthewholeinquiry procesarebarelyaddresed.kyza(2009)pointedoutthatstudentstendtorelyprimarilyonaverifcationstrategyofhypothesistesting,indicatingepistemologicalconstraintsinstudents perception andinterpretationoftheroleofhypotheses(andalsoalternativehypotheses)intheinquiryproces. Acrosthestudies,alargerangeofdiferentformatsisusedtoasesstudents abilitiestoformulatehypotheses(e.g.multiplechoice,students discourseorthoughtexperiments).however,inmost cases,theevaluationisrestrictedtothedecisionwhethertheproposedhypothesisistestableornot. Likewise,approachestopromotestudents abilityinformulatinghypothesesarepredominantlybased onrepeatedpracticewhilemoredetailedandfocusedinstructionalapproaches(e.g.kaberman&dori, 2009)arehardtofnd. Planning,designingandcaryingoutinvestigations Intotal,21publicationsaddresedtheactivityofplanning,designingandcaryingoutinvestigations andagainonlytheminorityofpapers(n =7)pointedoutdetailsaboutwhatwasexpectedfromstudentsregardingthisscientifcpractice(seeFigure3).AccordingtoEbenezeretal.(2011),designingand conductingscientifcinvestigationsmeans thatstudentsshouldlogicalyoutlinemethodsandprocedures,usepropermeasuringequipment,heedsafetyprecautions,andconductasufcientnumberof

14 172 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. repeatedtrialstovalidatetheresults (p.103).severalpublicationsinvestigatedtheactivityofdesigning aninvestigation;however,inmostcases,students approacheswerelimitedbypredefnedguidelines. Fewstudieswerefoundinwhichstudentswereunrestrictedindecidingaboutthescopeanddesign oftheirinvestigation.thus,instructionaldecisionsconcerningtheimplementationofthisactivityseem toalmostautomaticalyentailaspectsofscafoldingandguidance. ChenandKlahr(1999)predominantlyfocusedonthecontrolofvariablesstrategyandhowstudents canbesupportedtogeneralisethisprocesingstrategyacrosvariouscontexts.theyaskedchildren inprimaryschooltodesignandevaluateexperimentsandtomakeinferencesfromtheexperiment outcomes: Whenprovidedwithexplicittrainingwithindomains,combinedwithprobequestions,childrenwereabletolearn andtransferthebasicstrategyfordesigningunconfoundedexperiments.providingprobeswithoutdirectinstruction,however,didnotimprovechildren sabilitytodesignunconfoundedexperimentsandmakevalidinferences. (Chen&Klahr,1999,p.1098) Accordingtotheauthors,theabilitytotransferlearnedstrategiestoremotesituationsseemstoincrease withage. Twootheractivitieswerepresentinthediferentpublicationsnexttodesigninganinvestigation: eitherstudentswereaskedtomanipulatevariablesinagivenexperimentalset-up(e.g.inacomputer-basedsimulationenvironment;valanides&angeli,2008)ortheywereaskedtointerpretaninvestigationdesignedbyothers.forinstance,zion,michalskyandmevarech(2005)confrontedstudents withaphenomenon,fndingscolectedbyscientiststhatdescribedthephenomenonandtheexperimentsdesignedbyscientistsforsolvingtheproblem: Studentswererequiredtoidentifytherelevant variables,interprettheresultsofthegivenexperimentanddrawvalidconclusionsonthebasisofthe givendata (Zionetal.,2005,p.967). Inadditiontotheactivitiesstudentswereaskedtoperform,thereviewedpublicationsalsodifered accordingtothe modeinwhichstudentsrealisedtheplanningoftheirinvestigations.three major specifcationscouldbeidentifed:hands-on,virtualandtheoretical.hands-onexperimentsaccountfor themajorityofpublications(e.g.chen&klahr,1999;dori,2003).inmostcases,studentswereprovided withtechnicalequipmentandareresponsiblefordesigning,setingupandconductingtheexperiment. Otherstudiesusedsurogatestothetechnical,hands-onrealisationofscientifcexperimentsbyusing computer-basedsystems.forexample,mcelhaneyandlinn(2011)developedacomputersimulationin whichstudentsconductedexperimentstoanswerdiferentquestions.thequestionscouldbeselected fromadropdownmenuorstudentscouldchooseanalternativesuchasjustexploring.whilestudents conductedtheirexperiments,thesoftwareloggedthequestionandthevariablevaluesthatthestudents selectedforeachtrial.thequestionstudentschosewasusedtoinfertheiraimsineachtrial.thethird groupofpublicationsincludedatheoreticalapproachtodesigninganexperiment,i.e.studentswere askedtooutlineanexperimentinwritenform,mainlyaspartofasesingstudents inquiryabilities. Forinstance,Yoon(2009)usedtheDietColaTestwhichrequiresstudentstospecifyaresearchquestion relatedtoagivensituationandtodesignanexperimenttofndtheanswer.inthisapproach,students abilitytodesignanexperimentisoftentreatedasanisolatedstep,i.e.subsequentstepsofdataanalysis andinterpretationareunrelatedtothestudents experimentaldesigninthisspecifcstep. Irespectiveofthemodeofinvestigation,studentswereconfrontedwithdiferentdegreesofopennesinthediferentstudiesor,asmentionedabove,withdiferentlevelsofscafoldingandguidance. Inthecaseofhands-onexperiments,often,thekindandamountoftechnicalapparatuseswerepreselectedeithertoguidethestudentsortopreventdanger.Alsosomevirtualset-upsalowedstudents notonly[to]designthehypothesis,butalsotheprocedureanddata-colectionmethodology (Ketelhut &Nelson,2010),whileothersystemswere morerestrictedsothatstudents designofexperiments waslimitedto,e.g. manipulating valuesofinputvariables,and[observing]thebehaviourofoutput variables (Gijlers&deJong,2005).Regardingdiferencesbetweenthediferentmodesanddegreesof opennes,stecheretal.(2000)investigatedwhetherthecontentdomain,theformat(paperandpencil vs.hands-on)andthelevelofinquiry(whetherthetaskguidedthestudentorrequiredthedevelopmentofasolutionstrategy)hadanimpactonstudents performance.theauthorsusedasheldesign

15 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 173 students performanceintheareasofplanningandconductinganinvestigation.itemsinthissectionofthetest aimedattheidentifcationofrelevantvariables,thedesignofanexperiment,theabilitytostateahypothesis,and identifcationofdatathatsupportahypothesis.(p.271) todevelopsixsimilarinvestigationsofacids,controlingforformatandlevelofinquiry.however, post hocanalysesofthetasksrevealedunanticipateddiferencesindevelopers interpretationoftheshel thatmayhaveafectedstudentperformance (Stecheretal.,2000,p.140).Theauthorsconcludedthat comparingstudents performanceacrosthediferentmodesandlevelsofinquiryseemsmoredifcultthanexpectedasstudents performancewithineachmodeandlevelalsovariestoalargeextent. Onlytwopublicationswereidentifedthattriedtoasesstudents abilityindesigninganexperimentviaamultiple-choicetest.gijlersanddejong(2005)usedtenmultiple-choiceitemstoexamine Changetal.(2011)focusedonstudents self-evaluationoftheirabilitytodesignandconductexperiments.theauthorsaskedstudentswhethertheyconsideredthemselvesableto adoptasuitable strategyforspecifcquestionsorhypotheses,employresources,andthenworkoutaproblem-solvingapproach (Changetal.,2011,p.1220).Theauthorsreportedhighlatentcorelationstostudents self-reportedabilitiesofformulatingahypothesisandanalysingdatabutonlyamediumcorelation toconductinganexperiment(changetal.,2011). Regardingposibilitiestofosterstudents abilitiesindesigningandconductingexperiments,white andfrederiksen(1998)investigatedtheefectofrefectiveasesmentoninquiryunits.overalstudents performanceimprovedsignifcantlyandacontroledcomparisonrevealedthatstudents learning wasgreatlyfacilitatedbyrefectiveasesment.interestingly,addingthis metacognitiveprocesto thecuriculumwasparticularlybenefcialforlow-achievingstudents:performanceintheirresearch projectsandinquirytestswassignifcantlyclosertothatofhigh-achievingstudentsthanwasthecase inthecontrolclases. Asinthecaseofstudiesonstudents abilitytoformulatehypotheses,onlytheminorityofstudies reviewedwithregardtoinvestigatingstudents planning,designingandcaryingoutofexperiments providedetailsabouttheexpectedoutcome.threemainlinesareidentifedintheseinvestigations: studentsareaskedtodesignaninvestigation,to manipulateagivenset-uportointerpretaset-up designedbyothers. Withintheseapproaches,diferent modesareusedinwhichstudents abilityis asesed:hands-on,virtualandtheoretical.whiledesigninganexperimentisasesedinthefulrange ofdiferent modes, manipulatingagivenset-upis mostlyinvestigatedinvirtualenvironmentsand interpretingaset-updesignedbyothersmainlyinwritenform.insummary,theimpactofboththe approachandthemodeontheobtainedresultsremainsdifculttoevaluate.consequently,thedegree towhichresultsobtainedindiferentsetingsarecomparableremainsunclear(cf.stecheretal.,2000). Withregardtofosteringstudents abilityinthisinquiryactivity,moststudiesseemtoautomaticaly entailaspectsofscafoldingandguidance,e.g.byprovidingstudentswithpredefnedguidelinesor preselecteddesignsandmaterials.thedegreesofopennesandscafolding,however,varywidely. Analysing,interpretingandevaluatingdata Theevaluationofresultsisincludedinmanypublicationsasastepofinquirybutoftenonlyasabuzzwordorby-productofamoregeneralviewoninquiry.Hence,fewstudiesaimtodescribethesteps thatmustbetakentocolectdatathatcanbeinterpretedinascientifcway.amongthestudiesincluded inthisreview,while29studiesaddresthisscientifcpractice,only12publicationsprovidedetails. AccordingtoChangetal.(2011),studentsshouldanalysedataandestablishevidence,buildthelink betweenevidenceandconclusionandthenestablishtherelationshipbetweenevidenceandconclusion toformamodelorexplanationthroughlogicalthinking.forthesesteps,appropriatetools,methods andproceduresarenecesarytocolectandanalysedatasystematicaly,accuratelyandrigorously. Insomecases,thiscanincludetheuseofmathematicaltoolsandstatisticalsoftware,e.g.toanalyse anddisplaydatainchartsorgraphsortotestrelationshipsbetweenvariables(ebenezeretal.,2011).

16 174 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Studiesonstudents abilitytoanalyseandinterpretdatadiferaccordingtotheactivitystudentshave tocaryout(conducttheirownanalysis;evaluateagivenanalysisorinterpretation;and/orself-evaluationofone sability)andthemodeofrealisation(hands-on;virtual;andtheoretical).acrosalpublications,studentsarepredominantlyrequiredtoconductanown,hands-onanalysisofself-colected data.forinstance,chenandklahr(1999)askedstudentstomakesystematiccomparisonstodetermine theefectsofdiferentvariablesonaspring.ineachtask,participantswereaskedtofocusonasingle outcomethatwasafectedbyfourdiferentvariables.forexample,theoutcomewashowfarthespring stretchedasafunctionofitslength,width,wiresizeandweight(chen&klahr,1999). InastudyconductedbyVelomandAnderson(1999),studentslearnedaboutmas,volumeand densitybyatemptingtostackthreemisciblesolutionswithdiferingdensitiesontopofoneanother. Afterseveralatempts,studentswereaskedtodecideinsmalgroupswhichofthediferentclaims studentsintheclasmadeweretrustworthyandwhichwereunreliable,i.e.todecidehowto separatethedatafromthenoise (Velom&Anderson,1999,p.182).Intermsofstandardsforasuringthe qualityofthecolecteddata,replicability,careinexperimentation,explicitnesaboutexperimental proceduresandconsistencyofobservedandreportedresultswerepointedoutbythestudents(velom &Anderson,1999). Analysingprimaryschoolchildren sinquiryapproaches,so(2003)recognisedthatthese childrenoftenuseddailycommoditiestomeasureorcolectdata,andusedotherequipmentandinstrumentswhen needed,[ ]childrenwereabletomakesenseoftheirdatabyusingscientifcequipmentandempiricalobservation, andtotranslatetheseobservationsintouseabledataforinterpretation,aswelasgatheringdatainanorganized andlogicalmanner,[ and]itwascommontofndfromchildren sreportsthattheywerecapableofcomparingthe severalroundsofdatacolectedandtocometoanagreementaboutthesetofdataforinterpretation.(pp ) Tothetal.(2002)identifedpaternsinstudents inquiryapproachesresemblingtwodiferentstrategieswithrespecttoscientifcreasoning.somestudentsfolowedareasoningfromhypothesisapproach, whileothersstartedwithcolectingdatafolowingareasoningfromdataapproachtoscientifcreasoning (Tothetal.,2002).Theauthorsconcludedthatdiferentscafoldsmaybeneededtosupportstudents whotendtoapplyeitheroneofthesetwoapproaches. Severalstudiesinthisreviewusedvirtual,computer-basedsystemsintheirinvestigations.Inthe contextofplatetectonics,gobertetal.(2010)askedstudentstocreatecrossectionsoftheearth s interioratdiferentplateboundariestoelaborateonthemagnitude,depth,frequencyandlocationof earthquakesandtoexplainhowthemovementsoftheplatesateachboundaryaccountforpaterns ineachsetofearthquakedata.studentswerealsoaskedtoapplytheirunderstandingtothereverse case,i.e.theyweregiventwotablesofearthquakedataandwereaskedtoidentifythetypeofboundary representedbyeachtable(gobertetal.,2010). Intheirstudy,Tothetal.(2002)usedadesignexperimentapproachtodevelopaninstructionalframeworkthatlendsitselftoauthenticscientifcinquiry.Atechnology-basedknowledgerepresentationtool enabledstudentstorelatehypothesestodatabyconstructingso-caledevidencemaps.studentsformulatedscientifcstatementsusingdiferentshapesforhypothesesandataandindicatedtherelation betweenthesewithfor(support)andagainst(refutation)links.additionalyandlinkscouldbeused toconjoinstatements.withregardtotheevaluationofdatainrelationtotheories,studentsusingthe evidencemapoutperformedtheircounterpartswhousedprosewriting.thisefectwasevenenhanced bytheuseofrefectiveasesmentthroughouttheinquiryproces(tothetal.,2002). Comparabletotheplanninganddesigningofexperiments,students abilitytoanalyseandinterpret dataisanalysedbasedondiferentactivitiesstudentshavetocaryout(conductanownanalysis;evaluate agivenanalysisorinterpretation;and/orself-evaluateone sability)anddiferentmodesofrealisation (hands-on;virtual;andtheoretical).acrosalpublications,studentsarepredominantlyrequiredtoconducthands-onanalysesofself-colecteddatawhiletheevaluationofagivenanalysisortheself-evaluation ofone sabilityismainlyasesedincomputer-basedorwritenform.however,again,fewstudiesprovide detailsaboutthestepsrequiredtocolectdatathatcanbeinterpretedinascientifcway.regardingthe evaluationofstudents abilitytoanalyseandinterpretdata,students controlingofvariablesandthe systematicsofcomparisonsbetweencasesarethemainfeatures.onamoreepistemologicalevel,velom

17 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 175 andanderson(1999)askedstudentsaboutstandardstoasurethequalityofthedatacolectionand analysis.theseaspectsofstandardsandgoodscientifcpracticearenotaddresedinanyotherstudy includedinthisreview. Withtheaimtofosterstudents abilitytoanalyseandinterpretdata,mostapproachesfocusonmeans tosupportstudentsinincorporatingcontextualyrelevanttheoriesorstudents hypothesesintothe procesofanalysingandinterpretingthedata,i.e.inlinkingbacktheanalysistopreviousstepsinthe inquiryproces.here,theuseofevidencemapsandrefectiveasesmenthasprovenfruitful(tothetal., 2002).However,studentsinthediferentstudiesarerarelyconfrontedwithconfictingevidenceorwith complexmethodsinthedataanalysis,indicatingthattheoutcomespaceofexperimentsorprovided data-setsismainlycontroledtofocusonclean,clear-cutandwel-structuredresults. Developingexplanations Theconstructionofevidence-basedexplanationsisaddresedin36publicationsinthisreview however,only18ofthemfurtherelaborateontheactivity.approximatelyhalfofthese18studiesaddres thedevelopmentofexplanationsinthegeneralcontextofscientifcargumentation,emphasisingthe closerelationshipbetweenexplanationandargumentation(mcneil,2009).themostdetaileddefnition ofascientifcexplanationisgivenbygotwalsandsonger(2010): Wedefneascientifcexplanationasaresponsetoascientifcquestionthattakestheformofarhetoricalargumentandconsistsofthreemainparts:aclaim(astatementthatestablishestheproposedanswertothequestion), evidence(dataorobservationsthatsupporttheclaim),andreasoning(thescientifcprinciplethatlinksthedata totheclaimandmakesthereasonvisiblewhytheevidencesupportstheclaim).inshort,ascientifcexplanation isacompilationofevidenceelicitedthroughobservationandinvestigationandtheexplicitlinksthosedatahave torelatedscientifcknowledge.(p.263) ThisdefnitioniscloselyrelatedtotheargumentationmodelbyToulmin(1958).Referencestothismodel canalsobefoundincavagnetoetal.(2010)andsampson,groomsandwalker(2011).whereasthe formerconsiderexplanationsaspartofrebutals,thelaterregardthemasoneformofaclaim(next toconclusions,conjecturesorotheranswerstoresearchquestions).morecontent-orienteddefnitions understandexplanationsasareference tohoworwhysomethinghappens (McNeil,2009,p.235),asa formofschematicknowledgeandkindsofmentalmodels(furtak&ruiz-primo,2008)orasoneaspect ofconstructingunderstanding(wilson,taylor,kowalski,&carlson,2010).inthevastmajorityofpublications,however,noexplicitdefnitionofanexplanationisgivenanditisoftennotclearlyseparated fromrelatedactivitieslike,e.g.drawingconclusions(gobertetal.,2010). Nexttoargumentation,developingexplanationsisalsorelatedtotheconstructionanduseof models.ingeneral,modelsareregardedassupportstructuresthatalowstudentstodevelopexplanationsforphenomena,eitherbyactivatingschematicknowledge(furtak&ruiz-primo,2008)orby providing asetofrepresentations,rules,andreasoningstructures (Schwarz&White,2005,p.166).This relationisusedbywilsonetal.(2010)whomeasuredstudents abilitytoreasonwithscientifcmodels throughconstructedresponseitemsinwhichstudentswereaskedtoexplainorpredictpaternsin novelsituations.otherstudiesconsiderexplanationsandmodelsasalternativeexplanatorystructures forphenomena,bothofwhicharebasedonevidence(ebenezeretal.,2011;sampsonetal.,2011). Thepublicationsaddresingstudents scientifcexplanationsdiferwithrespecttothefocusandthe goaloftheiranalyses.whereassomestudiesexplicitlyfocusonscientifcexplanations(eitherrelatedto argumentationornot),othersaddresexplanationswithinthebroaderframeworkofargumentation and/orasone(ofseveral)inquiryskils.studieswithanexplicitfocusonexplanationsclearlyseparate thecontentandstructureofexplanationsintheiranalyses.sampsonetal.(2011)investigatedtheefect ofaninstructionalmodelthatrequiresstudentstodevelop,refne,evaluateanduseexplanationson students argumentationandexplanation.theefectwasevaluatedusingaperformancetaskthatasked studentstogenerateanoriginalandcomplexwritenexplanation(caledargument)foranil-defned problem.thetaskiscodedaccordingtofourcriteria:theadequacyoftheexplanation(regardlesof itsaccuracy),theconceptualqualityoftheexplanation,thequalityoftheevidenceandthesufciency

18 176 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. ofthereasoning.overal,theresultsindicatethattheinterventionincreasedstudents disciplinary engagementandsupportedtheminproducingbeterarguments.separatecodesforcontentand structurecanalsobefoundingotwalsandsonger(2010)andmcneil(2009),whereasberlandand Reiser(2009)focussolelyonexplanationstructure. Withinthecontextofscientifcargumentation,thepublications mainlyfocusonthestructureof explanations.students explanationsareanalysedapplyingtoulmin smodelofargumentationasparts ofrebutals(cavagnetoetal.,2010)oraspartofacombinedcategoryconsistingoftoulmin sdata, warantsandbackingscaledgrounds(clark&sampson,2008).resultsindicatethatstudents rebutals areoftennotfulydevelopedrebutalsbutratherobjectionstoideas(cavagnetoetal.,2010).the analysesbyclarkandsampson(2008)moreovershowedthatstudentsincludedgroundsintheircommentsonlyhalfofthetime.iftheyincludedsometypeofgrounds,theymostlyreliedonanexplanation withoutevidenceandeveniftheyincludedevidence,theymostlyreliedonsimplejustifcationsinstead ofcoordinatingmultiplepiecesofevidence.otherstudiesinthisfeldfocus,e.g.onstudents abilityto makeevent evidence explanationconnections(ebenezeretal.,2011)oronthenatureofstudents scientifcthinking,i.e. howtheyreason,howtheytrytomakesenseofscientifcideas,andhowthey explainandjustifyanswersthattheygive (Steinberg,Cormier,&Fernandez,2009,p ). Nexttodiscourseanalyses,anothermajorapproachtoasesingstudents explanationsisbasedon theanalysisofstudents writenresponses.theyareanalysedbasedondiferenttypesofexplanation items.studentsareeitherexplicitlyaskedtowritetheir bestexplanation foraspecifcphenomenon (Herenkohletal.,1999,p.460),toprovideexplanationsfortheiranswersto multiple-choiceitems (Steinbergetal.,2009;White&Frederiksen,1998)ortoanswertoasesmentprompts,e.g.intheform ofpredict observe explainorconstructedresponseitems(furtak&ruiz-primo,2008).inastudyanalysingtherelativeutilityoffourdiferenttypesofformativeasesmentpromptsinelicitingstudents conceptualunderstanding,thelaterauthorsfoundthatpromptsrequiringwritenresponseshavethe potentialtosupportstudentunderstandingofscientifccontentandproceses(furtak&ruiz-primo, 2008). Insummary,variousdefnitionsareusedinthecontextofanalysingstudents developmentofexplanations,partlyhavingsimilaritiestodefnitionsusedinthefeldofargumentationortheconstruction ofmodels.consequently,theaimoftheanalysisalsovarieswithregardtotheunderlyingfunctionof theexplanation,i.e.topersuadeothersortoelaborateonone sunderstanding.studieswithanexplicit focusonexplanationsoftenseparatecontentandstructureofexplanationsintheanalyseswhilestudies relatedtoargumentationmainlyfocusonthestructuralaspectsoftheexplanation.regardingtheformatofasesment,students discourseandwritenanswerstoopen-endedquestionsarethedominant datasourcesintheanalyses.withrespecttoinstructionalapproachestofosterthequalityofstudents explanations,severalstudiessuggestpromptingstudentstoincorporatestructuralfeaturesintotheir explanations,e.g.byprovidinggroundingsorevidenceforargumentsandclaims. Constructingmodels Theactivityofconstructingandusingmodelsisaddresedin14studiesinthisreview.Withtheexceptionofonestudythatsimplystatesthatstudentshadtimefor buildingmodels (Wong&Day,2009, p.629),alstudiesprovidedsomefurtherinsightsintotheoperationalisationoftheirunderstandingof theconstruct.lookingatthesestudiesinmoredetail,twotypesofmodels realmodelsandmental models havetobedistinguished.real modelsare,e.g.usedtosupportstudents learningabout complexsystems(hmelo,holton,&kolodner,2000)ortoalowstudentstounderstandthediference betweeninferenceandobservation(akerson&donnely,2010).the majorityofpublicationsinthis review,however,focuson mental models mostlyinthegeneralcontextofscientifcreasoning(e.g. Herenkohletal.,1999;White&Frederiksen,1998).Inconstructingandusingmentalmodels,typical studentactivitiesincludepredicting,controling,explaining,organising,thinking,reasoning,developing argumentsand/ortransferingconceptstonovelsituations.however,thestudiesinthisreviewvary

19 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 177 considerablywithrespecttothebroadnesoftheirapproachtomodelingandalsointheexplicitnes oftheirdefnitions. ApreciseandcomprehensivedefnitionisgivenbySchwarzandWhite(2005)whodefnemodels asasetofrepresentations,rules,andreasoningstructuresthatalowonetogeneratepredictionsand explanations (p.166).theauthorsunderstandscientifcmodelingasaprocesthatinvolvestheconstruction,evaluationandrevisionofamodel,addinganadditionalaspectcaledmeta-modelingknowledge,i.e.students knowledgeaboutthenatureandpurposeofscientifcmodels.asimilarapproach isemployedbywhiteandfrederiksen(1998).intheirstudy,studentsconstructanexplicitconceptual model(includingscientifclawsandrepresentations)withtheaimthatstudentsshould understandthe formandpropertiesofsuchscientifclawsandmodels,theinquiryprocesneededforcreatingthem, andtheutilityofsuchmodelsforpredicting,controling,andexplainingreal-worldbehaviour (p.12). Moststudies,however,focusoncertainaspectsoftheabove-mentioneddefnition mostlywithout explicitlydefningtheirconstruct.severalstudiesaddrestheuseofmodelsasatooltosupportstudents indevelopingexplanations(herenkohletal.,1999;sampsonetal.,2011),whereasothersemphasise theroleofmodelsinmakingpredictions(gobertetal.,2010;repenning,ioannidou,luhn,daetwyler, &Repenning,2010)orinunderstandingtherelationbetweendiferenttypesofvariables(Herenkohl etal.,2011).therepresentationalaspectisinvestigatedindetail,e.g.bykabermananddori(2009)who explicitlydefne modelingskilsastheunderstandingofcorect3drepresentationofspatialstructures ofmoleculesandtheabilitytotransferbetweendiferentmolecularrepresentations (p.601). Theasesmentofmodelingcompetencenaturalydependsonthefocusofthestudy.Students are,e.g.askedtotransferbetweenrepresentations(kaberman&dori,2009),toexplainphenomena (Herenkohletal.,1999)ortopredictandexplainpaternsinnovelsituations(Wilsonetal.,2010).A specifcpaper-and-pencil-basedmodelingtestthatincludesquestionsconcerningstudents meta-modelingknowledgehasbeendevelopedandusedbyschwarzandwhite(2005).theresultsobtainedin thesestudiesshowthatemphasisingmodelinginthelearningenvironmentincreasesnotonlystudents modelingskils(kaberman&dori,2009;sampsonetal.,2011)butalsoleadstolearninggainswith respecttoinquiryskilsandconceptualunderstanding.intheirevaluationofaninquiry-orientedphysicscuriculum,emphasisingthediferentaspectsofmodeling,schwarzandwhite(2005),e.g.found thattheapproachfacilitatedasignifcantimprovementinstudents understandingofmodeling,and especialymeta-modeling,whichtransferedtoinquiryskilsandtothelearningofsciencecontent. Modeling,however,didnotonlysupportinquirylearningbutalsosupportedstudents learningand applicationofscientifcmodels(white&frederiksen,1998;wilsonetal.,2010). Incontrastto mostotherinquiryactivities,almostalreviewedstudieswithafocusonstudents constructionof modelsprovidedetailsabouttheunderstandingoftheconstructunderlyingtheir investigation.acrosthestudies,bothrealmodelsandmentalmodelsareaddresed,albeitwithdiferentaims.whilerealmodelsareusedinthecontextofcomplexsystemsortoemphasisethediference betweeninferenceandobservation(akerson&donnely,2010),mentalmodelsareusedinthecontext ofscientifcreasoning(e.g.herenkohletal.,1999;white&frederiksen,1998),oftenwithafocuson specifcactivities,e.g.makingpredictionsorilustratingtherelationbetweendiferenttypesofvariables.regardlesofthetypeofmodel,mainlypaperandpenciltestswithmultiple-choice,constructed responseoropen-endeditemsareusedtoasesstudents abilitiesintheactivityofconstructing models.tosupportstudentsinconstructingmodels, moststudiesadvocateemphasisingmodeling ingeneralordiferentaspectsofmodelinginthelearningenvironment. Engaginginargumentationandreasoning Overthepastdecade,thestudyofargumentationhasbeenaprominentfeaturewithinresearchin scienceeducation(osborne,simon,christodoulou,howel-richardson,&richardson,2013).ithasbeen pointedout,however,thatresearchersoftenfailtodefnewhatexactlytheymeanbyargumentation orargument(ryu&sandoval,2012)andthatnoconsistentusageofthetermargumentationhasbeen established sometimes,itreferstoanykindofdiscusion,sometimestoadvancingandevaluating

20 178 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Table1.Descriptivecharacteristicsofthepublicationsinthereviewrelatedtoargumentationandreasoning(thenumbersgivethe numbersofpublicationswithinthedifferentcategoriesoutofatotalofn =40studiesfocusingonargumentationandproviding conceptualdetails). Constructs Argument(ation)+reasoning Argument(ation) Reasoning Definitionofargument(ation) Explicit Implicit Examples Notgiven Definitionofreasoning Explicit Implicit Examples Notgiven Context a Sciencecontent Socioscientific/il-structured Notdescribed Frameworkforanalysis a Toulmin b Mercer Raven stest c Self-developed Content Notdescribed a Studiescanbelongtomorethanonecategory. b Thecategoryalsoincludesadaptedversionsoftheoriginalmodel. c Raven stest=raven sprogresivetestsofnon-verbalreasoning. knowledgeclaimsbasedonevidence(shemwel&furtak,2010).thisinconsistencycanalsobeobserved forthepublicationsanalysedinthisreview(fordescriptivecharacteristicsofthestudies,seetable1). Intotal,students engagementinargumentationandreasoningisaddresedin50publications 40 publicationsprovidefurtherdetailsontheoperationalisationofthisactivity.studiesfocusonargumentationand/orreasoning,eitherexclusivelyorasoneimportantaspectofscientifcinquiry;inmore thanthree-quartersofthesepublications,bothconstructsareconsideredtogether.withregardtothe operationalisation,themajorityofstudiesprovidesdetailsexplicitly(oratleastimplicitly) nevertheles,detailsaremisinginfvepublicationsforargument/argumentationandineightpublicationsfor reasoning,respectively.amongthestudiesthatprovidedetailsabouttheoperationalisationoftheir constructs,diferencesaswelassimilaritiesexist. Themostsignifcantcommunalitycanbeseenintheimportancegiventotheuseofevidence.Almost alstudiesstrestheneedtojustifydiferentkindsofclaimswithdataorevidenceas,e.g.inclarkand Sampson(2007): Argumentationincludesanydialoguethataddresesthecoordinationofevidence andtheorytosupportorrefuteanexplanatoryconclusion,model,orprediction (p.255).nevertheles, aconsiderablevarietyamongthestudiesexistswithrespecttotheoperationalisationandtheanalysis oftheconstructs.importantaspectsinthiscontextare,e.g.thediferentiationbetweenargumentand argumentation,thedelimitationtorelatedconstructslikeexplanationanddiscusionandtheframeworksusedfordefningandanalysingargumentationand/orreasoning. The majorityofstudiesinthereviewdonotsystematicalydiferentiatebetweenargumentand argumentation insomecases,bothtermsevenseemtobeusedmoreorlessynonymously(e.g.in McNeil,2009).However,therearesomestudiesthatexplicitlyaddresthediferentiation.Inthesestudies,thetermargumentreferstoaproduct(andthecontentandstructureofthisproduct),whereasthe termargumentationreferstoaproces: Theformer[argument]weseeasareferenttotheclaim,data, warants,andbackingsthatformthesubstanceorcontentofanargument.thelater[argumentation], incontrast,weseeasareferenttotheprocesofarguing (Osborne,Erduran,&Simon,2004,p.998);a similardiferentiationexistsin,e.g.linandmintzes(2010)orruiz-primo,li,tsaiandschneider(2010). AspecifcvariationofthisdiferentiationcanbefoundinWilsonetal.(2010)aswelasinBerland(2011) whodefneargumentasascientifcexplanationandargumentationastheprocesofdevelopingand evaluatingsuchexplanations.inaccordancewithearlierfndings(berland&reiser,2009),thestudiesin

21 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 179 thisreviewshowsomedisagreementwhetherexplanationandargumentationareregardedascomplementary(e.g.berland&reiser,2009;mcneil,2011;ruiz-primo,furtak,ayala,yin,&shavelson,2010)or asasinglepractice(e.g.gotwals&songer,2010;wilsonetal.,2010).berlandandreiser(2009)suggest combiningargumentationandexplanationintothesinglepracticeofconstructinganddefendingscientifcexplanations.thiscombinationinsomerespectclosesthegaptomorecomplementaryviewpoints as,e.g.expresedbymcneil(2009): Constructinganexplanationdoesnotnecesitateusingevidence tosupportaconclusionortryingtoconvinceorpersuadeanotherindividualthatyourexplanationis corect,yetthesearekeyaspectsofscientifcargumentation (p.235).theaspectofpersuasionisalso akeyaspectindelimitatingargumentationfromdiscusion: Thelabelandtermargumentationrather thandiscusion wasusedtoemphasisedebateandnegotiationusingspecifcmethodsofpersuasion (Hickey,Taasoobshirazi,&Cros,2012,p.1255;seealsoShemwel&Furtak,2010). Withrespecttoargumentation,twomajoroperationalisationscanbeidentifed:argumentationas students generaluseofevidence(dataandscientifcconcepts)toconstructargumentsorexplanations aboutthephenomenonunderstudy(e.g.erduran,simon,&osborne,2004;mcneil,2011;osborne etal.,2004)andargumentationasasocialanddialogicinteractioninwhichtheparticipantstryto persuadeorconvinceeachotherofthevalidityoftheirclaimsuntiloneparticipant(orside)wins and theotherloses(e.g.berland&reiser,2009;chin&osborne,2010).theaspectofpersuasionisspecifcalyaddresedinapproximatelyone-quarterofthepublicationsinthisreview.however,several authorsstresthepointthatthesocialandcolaborativecomponentofargumentationisnotsolely competitivebutalsoameanstocolaborativelymakesenseofthephenomenonunderstudy(beland etal.,2011)aswelastosolveproblemsandtoadvanceknowledge(clark&sampson,2007).sampson etal.(2011)evenarguethat inscience,argumentationisnotaheatedexchangebetweenrivalsthatresultsinwinnersandlosersoranefort toreachamutualybenefcialcompromise;ratheritisaformof logicaldiscoursewhosegoalistoteaseoutthe relationshipbetweenideasandevidence.(p.218) Todefne,analyseandevaluateargumentation,themajorityofstudiesinthereviewreferstothe modelbytoulmin(1958)oradaptedversionsofhismodel.themodelisusedtoanalysethestructural featuresandcontentofargumentsproducedbysingleindividuals(e.g.clark&sampson,2007;kely, Druker,&Chen,1998;McNeil,2011)aswelasthequalityofargumentationinsmalgroupdiscusions. Erduranetal.(2004),e.g.developedaframeworkwherethequalityofargumentationisasesedinterms offvelevelswhichilustratethequalityofoppositionorrebutalsinthestudentdiscusions(osborne etal.,2004).despitetheprevalentusageoftoulmin smodelintheanalysisofargumentationinscience clasrooms,however,problemscanstilbeobservedwithrespecttotheclarifcationofwhatcountsas claim,data,warantandbackings(erduranetal.,2004;shemwel&furtak,2010).someauthorsthus colapsetoulmin sdata,warantsandbackingsintoasinglecodecaledgroundstoaddresthepractical difcultytoreliablydiferentiateamongthesecomponents(e.g.clark&sampson,2007;erduranetal., 2004).ShemwelandFurtak(2010)arguethatinthefeldofscientifcargumentation,numerousstudies canbeidentifedthatdonotuseanynormativecriteriaforwhatcancountassupportforarguments.asa consequence,litletonoinformationisprovidedabouttheroleofstudents subjectmaterconceptions intheiruseofevidenceorthedegreetowhichstudents argumentsrefectscientifccriteriaforvalidity. AmongthestudiesusingToulmin smodel,reasoningismostlyunderstoodasonecomponentof anargument,namely:asthejustifcationthatshowswhythedatacountasevidencetosupportthe claim(e.g.mcneil,2009).someauthorsextendthisdefnitionbyarguingthatreasoningshouldalso includetheconceptualknowledgethatthestudentsapplytoaspecifcsituation(e.g.ruiz-primoetal., 2010).Otheroperationalisationsdefnereasoninginamoregeneralwayastheprocesofconstructing (White&Frederiksen,1998)and/orcritiquingarguments(Dawson&Venvile,2009;Osborneetal.,2013). However,Tothetal.(2002)focusspecifcalyononereasoningskil,namely:theevaluationofempirical evidenceagainstmultiplehypotheses.in14publications,therelationshipbetweenargumentationand reasoningremainsvagueorunclear.

22 180 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. InadditiontoToulmin model,studiesinthisreviewusetheframeworkbymercer(chin&teou, 2009);inalmostone-thirdofthepublications,self-developedframeworksformthebasisoftheanalysis.Theseframeworksdiferconsiderablywithrespecttothecomprehensivenesandfocusoftheir operationalisationsofargumentation;somestudiessimplymakeuseofestablishedinstrumentslike, e.g.raven smatricesfornon-verbalreasoning(osborneetal.,2013)orexclusivelyfocusonwhether evidenceisprovidedornot(gobertetal.,2010).others,however,usedetailedframeworkslikethe evidence-basedreasoningframework(e.g.brown,nagashima,fu,timms,&wilson,2010),frameworks thatshowsimilaritiestotoulminwithoutanexplicitreference(e.g.belandetal.,2011;hickeyetal., 2012)andself-developedrubrics,e.g.relatedtostudents abilitytodefendarguments(ebenezeretal., 2011).Studiesthatspecifcalyaddrestheaspectofsocialinteractionwithintheconstructofscientifc argumentationuseadditionalcodingschemesthathelpidentifythefeaturesoftheinteractionandthe natureoftheengagementbetweenstudents(e.g.clark&sampson,2008;kim&song,2006;osborne etal.,2004;sampsonetal.,2011).sampsonetal.(2011),e.g.codedstudents reactiontoideas(accept, discus,rejectand/orignore)andtheoveralnatureorfunctionofthecontributionsthestudents madetotheconversationwhendiscusingthemeritsofanidea(informationseeking,expositional, oppositionalandsupportive). Studiesdifernotonlywithregardtotheoperationalisationofargumentation,butalsowithrespect tothediferentmethodsusedtoasesstudents abilitiesinargumentation.principaly,threeformats canbedistinguished:transcriptsofverbaldataofstudents discourse(e.g.osborneetal.,2004);diferent typesofstudents writenargumentationlike,e.g.notebooks(e.g.ruiz-primoetal.,2010),evidencemaps (Tothetal.,2002)andonlinediscusions(e.g.Clark&Sampson,2007);andasesmenttasksconsisting ofopen(e.g.lin&mintzes,2010;mcneil,2009),constructedresponse(e.g.wilsonetal.,2010)oreven multiple-choiceitems(rivet&kastens,2012). Amajordifcultyinanalysingstudents argumentationisthediferentiationbetweenthestructure andcomponentsofanargumentanditsaccuracy.thisaspectrefectstheabove-mentionedquestion whetherscientifcargumentationabilityincludesacomponentofconceptualqualityornot or,askely etal.(1998)putit,whetheranargumentissubstantiveornot: Anargumentisconsideredsubstantive whenknowledgeoftheactualcontentisrequisiteforunderstanding (p.853;seealsoclark&sampson, 2007).ShemwelandFurtak(2010)explicitlyrefertothisquestionbydiferentiatingargumentation andscientifcargumentationbasedonthekindsorlevelsofsupportthatcanwarantknowledge claims.amongthepublicationsinthisreview,bothoperationalisationsofargumentationinscience clasroomsexist.somestudiesfocussolelyonthestructureandstructuralcomponentsofstudents arguments,regardlesoftheaccuracyofthesciencecontent(e.g.cros,taasoobshirazi,hendricks,& Hickey,2008;Dawson&Venvile,2009;Erduranetal.,2004;Kelyetal.,1998;McNeil,2011;Osborne etal.,2004).others,however,includeseparatecodestoaddrestheaspectofconceptualquality.clark andsampson(2008),e.g.codedtheconceptualqualityofastudentcommentaseithernon-normative, transitional,normativeornuanced.similarly,theaccuracyofaclaimorascientifcexplanationiscoded asaseparatemeasurebyruiz-primoetal.(2010)andsampsonetal.(2011).brownetal.(2010)aswel asshemwelandfurtak(2010)eventualyincludedcodesforconceptualsophistication,specifcity andvalidity(brownetal.,2010)andconceptualexplicitnes,respectively(shemwel&furtak,2010). Thediversityinoperationalisationsisrefectedintheaimsofstudiesinvestigatingargumentation inscienceeducation.generaly,fourmajoraimscanbeidentifed.thefrstcategoryiscomprisedof studiesanalysingstudentargumentationinasurvey-likemanner.findingsconsistentlyshowthatstudentsstrugglewithprovidinghigh-qualityarguments.argumentsarenotonlyfoundtobelargely intuitiveandemotive(dawson&venvile,2009),buttheyoftenincludeunwarantedclaimsandmisa rationalinformalreasoningcomponent(dawson&venvile,2009;kelyetal.,1998).ifstudentsprovide warantedarguments,however,theseshowconsiderablecomplexityandcanbedescribedbythree dimensions,theargumentstrategy,thereferentinthewarantandthetypeofwarant(kelyetal.,1998). Asecondsetofstudiesfocusesonefectsofteachers instructionalpractices.noconsistentefectson studentreasoningcouldbefoundinaninterventionanalysingtheefectsofaprofesionaldevelopment activityaimingtoimproveteachers abilitytouseinstructionalpracticesasociatedwithargumentation

23 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 181 intheteachingofscience(osborneetal.,2013).teachers useofacuriculumexplicitlydesignedto supportstudentsintheconstructionofscientifcargumentstoexplainphenomenawasinvestigated bymcneil(2009).shefoundthatsometeacherstendtosimplifythedefnitionofscientifcargumentation,resultingindecreasedlearninggainsintermsofstudents abilitytowritescientifcarguments. Themajorityofstudiesinthisreviewaddrestheefectsofinstructionalinterventionsonstudent argumentation.diferenttypesofinterventionscanbedistinguished.ingeneral,learningenvironments specifcalydesignedtofosterargumentationresultinpositiveefectsonstudents argumentation ability(mcneil,2011;osborneetal.,2004;ryu&sandoval,2012;sampsonetal.,2011).intheiranalysis atelementarylevel,linandmintzes(2010)distinguishedbetweenhigh-andlow-achievingstudents. Theyconcludedthatanexplicitinstructioninargumentationisparticularlybenefcialforhigh-achieving students,whereaslowachieverslagintheirabilitytomasterargumentationskilswhichwaspartialy atributedtoalackofconceptualknowledge.gotwalsandsonger(2010)eventualyfoundthateven whenstudentsunderstandthecontent,theystilhavedifcultiesincreatingacompletescientifc explanationwithaclaim,sufcientevidenceandreasoning.therelationshipbetweenlearninggains andengagementinscientifcargumentationwasanalysedbycrosetal.(2008).theyconcludedthat theargumentativestructures,thequalityofthesestructuresandtheidentitiesthatstudentstakeon duringcolaborativegroupworkarecriticalininfuencingstudentlearningandachievementinscience. Studiesinvestigatingtheefectsofinquiryinterventionsonstudents argumentationleadtoinconsistentfndings.whereassomestudiesreportpositiveefectsofinquiry-basedinstructionalactivitieson reasoningandargumentation(steinbergetal.,2009;wilsonetal.,2010),othersreportdifcultiesin engagingstudentsinhigh-qualityargumentation,especialywithrespecttotheneedofsupporting claimswithdata,evidenceorreasoning(ruiz-primoetal.,2010;taasoobshirazi&hickey,2005).alast typeofinterventionconsistsofcomputer-basedscafolds.belandetal.(2011),e.g.foundthatsuch scafoldsareespecialybenefcialforlow-achievingstudentsinhelpingthemconstructmorecoherent arguments. Thelastcategoryofstudiesconsistsofevaluationsofspecifcasesment methodsdesignedto asesreasoningandargumentation.examplesare,e.g.theevidence-basedreasoningasesment System(Brownetal.,2010)andtheanalyticalframeworkforasesingargumentationinonlinesciencelearningenvironmentsdevelopedbyClarkandSampson(2008)thatalowsforanalysingthe relationshipsbetweenlevelsofopposition,discoursemoves,useofgroundsandconceptualquality. Erduranetal.(2004)presenttwomethodologicalapproachesthatsignifcantlyextendandimprove theuseoftoulmin smodelfortracingargumentationdiscourseinscienceclasrooms.aninteligent argumentationasesmentsystembasedonmachinelearningtechniqueswaseventualydeveloped andevaluatedbyhuangetal.(2011).theresultsshowedthatthesystemisabletodeterminethe argumentationskillevelbasedonthestudents argumentswhileatthesametimepromotingstudents argumentationlevels. Insummary,engaginginargumentationandreasoningistheinquiryactivityaddresedbymost articlesinthisreview.acrosthesestudies,someaspectsstandout:moststudiesputamajoremphasis ontheuseofevidencebutdonotsystematicalydiferentiatebetweenargumentandargumentation.in general,thereisalsoanoverlapbetweenargumentationandexplanationandsomeauthorsadvocate tocombinebothintothesinglepracticeofconstructinganddefendingscientifcexplanations(berland &Reiser,2009). Twomajoroperationalisationscanbeidentifedwithregardtoargumentation:students generaluse ofevidence(dataandscientifcconcepts)toconstructargumentsorexplanations(e.g.erduranetal., 2004;McNeil,2011;Osborneetal.,2004)andasocialanddialogicinteractioninwhichtheparticipants trytopersuadeorconvinceeachother(e.g.berland&reiser,2009;chin&osborne,2010).toanalyse andevaluateargumentation,themajorityofstudiesinthisreviewreferstothemodelbytoulmin(1958) oradaptedversionsofhismodel,butoftenitisnottotalyclarifedwhatcountsasclaim,data,warant andbackings.asaconsequence,onlyfewstudiesprovideinformationabouttheroleofstudents subjectmaterconceptionsintheiruseofevidence(ase.g.inruiz-primoetal.,2010),makingitdifcultto diferentiatebetweenthestructureandcomponentsofanargumentanditsaccuracy.

24 182 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Overal,four majoraimsareidentifedinthestudiesinvestigatingargumentation:analysingstudentargumentationinasurvey-likemanner,analysingtheefectsofteachers instructionalpractices orinstructionalinterventionsonstudentargumentationandtheevaluationsofspecifcasesment methodsdesignedtoasesreasoningandargumentation.regardingasesmentformats,theanalysis ofvideo-oraudiotapedmaterial,ofwritenproducts(notebooks,onlinediscusions,etc.)andwriten orcomputer-basedtests(multiplechoiceorconstructedresponse)isusedalmostequalyfrequentin thediferentstudies. Communicating Communicationisnotrestrictedtoaspecifcstageoftheinquiryprocesbutconstitutesanoverarching abilitythatservestwomajorpurposes,namely:tobeterunderstandscientifcconceptsandproceduresandtoparticipateinascientifccommunity(ruiz-primo,li,ayala,&shavelson,2004).amongthe studiesinthisreview,23studiesaddrestheaspectofscientifccommunication.in17ofthesepublications,detailsregardingtheoperationalisationofthisaspectofscientifcinquiryareprovided.two broadcategoriesofstudiescanbedistinguished,studiesthatanalysethestructureoftheinteraction incommunicationprocesesandstudiesthatfocusonthequalityoftheinteraction. Thefrstaspectisoftenanalysedinthecontextofargumentationandexplanationinwhichcommunicationisregardedbothasameanstoconstructandarticulateunderstandingandasaformofsocial interaction.berlandandreiser(2009),e.g.investigatedhowstudentsarticulatetheirunderstanding asoneinstructionalgoalofconstructinganddefendingscientifcexplanations.thelearningenvironmentfosteredthisgoalbyhighlightingthestructuralelementsnecesaryinthearticulationofan understandingandbyexplicitlystructuringthewaysinwhichstudentsarticulatedtheirexplanations. Intheanalysis,twostylesofcommunicationcouldbedistinguished,thefrstweavingtogetherclaim, evidenceandreasoningcomponents,andthesecondclearlydelineatingthem.afocusontherelationshipbetweenclaimandevidenceandthejustifcationoftheownpositioncanalsobefoundinkim andsong(2006).intheirstudy,studentgroupsinteractedwithoneanotherinapeerreviewproces similartoconferencepresentationsbyscientists.resultsshowedthattheresultingcriticaldiscusions proceededthroughthefourstagesoffocusing,exchanging,debatingandclosing.basedonfeatures ofconstituentstages,theauthorsdistinguishedfourtypesofdiscusion:exchanginginformation, consensus,coexistenceandextension.asimilarapproachwasfolowedbysampsonetal.(2011)who analysedthenatureofstudents reactionstoideasproposedbytheirpeers. Specifctypesofconversationsemphasisingcommunicationasaformofsocialinteractionwere investigatedbytwostudiesinthecontextofinformalformativeasesment.hickeyandzuiker(2012) analysedconversationalturnsinstudent-directedfeedbackconversationswithrespecttosixmutualy exclusiveandexhaustivecategoriesofincreasinglydesirableformsofdomain-specifcinteraction: oftask,neutral,procedural,factual,argumentationandargumentationbeyondtheintervention. Theauthorsfoundthatalmostone-thirdoftheconversationalturnswerecodedasoftaskandonly one-quarterasargumentation;noargumentationreachingbeyondtheinterventionoccured. Ruiz-PrimoandFurtak(2007)arguefortheimportanceofsocialproceses,i.e.howknowledgeis communicated,representedandarguedinthecontextofasesmentconversations: Socialprocesesrefertotheframeworksinvolvedinstudents scientifccommunicationsneededwhileengagingin scientifcinquiry,andcanbeoral,writen,orpictorial.itinvolvesthesyntactic,pragmatic,andsemanticstructures ofscientifcknowledgeclaims,theiraccuratepresentationandrepresentation,andtheuseofdiverseformsof discourseandargumentation.(p.62) Intheirstudyexploringtherelationshipbetweenteachers informalformativeasesmentpractices andstudents learning,however,theyconsideredthesocialprocesestobebynatureembeddedin asesmentconversationsandthusdidnotspecifyteacherinterventionsinthisdomain. Asanotherfocus,thenatureofstudent studentbutalsostudent scientistcommunicationwas analysedinthecontextofonlinelearningenvironments.kubasko,jones,treter,andandre(2008) investigatedstudents synchronous(usinglivevideoconferences)andasynchronous(using )

25 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 183 communicationwithscientists.students questionstothescientistswerecodedaccordingtofvecategories:inquiryandinterpretationquestions,personalquestions,technologyquestions,clarifcation questionsandequipmentquestions.theauthorsfoundthatinthesynchronoustreatmentgroup,most ofthequestionsfocusedonpersonalquestionsaboutthescientist,whereasintheasynchronousgroup, theyweremostlyrelatedtotheinterpretationofdataanduseoftechnology. Thesecondaspect,namelythequalityofstudents communication,ismainlyaddresedwithrespect tothedocumentationandcommunicationofinquiryactivitiescariedoutbythestudents.accordingto Ebenezeretal.(2011),scientifccommunicationinvolves thesharingofideaswithrespecttoresearch questions, methods,andclaimsforpeerresponseandevaluation meetingobjectivityfromasocial perspective (p.99).itwasoperationalisedbystudents abilitytowriteaclearscientifcpaperwith sufcientdetailssothatanotherresearchercouldreplicateorenhancethemethodsandprocedures. Incomparisonwithotherinquiryabilities,theauthorsfoundthatstudentsreachedcomparablylower profciencyvaluesforcommunication. Inastudyevaluatingtheuseofstudents sciencenotebooksasasesmenttools,ruiz-primoetal. (2004)consideredeachnotebookentryasacommunicationinstance.Accordingtothepurpose,the entriescouldbelongtodiferenttypesofcommunication(e.g.defning,interpreting,concludingbut alsoreportingofanexperimentoraprocedure)andtakediferentforms,e.g.atableorgraphtoreport data(schematiccommunication)orasimpledescriptionofanobservation(verbalcommunication). Thequalityofthecommunicationfoundinstudents notebookswascodedbasedontwocriteria:(1) Werestudents notebookcommunicationsappropriateaccordingtotherespectivescientifcgenres(e.g. descriptionsordefnitionsasminororlabreportsasmajorgenres)?(2)didstudents communications indicateconceptualandproceduralunderstandingofthecontent?resultsindicatedthatstudents communicationskilsandunderstandingwerefarfromthemaximumscoreanddidnotimproveover thecourseofinstruction(ruiz-primoetal.,2004). Samarapungavanetal.(2008)evaluatedtheefectsofguidedinquiryondiferent measuresof studentlearninginkindergarten.here,communicationwasdefnedaschildren sabilitytodiscus, refectuponandsummarisewhattheyhadlearned.theauthorsasesedthisinquiryactivitybyanalysingstudents portfolioswithrespecttotheirprofciencyincommunicatingabouttheirinvestigations verbalyorthroughdrawingsandpictures.theyfoundthat mostchildrenwereratedprofcientor highlyprofcient.asimilarfocusonverbalandschematiccommunicationcouldbefoundingobert etal.(2010).theyequatedcommunicatinganargumentwithreviewing,summarisingandexplaining dataanddevelopingandusingdiagrams;students abilitiesincommunicationwereasesedbyusing open-endedquestions. Twostudieseventualyaddresedcommunication,specifcalyinthecontextofpeerandselfasesment.Inamethodologypaper,Changetal.(2011)describedthedevelopmentandevaluation ofaself-asesmentlikertscaleforlearningsciencethatconsistsoftwosubscales,oneforinquiry andoneforcommunication.theauthorsdefnedcommunicationasa meaningfulprocesinwhich thegivertransformsthe mesageintosigns(oral,writen,oraction)andpasesittothereceiver (p.1219).itconsistsoffourfacets:(1)expresing useofverbalandwritenlanguage,mathematical signs,graphsandotherrepresentations;(2)evaluating analyseorjudgetherationalityofarguments; (3)Responding adoptsuitableactionsbasedonfeedback;and(4)negotiating reachanagreement throughdiscusion. WhiteandFrederiksen(1998)includedcommunicatingwelintherefective asesmentpartofaphysicsinquirycuriculum.communicatingwel wasdefnedasstudents abilityto clearlyexprestheirideastoeachotherortoanaudiencethroughwriting,diagramsandspeaking.their communicationisclearenoughtoalowotherstounderstandtheirworkandreproducetheirresearch (p.25).studentsratedtheirprofciencyonalikertscale.theauthorsfoundthattherefectiveasesment procesappearedtoimprovesocialinteraction(i.e.teamworkandcommunication),especialyforlowachievingstudents. Insummary, moststudiesregardcommunicationasa meanstoeitherbeterunderstandscientifcconceptsandproceduresortoparticipateinascientifccommunity.unliketheinquiryactivities reviewedsofar,itisconsideredanoverarchingabilitythatisnotrestrictedtoaspecifcstageofthe

26 184 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. inquiryproces.similartoargumentation,communicationismostlyanalysedwithapredominantfocus onthestructureandinteractioninthecommunicationprocesorwithanemphasisonthequalityof thisinteraction.intheformercase,theanalysisisoftenconductedinthecontextofargumentation andexplanation,indicatinganoverlapinboththeoreticalconceptionsandempiricalinvestigations regardingthesethreeinquiryactivities. Fewstudiestrytofosterstudents communicationskilsbyscafoldingorstructuringthewaysin whichstudentsarticulatetheirunderstanding(berland&reiser,2009),bycomputer-basedscafolds (Ebenezeretal.,2011)orbyrefectiveasesment(White&Frederiksen,1998).However,thebaseline ofempiricalresultsregardingstudents communicationskilsisthatstudentsoftenreachlowerprofciencyvaluesforcommunicationincomparisontootherinquiryactivities(ebenezeretal.,2011)and thesevaluesareoftenfarfromthe maximumscore(ruiz-primoetal.,2004).regardingasesment, mainlyvideotranscripts(e.g.tocodeconversationalturns)andwritenmaterial(e.g.researchpapers, constructedresponseitems,notebooksorportfolios)areused. Summaryanddiscussionoffndings Theoverarchingintentionofthisreviewwastocontributetoabeterunderstandingoftheconceptof scientifcinquiry.despitetheinterestthatscientifcinquiryhasreceivedinscienceeducationresearch inthelastdecades,therestilexistsdisagreementnotonlyabouttheefciencyoftheapproachfor studentlearning,butalsoaboutitsdefningfeaturesasaninstructionalapproach. Inordertoaddresthisisue,wedecidedtotakearatheratomisticapproachbyfrststructuring theoveraltheoreticalconstructofscientifcinquiryintoalistofinquiryactivities(cf.beletal.,2010; Linnetal.,2004;NationalResearchCouncil,1996,2000,2012;Pedasteetal.,2015)andthenanalysing theoperationalisationsofthesesingleinquiryactivitiesinformoftheirdefnitions,theirimplementationinlearningenvironmentsandinterventionsandtheirasesment(cf.figure1).thepicturewhich emergedforeachactivityonthelevelofthecorespondingempiricalstudieswasilustratedinthe previoussection.therationaleunderlyingthisapproachisthatanunderstandingofthewholefrst requiresathoroughunderstandingofitsconstitutingparts.however,lookingatacomplexconstruct likescientifcinquiryinsuchanatomisticwayinevitablyleadstothequestionwhetherthesumofthe partsactualyfulyrepresentsthewhole adiscusion,e.g.knownfromthefeldofcompetence-orientedteaching(e.g.sadler,2013).inthefolowing,wewilthustrytotracetheroutefromthesnapshots oftheseindividualinquiryactivitiesbacktothetheoreticalconstructbyaskingthequestionwhatwe canlearnfromthisreviewaboutthecommonalitiesanddiscrepanciesintheoperationalisationsofthe diferentinquiryactivities,aboutthecharacteristicsofthecolocationofinquiryactivitiesasawholeand abouttheoverarchingconstructofscientifcinquiryasitisrefectedinempiricalresearch(cf.figure1). Thesinglebitsandpieces Takingontheatomisticperspectiveandcontrastingthepicturesofthesingleinquiryactivitiesaspresentedintheprevioussection,thestudiesdiferinvariousaspects.Thesecanbealocatedtoformal andmethodologicaldiferenceslikestudydesignandasesmentorcontent-relateddiferenceslike typeandaimoftheactivity. Formalandmethodologicalaspects Withregardtotheresearchdesign,thereviewedstudiesdiferintheinstructionalseting(ranging, e.g.betweenproject-basedteachingandsingleproblem-solvingtasks,thusalsoresultinginhuge diferencesregardingtime-on-task),thesocialseting(e.g.colaborativevs.individualised),theeducationalseting(e.g.out-of-schoollabsvs.implementedinregularcourses,thusincludingalsolow-or high-stakesconsequences),the modeofoperation(e.g.hands-onvs.computer-based),thestudent activity(e.g.constructive,receptive,manipulativeand/orself-evaluative),theasesmentmethods(e.g. multiplechoice,portfolioand/orwritenesays)andasesmentpurpose(formativevs.summative).al

27 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 185 thesefactorsinteractwiththestudents activitiesandcognitiveprocesesduringtheirinquiryinadditiontothetype,numberandsequencingofdiferentinquiry-orientedactivities.however,fewstudies investigatedtheefectofmanipulatingoneofthesefactorsandtheseshowedinconsistentfndings (e.g.stecheretal.,2000;tothetal.,2002).consequently,thequestionremains,e.g.towhatextentthe asesmentformatorthemodeofoperationimpactstheresultsofevaluatingstudents abilitiesinthe diferentinquiry-orientedactivities.acrosalactivitiesaddresedinthisreview,thesequestionsare barelyresearched,letaloneanswered. Thestudiesinthisreview,however,donotonlyshowdiversityinthestudydesignsbutdiferalso withrespecttotheexplicitnesorvaguenesofthedescriptionsoftheirtheoreticalbackgroundwith severalstudiesgivingonlyimplicitandvaguedetails.thisvagueneshasalsobeenobservedandcriticisedinearlierreviewswithrespecttothedefnitionofscientifcinquiryasaholisticconcept(furtak etal.,2012;schroederetal.,2007). Inaddition,thesummativeevaluationsofeachactivityinthisreviewalsoindicateambiguities betweenthetheoreticalconceptionsandtheirimplementationintheindividualstudies.inthecaseof argumentation,themodelbytoulmin(1958)oranadaptedversionisusedinthemajorityofstudiesbut oftenitisnotclarifedwhatcountsasthefundamentalcomponentswithinthismodel(i.e.claim,data, warantand/orbackings).hence,beyondthevaguenesintheoperationalisationofinquiry-oriented activitiesthemselvesasdiscusedabove,theimplementationoftheseconceptionsinthediferent studiesalsovariesconsiderably.ofcoursethisvaguenesmaybeatributedpartlytospacelimitations inresearcharticles,asthisisthesoledatasourceforthisreview,butitseemsdoubtfulwhetherdiferent authors(andreaders)sharethesameunderstandingwhenusingthesameterms,onallevelsranging fromthegeneralconstructofscientifcinquirytothedetailsofimplementingspecifcstudentactivities. Perspectivesandfocionscientifcinquiry Inadditiontotheseformalandmethodologicaldiferencesamongstudiesintermsofstudydesignand explicitnes,theyalsodiferwithrespecttothetypeofactivitiestheyfocuson.thenumberofresearch papersreviewedforeachactivitydifersremarkably,rangingfrom11(searchingforinformation)to50 publications(engaginginargumentationandreasoning;seefigure3).accordingly,specifchotspots ofempiricalresearchcanbeidentifedfocusingmainlyonthephasesofcaryingoutexperimentsas welasexplainingandevaluatingtheresultswhilepayinglesatentiontothepreparatoryphase,i.e. theidentifcationofresearchquestions,thesearchingforinformationandtheformulationofhypothesesorpredictions. Thereseemstobenocorelation,however,betweenthenumberofpublicationsreviewedfora specifcactivityandthevarianceobservedintheoperationalisationoftherespectiveactivities.asin thecaseofengaginginargumentationandreasoningorconstructingandusingmodels,theseactivities ofscientifcinquiryhaveevolvedastheirownresearchfeldsduringthelastdecades.here,predominantoperationalisationscanbeidentifed,e.g.toulmin s modelofargumentation.thisconceptual saturationmightalsoindicateacertaindegreeofelaborationwithintheseresearchfeldswhichisalso supportedbyexistingreviews,e.g.thereviewoftheasesmentofmodelingcompetencebynicolaou andconstantinou(2014).however,theauthorsalsopointoutthatthereviewedstudiesusualydifer vastlyaccordingtotheiroperationalisationwhilealsoaddresingonlypartsofwhatcanberegarded as modelingcompetence,indicatingbothdiversityandshortcomingsregardingresearchonthese activities.thisconclusioncanbegeneralisedtoalactivitiesreviewedinthispaper. Whencontrastingtheoperationalisationsofparticularinquiryactivities,diferencesbetweenthe reviewedstudiescouldsometimesbecharacterisedbyaproductvs.procesdichotomy.forinstance, studiesincorporatingtheactivityofsearchingforinformationhadeitheraninformationfocusora searchfocusintheirevaluationofstudentperformance.hence,eitherthecontributionofthecolected informationtotheproblem-solvingproces(e.g.belandetal.,2011)orstudents searchbehaviourwas rated(e.g.tothetal.,2002).similarly,engaginginargumentationissometimesanalysedwithregard tothecontentand/orstructureofthedevelopedargument(e.g.berland,2011)orwithregardtothe procesofargumentation(e.g.osborneetal.,2004).

28 186 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Asimilarclasifcationcouldbeusedregardingstudents actualperformance.here,studiesdifer intermsofwhetherstudents,e.g.conducttheirowninvestigation(cf.chen&klahr,1999),evaluate agivenset-up(e.g.zionetal.,2005)orself-evaluatetheirownperformance(e.g.changetal.,2011). Similarly,studentsoccasionalycolectedandanalysedtheirowndata;sometimes,theywereprovided withthedata.withregardtoboththeproductvs.procesdichotomyandthedegreeofindependent agencyonthestudents side,nostudieswereidentifedwherethediferentviewpointsactualymadea diference.thisaspectstandsincloserelationtothequestionofapreferableformatfortheasesment ofalorsomeoftheseactivitiesandtowhichextenttheresultsfromdiferentasesmentformatsand activityoperationalisationsareactualycomparableorrathercomplementary. Thewholeandthesumoftheparts Withregardtotheratheratomisticapproachtakeninthisreview,thequestioniswhetherthisapproach canprovideanyinsightsintoamoreholisticperspectiveontheconstructofscientifcinquiry.regarding thediversityandvariabilityoftheoperationalisations,instructionalsetings,socialandeducationalsettings,themodesofoperation,theasesmentmethodsandasesmentpurposesimplementedinthe reviewedstudies,itisdifculttofndcommonalitiesandcommonthemes.however,whenbroadening theperspectivebeyondtheindividualinquiryactivitiestotheircolocationasawhole,threeaspects standoutthatalpertaintorelationships:betweenthediferentinquiryactivitiesweatomisedinthis review,betweendoinginquiryandunderstandinginquiryandbetweeninquiryandscienceconcepts. Onasemblingthediferentparts Whilemanystudiesinthisreviewanalysedinquiry-orientedactivitiesasdistinctaspects,severalcontributionstriedtofndindicatorsilustratingtowhichextentstudentscanconnectthediferentactivities. Herenkohletal.(2011)aswelasWhiteandFrederiksen(1998)proposedacoherencescoreas ameasureofhowdiferentpartsofthethoughtexperimentarerelatedtooneanothersuchashowweltheexperimentaldesignaddresesthehypotheses.inpastworkthecoherencescorehasbeenthemostsensiblescorefor revealinginstructionalefects.(herenkohletal.,2011,p.2) Regardingthedisparitybetweenthisemphasisoncoherenceamongthediferentinquiry-oriented activitiesandthesoleimplementationoffewmoreorlesdistinctactivitiesinnumerousresearcharticles includedinthisreview,adesideratumforfurtherresearchonmorecomprehensiveimplementationsof inquiry-orientedactivitiescanbeputforward.whilesomestudies(e.g.herenkohletal.,2011;white& Frederiksen,1998)analysedcoherenceonthestudents side,i.e.howdiferentpartsoftheexperiment arealignedtooneanotherasdescribedabove,nostudywasidentifedthatexplicitlyemphasised thecoherenceontheconceptualsideofimplementingscientifcinquiryintheclasroom,including procedural,epistemicandconceptualfeaturesofthedistinctscientifcactivities(asdistinguished,e.g. byfurtaketal.,2012;osborne,2014).thisdemandformoreresearchoncomprehensiveimplementationsofinquiry-orientedactivitiesmaysoundtrivialbuttherealisationwilprovedifcult.despitethe largebodyofresearchaccumulatedinthisreview,itischalengingtoextractacoherentsequenceof inquiry-orientedactivities(intermsofprocedural,epistemicandconceptualfeatures).whileitmight beeasytoagreewiththetype,numberandsequenceofactivities,thetheoreticalbasisfordecidingon theconceptualbackgroundforeachactivity,refectingtheasociatedepistemicperspective,aswel asmaintainingcoherenceacrosthediferentactivitiesneedstobeextended. Thebird seyeview Thequestionofcoherenceisnotonlyaproblemforresearchersandteachers.Students mustalso acknowledgeandappreciatethefunctionandinterplayofthediferentscientifcactivities.thisepistemologyisoftenreferedtoasstudents understandingofthenatureofscience(nos;mccomas&olson, 1998;Osborne,Colins,Ratclife,Milar,&Duschl,2003),thenatureofscientifcknowledge(Lederman, 2006)orthenatureofscientifcinquiry(NOSI;Schwartz,Lederman,&Lederman,2008). 1 Almostal

29 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 187 studiesincludedinthisreview,however,focus mainlyonstudents performancewhenworkingon inquiry-orientedactivities.hence,astrikingfndingofthisreviewishowseldomtheperspectiveof studentsoninquiryingeneraloronspecifcactivitiesisexplicitlyaddresedandtakenintoaccount intheresearchliterature.fewstudiesaddresedtheneedforpostulatingalternativehypotheses,the interpretationofconfictingorcontradictoryfndings,theprocesingofdifusedataorthediscusion ofqualitystandardsorgoodscientifcpractice(e.g.schwarz&white,2005;velom&anderson,1999; White&Frederiksen, 1998).Thesestudiesindicate,however,epistemologicalconstraintsinstudents perceptionandinterpretationof,e.g.theroleofhypothesesintheinquiryproces(e.g.kyza,2009) whichunderlinestheimportanceofsuchactivities(inadditiontocleanandstructuredexamples)to developstudents epistemologywhichinturnalowsstudentstorefectonthescientifcactivitiesthey encounter(pickering,1992). Incorporatinganepistemologicalperspectiveonscientifcinquirymightbebenefcialnotonlyfor students understanding,butalsofortheteachingofinquiry.regardingtheanalysisofthediferent inquiryactivitiesinthisreview,acommoninstructionalapproachwastorepeatedlyexposestudentsto theseactivities(e.g.identifyingquestionsorformulatinghypotheses).however,severalstudiesseemed tomakemoreexplicituseoftheepistemologicalstructureoftheparticularinquiryactivity.forinstance, Tothetal.(2002)proposedtheuseofevidencemapsandrefectiveasesmentsthatencouragedstudentstolinkbacktheirdataanalysisandinterpretationtopreviousstepsintheinquiryproces,i.e.to theirhypothesesandtheories.inthecaseofconstructingmodels,schwarzandwhite(2005)aswel aswhiteandfrederiksen(1998)proposedto makeuseof meta-modelingknowledge,i.e.students knowledgeaboutthenatureandpurposeofscientifcmodels.toacertainextent,theseapproaches ofmetacognitiveelementspartlyoverlapwiththeepistemologicalfeaturesregardingnos/nosi.from thisperspective,metacognitiveandepistemologicalaspectsmightsupportstudentsinunderstanding thepurposeandgoalsofthediferentinquiryactivitiesaswelastheirinterelationsandtheutility ofthewholeprocesforunderstanding,explaining,controlingandpredictingreal-worldphenomena.incorporatingthesemetacognitiveorepistemologicalaspectsmoreexplicitlyintoinstructional approachesmightresultinmoreefcientteachingstrategiesthanmererepetitionofspecifcactivities. Scienceandscientifcinquiry Withregardtoargumentation,explanationandcommunication,itisevidentthattheseactivitiesarenot uniquetoscientifcinquirybutrepresentmajorareaswithinandoutsideofschool.inthepedagogical context,theseactivitiestranscendaldomainborders,rangingfromgenresinthelanguageartsto mathematicalproofs.withregardtothereviewedempiricalstudies,thisgeneralityisalsorefectedby theapplicationofdomain-generaltheoreticalmodelsintheseareas,e.g.toulmin smodelofargument paternsorinteractionanalysisincommunicationsetings.consequently,somestudiesfocussolely onstructuralfeatures,e.g.thestructureofanargument,whileotherstudies(alsoorsolely)evaluate theaccuracyofthecomponentsofanargument,i.e.whethertheargumentissubstantiveornot(kely etal.,1998).similarly,themajorityofstudiesfocusingonformulatinghypothesesoftenevaluatestudents answerssolelywithregardtowhethertheproposedhypothesisistestableornot.fortheseand alsosomeoftheotheractivities,thequestionarisesabouttheroleofscienceknowledgeintheseinquiry activities.whileagenericperspectiveonspecifcinquiryactivitiesiscertainlyofvalueforfosteringtheir understanding,e.g.toilustratecharacteristicsofahypothesisorwhatcountsasanargument,blending contentknowledgeandinquiryactivitiesiscertainlythemoreexpansivegoalofincorporatinginquiry inscienceteaching(cf.duschl&grandy,2011).authenticscienceischaracterised astheintegration ofthesocialandmaterialaspectsofscience andonlytheintegrationofbothaspects alowsstudents tofulyunderstandhowandonthebasisofwhatauthorityknowledgeisformedinthescientifccommunity (Cavagnetoetal., 2010,p.429).Fromthisperspective,itisthereforequestionabletowhich extenttheprocesofinquiryisdiscerniblefromsciencecontentknowledge ortowhichextentthis disjunctionisdesirable. Interestingly,in46 85%ofthestudies(dependingontheinquiryactivity,totalmeanof67%),the authorsincludedascienceachievementtest(partlyowndevelopments,partlycentralstandardised

30 188 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. tests,withdiferentfociandlength)torelatestudents achievementtotheresultsoftheiranalysisofa specifcorseveralinquiryactivities.thecommongoalofthistypeofanalysiswastoinvestigatewhether fosteringstudents abilityincertainactivitieswouldalsoincreasetheirscienceknowledge.theinverse questionofhowstudentsmakeuseoftheirscienceknowledgeinacquiringandcaryingoutaspecifc activityisaddresedonlyinrarecases.forinstance,kabermananddori(2009)diferentiatedscience content,thinkinglevelandchemistryunderstandinglevelswithregardtostudents abilitytoformulate hypotheses.similarly,samarapungavan,patrickandmantzicopoulos(2011)focusedonstudents ability tousescienceconceptsinthegenerationofresearchquestions.acrostheempiricalstudiesreviewed here,however,therelationshipbetweenscientifcinquiryandsubstantivescienceconceptsisalmost ablindspot.thisissomewhatsurprising,especialy,forinstance,withregardtothengss(national ResearchCouncil,2012)anditsapproachofthree-dimensionallearningalongpractices,cros-cuting conceptsanddisciplinarycoreideas.itseemsthattheinterplaybetweenthesedimensionsisiluminated toaleserextentthancommonlyasumed. Guidedandself-directedinquiry Ininstructionalcontexts,thecomplexholisticprocesofscientifcinquiryisoftenintentionalyreduced, especialyinthecaseofguided(incontrasttoopen)formsofinquiry.basedonearlierworkofschwab (1962),Blanchardetal.(2010)distinguishedfourlevelsofinquiry verifcation,structured,guidedand open,respectively dependingonwhetherthesourceofthequestion,thedatacolectionmethodsand theinterpretationofresultsaregivenbytheteacheroropentothestudents.othermodelsdescribe inquiryinstructionnotasdiscretelevelsbutasacontinuum,rangingfromlitletomorelearnerself-direction,andmoretolitledirectionfromtheteacherormaterial(nationalresearchcouncil,2000).in thisnotion,guidedscientifcinquiryteachingcanberegardedasrepresentingthecontinuumofscience instructionbetweenthetwoextremes,traditional,directinstructionandopen-endedscientifcinquiry, wherestudentsareguided,throughaprocesofscientifcinvestigation,toparticularanswersthatare knowntotheteacher (Furtak,2006,p.454). Itwasbeyondthemeansofthisreviewtodistinguishthediferentlevelsofinquiryintheanalysis. However,thefeatureofguidanceorscafoldingwasfrequentlyincludedinstudiesacrosinquiryorientedactivities.Regardingthedemands whichinquiry-basedapproachesposetostudents,it becomesapparentthatstudentswithdiferentdegreesofabilityandexperienceneedspecifchelp andsupport.scafoldingandguidancecanvaryonacontinuum,fromcompletelearnerself-direction, ontheoneend,toteacher-ledinstruction,ontheotherend.intheirmeta-analysis,furtaketal.(2012) concludedthatteacher-ledinquirylesonsseemtohavealargerefectonstudentlearningthanthose thatarestudentled.however,themechanismforthisdiferentialefectremainsunclear.itcouldbethe moredirectexperienceofinquiryonthestudents sidewhenthelearningconditionsaremorestructured orguidedbytheteacher(incontrasttostudent-ledconditions;furtaketal.,2012).alternatively,it mightnotbetheinstructionalguidancebytheteacheritselfbutthesystematicfeedbackonstudents performancethatismorefrequentandcloseralignedwiththediferentactivitiesoftheinquiryproces whenthelearningconditionsaremoreteacherled. Hence,afurtherreviewofinquiry-orientedactivitiesmightfocusontheuseandimplementationof feedbackanditsefectonstudents learning.thisisespecialytrueforthoseactivitiesforwhichrepeated practiceseemsthedominantapproachtofosterstudents abilities,forinstance,incaseofidentifying questions,formulatinghypothesesorcommunication.inaddition,metacognitiveandepistemological knowledge,assketchedinthepreviousparagraph,couldalsobeconsideredtheothersideofthecoin ofguidanceandscafoldingininquiry,whenidentifyingmetacognitionwithself-scafolding(holton &Clarke,2006).Fromthisperspective,NOS/NOSIandmetacognitiveaspectsofinquirymightenable studentstobeterdevelopandmonitortheirowninquiryactivities.ifthisrelationholdstrue,consideringnos/nosiand metacognitiveelementsseems mandatorywhenteachinginquiry.otherwise, students understandingandrealisationofscientifcinquiryactivitiesmightremainboundtoscafolds andotherinstructionaltriggers.

31 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 189 Figure4.Aggregationofcentralaspectsofthecurentreview.Withinscientificinquiry,specificactivities(whiteboxes)areoften consideredinclosecorespondencetoeachother(indicatedbyblackframes)andcouldbeclusteredinphasesoftheinquiryproces (preparation,caryingout,explainingandevaluating).thesephasesarecommonlyalignedinacircular,interactivesequence(indicated bybolderarows).beyondthetype,rangeandsequencingofspecificinquiryactivities(leftside),researchaboutscientificinquiry shouldbebasedonacleartheoreticalrationalewhichcomprisesinquiry,contentknowledgeandnos/nosi. Intotal,thedetailedanalysisofempiricalstudiesbothonthelevelofsingleinquiryactivitiesas welasontheleveloftheconstructofscientifcinquiryhasprovidedcomplementaryinsightsinthis review.whentakingamoreholisticstanceandaskingthequestionhowthediferentaspectscould becondensedintoasinglepictureoftheconstruct,itseemsobviousthattheanswerisnotjustabout selectingandsequencingspecifcinquiryactivities.thispointiscertainlyimportant,buthasalsobeen discusedextensivelybefore(cf.beletal.,2010;linnetal.,2004;nationalresearchcouncil,1996, 2000,2012;Pedasteetal.,2015).Insummary,specifcinquiryactivitiesareoftenconsideredclosely corespondingtoeachother(e.g.caryingoutanexperimentandanalysingtheobtaineddata;creating modelsanddevelopingexplanations).theseclustersofactivitiescouldbesubsumedasphasesofthe inquiryproces,includingpreparation,caryingout,aswelasexplainingandevaluating(cf.pedaste etal.,2015).whenconsideringseveralinquiryactivities,theseactivities(andtherebyalsotheclustersof activities)arecommonlyalignedinacircularsequence,indicatingareciprocalbackandforthbetween thephasesofpreparing,caryingoutandexplainingandevaluating,respectively.beyondthetype, rangeandsequencingofspecifcinquiryactivities,thisreviewhaspointedoutthata moreholistic pictureofscientifcinquiryalsoneedstoprovideaclearrationaleabouttherelationofscientifcinquiry andotherfundamentalconstructs,inparticularscientifcconceptsandknowledgeaswelasthenos/ NOSI(cf.Figure4).Regardingtheroleofscientifcconcepts,theanalyticalschemesandrubricsused inthediferentstudiestoevaluatestudents performanceinspecifcinquiryactivitiesincorporatescientifcknowledgesometimestoagreater,sometimestoaleserextent,i.e.thestudiesareproviding amoregenericormoresubstantiveperspectiveontheinquiryactivity.theimplicationsofthisshiftin theperspectiveareseldomdiscused(kelyetal.,1998).mostresearchhasfocusedonusingscientifc inquiryasameanstofosterstudents conceptualunderstanding.researchonhowstudentsmakeuse oftheirconceptualknowledgeininquirysetings,however,seemstobeanunexpectedlyrarecase. Therearealsofewstudiesthatexaminethesignifcanceofstudents understandingsofnos/nosiin inquirysetings.here,amorethoroughconsiderationofepistemicaspectsinstudents inquirycould enablestudentstobeterdevelopand monitortheirinquiryactivities.sofar,thissupportis mainly

32 190 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. consideredintermsofguidancebytheteacherorthelearningenvironment,partialyalsointermsof fosteringstudents metacognition.however,amorethoroughtheoretical(cf.cavagnetoetal.,2010) andempiricalconsiderationoftheinterelationbetweenalthreeconstructscouldprovideanimportantexpansionofthecurentperspectiveonresearchinscientifcinquiry,bothregardingstudent performanceandtheteachingofinquiry. Limitations Thelimitationsaregeneralyrelatedtothequestionofthecomprehensivenesoftheliteraturedatabase forthereviewandthustothesearchandselectionprocedure.afrstlimitationisgivenbytheselection ofkeywordsfortheliteraturesearch.startingfromanexpansivedefnitionofscientifcinquiry,thefrst stepwastogenerateaninitialdatabasethatwasascomprehensiveasposible.bysearchinginrelevant databases,highlyvisiblejournalsandreferencelistsofkeypublications,wesoughttofndthemajority ofimportantcontributionstothisfeldofresearch.nevertheles,includingdiferentorfurtherkeywords andconsideringdiferentorfurtherdatabases,journalsandpublicationsmighthaveledtofurtherrelevantpublications.aspecifcaspectofthisfrstlimitationisrelatedtothebefore-mentionedtransition fromscientifcinquirytoscientifcpracticesthatstartedwiththepublicationofthek-12frameworkfor ScienceEducationin2012(NationalResearchCouncil,2012).Thescientifcpracticesarecloselyrelated totheactivitiesofscientifcinquirythatformedthebasisoftheanalysesinthisreview.moreover,the timeframeofthereviewendedin2013.nevertheles,includingthetermscientifcpracticesinthe keywordsmighthaveledtoadditionalentries. Asecondlimitationisthatthesampleofreviewedpublicationswasalmostexclusivelydrawnfrom peer-reviewed,research-orientedjournals.thisdecisionwasmadetoensureacertainlevelofqualityof thereviewedcontributionsbyrelyingonthejournals policytoensurearigorouspeerreviewproces. However,focusingonthistypeofpublicationsmayhavelimitedthescopeofperspectivesonscientifc inquiry.reports,thesesorcontributionsinpractice-orteacher-orientedjournalsmayhaveprovided furtheroperationalisations.regardingthealreadylargenumberofpublicationsincludedinthisreview, however,areviewofalinquiry-relatedpublicationsmaynothavebeenachievable.thisargumentis alsorelatedtofurtherdecisionsmadeintheliteraturesearch,aslimitingthesampletocontributions publishedwithinthelast15yearsaswelaspaperspublishedinenglishlanguage.inthisregard,we triedtobeastransparentasposiblebyexplicatingthesearchproces. Athirdlimitationisthatthisreviewfocusesonstudentsinschoolsand,thus,takesacertainperspectivetowardsscientifcinquiry.AscanbeseeninFigure2,numerousstudiesfoundbyourkeyword-based searchindatabasesandjournalswereexcludedbecausetheyfocusedeitheronstudentsonthetertiarylevel(19studies)oronteachereducationprogrammesandteacherprofesionaldevelopment (69studies;cf.Figure2).Bothareasareofcourseimportantandrelevantbutwilprobablydefneand operationaliseinquiry-orientedactivitiesfromadiferentepistemicandsocialstance.furtherreviews addresingthesetwoareasmightprovidecomplementaryoverviewsaboutresearchonactivitiesof scientifcinquirywithuniversitystudentsandteachers.contrastingthesediferentperspectives(school vs.university;studentsvs.teachers)mightilustrateinterestingchangesandtransitionsinperspectives, butthesecontrastswerebeyondthescopeofthisreview. Conclusions Thisreviewintendedtoprovideasystematicoverviewaboutempiricalresearchonactivitiesthatare importantconstituentsoftheinstructionalapproachofscientifcinquiry.thefndingsfrstandforemost ilustratethatthevariabilityfoundintheresearchliteraturewithrespecttothedefnitionandoperationalisationoftheholisticconceptofscientifcinquiryisalsorefectedatthelevelofsingleactivities oftheinquiryproces. Consequently,theresearchstudiesaccumulatedinthisreviewcanhardlybecondensedtocommon linesofresearch,butdiferaccordingtonumerousfactors(e.g.seting,sampleorgoal).moreover,the

33 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 191 operationalisationsanddescriptionsoftheinvestigatedactivitiesofscientifcinquiryaswelasthe consistencyoftheirimplementationdiferconsiderablyindepth,comprehensivenesandexplicitnes amongstudies.thismakescomparisons andthusthedrawingofconclusionsregardingtheefectivenesofinquiryteaching difcult,ifnotimposible(furtaketal.,2012;schroederetal.,2007).although generalyaccepted,itseemsnecesarytorepeatedlyremindauthorsofresearchpaperstodefneand describetheunderlyingconceptsoftheirstudiesascomprehensivelyasposible. Inasimilarvein,theinterplaybetweendiferentasesmentformatsandtheobtainedresultsas indicatorsofstudents abilitiesinthediferentscientifcactivitiesneedstobeaddresedmorespecificaly.nexttotheconceptualdiscrepancies,theequivalenceofresultsfromdiferentdatasourcesis hardlyinvestigatedwhichadditionalymakesthecomparisonoffndingsacrosstudiesdifcult.the resultsofthisreviewarethusnecesarilymoredescriptivethanexplanatory. Takingthediversityofthecompiledfndingsintoaccount,thisreviewcanonlybethefrststep towardsadiscusionaboutamorecoherentbasisofscientifcinquiry.thenecesityofsuchacoherentbasisisalsorefectedintherecentshiftinterminologyfromscientifcinquirytoscientifcpractices(nationalresearchcouncil,2012).ithasbeenarguedthatthemainproblemofteachingscience throughinquiryhasbeen thelackofacommonlyacceptedunderstandingofwhatitmeanstoteach sciencethroughinquiry (NationalResearchCouncil,2012,p.178).Theprofesionalpracticeofteaching sciencehasbeenunderminedbythelackofacleardefnitionandcommunicationoftheactivitiesthat studentsshouldengagein.shiftingfromteachingscienceasinquirytoteachingscienceasapractice thusaimstoprovidea greaterclarityofgoalsaboutwhatstudentsshouldexperience,whatstudents shouldlearn,andanenhancedprofesionallanguageforcommunicatingmeaning (NationalResearch Council,2012,p.179).However,clarifyingtheterminology albeitanimportantaspect wilnotbe sufcienttoclearupalquestions,ambiguitiesandinconsistenciesilustratedinthisreview. Inclosing,thekeyfndingsofthisliteraturereviewcanbeseenontwolevels,theratheratomistic levelofthedistinctinquiryactivitiesandthe moreholisticlevelofscientifcinquiry.regardingthe leveloftheinquiryactivities,researchonscientifcinquiryisavastfeld.conceptualsaturationinterms ofapredominantmodelcanonlybeidentifedforsingleactivities,whileresearchonotheractivities canmainlybecharacterisedbydiversity.hence,furthertheoreticalworkaswelasempiricalresearch regardingtheinterplayofdiferentinquiryactivitiesaswelastheirindividualcontributiontothe inquiryprocesasawholeisneeded. Fromthemoreholisticperspective,threeaspectsstandout:frst,acaseforfurtherresearchonmore comprehensiveimplementationsofinquiry-orientedactivitiescanbe madewithregardtothesole implementationoffew moreorlesdistinctactivitiesinnumerousresearcharticlesincludedinthis review.here,boththestudents andtheresearchers perspectivesshouldbeaddresed.theimpresion thatconceptualisationsofscientifcinquiryareaninconsistentaccumulationoflooselyconnected activitiesmightbepartlyatributedtotheratheratomisticapproachtakeninthisreview,butitseems doubtfultouswhetheramorecoherentpicturewouldemergeusingamoreholisticapproach. Second,theinterplaybetweenscientifcconceptsandinquiryactivitiesseemslesresearchedthan commonlyasumed.whilenumerousstudiesincludedtestsonstudents conceptualknowledge,the analysisoftheinterplayis mainlycorelational.a moreintegratedperspectiveseemsnecesaryto actualyunderstandtheroleofscienceinstudentinquiry. Third,NOS/NOSIseemstohardlyhavefounditswayintoresearchonscientifcinquiry,atleast whenregardingtheresultsofthisreviewthatareofcourseboundtothereview sapproach(interms ofselectedliteraturedatabases,searchedkeywordsandanalytical methods;cf.figure2).although somestudiesincludedmeasuresofstudents epistemologyoremphasisedshortcomingsinstudents interpretationofthefunctionorpurposeofspecifcinquiryactivities,theoveralratioof5%marginalises theatentionwhichthisconceptatractsinthereviewedempiricalstudies.thisistosomeextentin contrasttotheworksof,e.g.sandoval(2003)orduschlandgrandy(2012)whoinvestigatedepistemic aspectsinthecontextofscientifcexplanationandargumentation.inaddition,theaspectofguidance isandhasalwaysbeenamajorfocusinresearch(andimplementation)ofinquiry-orientedactivities (cf.furtaketal.,2012).animportantaspectforafutureagendamightentailabeterunderstandingof

34 192 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. theinterplayandinterelationofdiferentformsofinstructionalguidanceandstudents understanding ofnos/nosiandtheirmeta-inquiryknowledge(toreverttotheter meta-modelingknowledge from Schwarz&White,2005).Intheend,theseaspectsmightbetwosidesofthesamecoin:bothaimto supportstudentsintheirinquiry,butthedegreeofindependentagencyalternatesbetweeninstructor andstudent.hence,amoresystematicconsiderationofepistemicandmetacognitiveaspectsintothe teachingofinquirymightbemorebenefcialforstudents long-termlearningandagoodindicatorto adjustthefadingoutofinstructionalguidanceinthelearningproces. Overalanddespiteitsdescriptivenature,webelievethattheresultsofthisreviewarevaluableto enhanceourunderstandingofscientifcinquirysince,unlikepreviousresults,theyforthefrsttime alowprovidinginsightsintotherangeofdiferentoperationalisationsofactivitiesoftheinquiryprocesinempiricalresearch. Note 1. Itisbeyondthescopeofthisreviewtodisentangleanadditionalunclearconcept.Theimplications,however, todiferentiatebetweencharacteristicsofscientifcknowledgeandscientifcinquiryseemunclear,beitfroma theoreticalperspectiveorwithregardtotheirseparabilityinempiricalinvestigations(neumann,neumann,& Nehm,2011).Hence,inthefolowing,theaspectsofan epistemologyofscience,scienceasawayofknowing,or thevaluesandbeliefsinherenttoscientifcknowledgeorthedevelopmentofscientifcknowledge (Lederman, 2006,p.303)wilbesubsumedundertheacronymNOS/NOSI,treatingbothassynonymous. Acknowledgements ThesearchandprocurementoftheliteraturewassupportedbyHildaScheuermannandSabrinaSchütz.Wethankal partnersintheassist-meprojectforhelpfuldiscusionsandcomments. Disclosurestatement Nopotentialconfictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthors. Funding ThisworkwassupportedbytheEuropeanUnion'sSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7/ )[grantnumber321428]. Notesoncontributors SilkeRönnebeck(PhD2001,KielUniversity,Germany)hasbeenworkingasaresearchscientistattheLeibnizInstitutefor ScienceandMathematicsEducation(IPN)inKiel,Germany,since2004.Herresearchinterestsarelocatedattheintersection ofasesmentandsciencelearningandinclude,e.g.theasesmentofscientifccompetenciesininternationallarge-scale asesments(pisa),formativeasesmentandinquiry-basedlearning. SaschaBernholt(PhD2010,UniversityofOldenburg,Germany)hasbeenworkingasaresearchscientistattheLeibniz InstituteforScienceandMathematicsEducation(IPN)inKiel,Germany,since2009.Hisresearchinterestslieonconceptual learning,competencymodeling,aswelasuseofrepresentationsinchemistryeducation. MathiasRopohl (PhD2010,UniversityofDuisburg-Esen,Germany)isanasistantprofesorofChemistryEducationat theleibnizinstituteforscienceandmathematicseducation(ipn)locatedatkieluniversity,germany.inhisresearch,he focusesontheanalysisofstudents learninginchemistryinthefeldofscientifcinquiry.hisaimistosupportteachers useofformativeasesment. References AbdElKhalick,F.,Boujaoude,S.,Duschl,R.A.,Lederman,N.G.,Mamlok-Naaman,R.,Hofstein,A., Tuan,H.-L.(2004).Inquiry inscienceeducation:internationalperspectives.scienceeducation,88, doi: /sce.10118

35 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 193 Aguiar,O.G.,Mortimer,E.F.,&Scot,P.(2010).Learningfromandrespondingtostudents questions:theauthoritativeand dialogictension.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,47, doi: /tea Akerson,V.,&Donnely,L.A.(2010).TeachingnatureofsciencetoK 2students:Whatunderstandingscantheyatain? InternationalJournalofScienceEducation,32, doi: / Anderson,R.D.(2002).Reformingscienceteaching:Whatresearchsaysaboutinquiry.JournalofScienceTeacherEducation, 13(1),1 12.doi: /A: Bel,T.,Urhahne,D.,Schanze,S.,&Ploetzner,R.(2010).Colaborativeinquirylearning: Models,tools,andchalenges. InternationalJournalofScienceEducation,32, doi: / Beland,B.R.,Glazewski,K.D.,&Richardson,J.C.(2011).Problem-basedlearningandargumentation:Testingascafolding frameworktosupportmiddleschoolstudents creationofevidence-basedarguments.instructionalscience,39, doi: /s z Berland,L.K.(2011).Explainingvariationinhowclasroomcommunitiesadaptthepracticeofscientifcargumentation. JournaloftheLearningSciences,20, doi: / Berland,L.K.,&Reiser,B.J.(2009). Makingsenseofargumentationandexplanation.ScienceEducation,93, doi: /sce Blanchard,M.R.,Southerland,S.A.,Osborne,J.W.,Sampson,V.D.,Anneta,L.A.,&Granger,E.M.(2010).Isinquiryposible inlightofaccountability?:aquantitativecomparisonoftherelativeefectivenesofguidedinquiryandverifcation laboratoryinstruction.scienceeducation,94, doi: /sce Brown,N.J.S.,Nagashima,S.O.,Fu,A.,Timms,M.,&Wilson,M.(2010).Aframeworkforanalyzingscientifcreasoningin asesments.educationalasesment,15, doi: / Butler,K.A.,&Lumpe,A.(2008).Studentuseofscafoldingsoftware:Relationshipswith motivationandconceptual understanding.journalofscienceeducationandtechnology,17, doi: /s Bybee,R.W.(2000).Teachingscienceasinquiry.InJ.Minstrel&E.H.vanZee(Eds.),Inquiringintoinquirylearningand teachinginscience(pp.21 46).Washington,DC:AmericanAsociationfortheAdvancementofScience. Bybee,R.W.,Taylor,J.A.,Gardner,A.,vanScoter,P.,Powel,J.C.,Westbrook,A.,&Landes,N.(2006).TheBSCS5Einstructional model:originsandefectivenes.coloradosprings:bscs.retrievedfromhtp:/bscs.org/sites/default/fles/_media/about/ downloads/bscs_5e_ful_report.pdf Cavagneto,A.(2010).Argumenttofosterscientifcliteracy:AReviewofargumentinterventionsinK 12sciencecontexts. ReviewofEducationalResearch,80, doi: / Cavagneto, A., Hand,B. M., & Norton-Meier, L.(2010).Thenatureofelementarystudentsciencediscoursein thecontextofthescience writingheuristicapproach.internationaljournalofscienceeducation,32, doi: / Chang,H.-P.,Chen,C.-C.,Guo,G.-J.,Cheng,Y.-J.,Lin,C.-Y.,&Jen,T.-H.(2011).Thedevelopmentofacompetencescalefor learningscience:inquiryandcommunication.internationaljournalofscienceandmathematicseducation,9, doi: /s x Chen,Z.,&Klahr,D.(1999).AlOtherthingsbeingequal:Acquisitionandtransferofthecontrolofvariablesstrategy.Child Development,70, doi: / Chin,C.,&Osborne,J.(2010).Students questionsanddiscursiveinteraction:theirimpactonargumentationduring colaborativegroupdiscusionsinscience.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,47, doi: /tea Chin,C.,&Teou,L.-Y.(2009).Usingconceptcartoonsinformativeasesment:Scafoldingstudents argumentation. InternationalJournalofScienceEducation,31, doi: / Chiou,C.-K.,Hwang,G.-J.,&Tseng,J.C.R.(2009).Anauto-scoringmechanismforevaluatingproblem-solvingabilityina web-basedlearningenvironment.computers&education,53, doi: /j.compedu Clark,D.B.,&Sampson,V.D.(2007).Personaly seededdiscusionstoscafoldonlineargumentation.internationaljournal ofscienceeducation,29, doi: / Clark,D.B.,&Sampson,V.(2008).Asesingdialogicargumentationinonlinesenvironmentstorelatestructure,grounds, andconceptualquality.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,45, doi: /tea Cros,D.,Taasoobshirazi,G.,Hendricks,S.,&Hickey,D.T.(2008).Argumentation:Astrategyforimprovingachievementand revealingscientifcidentities.internationaljournalofscienceeducation,30, doi: / Dawson,V.,&Venvile,G.J.(2009).High schoolstudents informalreasoningandargumentationaboutbiotechnology:an indicatorofscientifcliteracy?internationaljournalofscienceeducation,31, doi: / Dori,Y.J.(2003).Fromnationwidestandardizedtestingtoschool-basedalternativeembeddedasesmentinIsrael:Students performanceinthematriculation2000project.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,40,34 52.doi: /tea Duschl,R.A.,&Grandy,R.E.(2011).Demarcationinscienceeducation Towardanenhancedviewofscientifcmethod.In R.S.Taylor&M.Ferari(Eds.),EpistemologyandScienceEducation(pp.3 19).NewYork,NY:Routledge. Duschl,R.A.,&Grandy,R.(2012).Twoviewsaboutexplicitlyteachingnatureofscience.Science&Education,22, Ebenezer,J.,Kaya,O.N.,&Ebenezer,D.L.(2011).Engagingstudentsinenvironmentalresearchprojects:Perceptionsof fuencywithinnovativetechnologiesandlevelsofscientifcinquiryabilities.journalofresearchinscienceteaching, 48, doi: /tea Erduran,S.,Simon,S.,&Osborne,J.(2004).TAPpingintoargumentation:DevelopmentsintheapplicationofToulmin s ArgumentPaternforstudyingsciencediscourse.ScienceEducation,88, doi: /sce.20012

36 194 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Furtak,E.M.(2006).Theproblemwithanswers:Anexplorationofguidedscientifcinquiryteaching.ScienceEducation,90, doi: /sce Furtak,E.M.,&Ruiz-Primo,M.A.(2008).Makingstudents thinkingexplicitinwritinganddiscusion:ananalysisofformative asesmentprompts.scienceeducation,92, doi: /sce Furtak,E.M.,Seidel,T.,Iverson,H.,&Briggs,D.C.(2012).Experimentalandquasi-experimentalstudiesofinquiry-based scienceteaching:ameta-analysis.reviewofeducationalresearch,82, doi: / Furtak,E.M.,Shavelson,R.J.,Shemwel,J.T.,&Figueroa,M.(2012).Toteachornottoteachthroughinquiry:Isthatthe question?ins.m.carver&j.shrager(eds.),thejourneyfromchildtoscientist.integratingcognitivedevelopmentandthe educationsciences(1sted.,pp ).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAsociation.doi: / Gijlers,H.,&deJong,T.(2005).Therelationbetweenpriorknowledgeandstudents colaborativediscoverylearning proceses.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,42, doi: /tea Gobert,J.D.,Palant,A.R.,&Daniels,J.T.(2010).Unpackinginquiryskilsfromcontentknowledgeingeoscience:Aresearch anddevelopmentstudywithimplicationsforasesmentdesign.internationaljournaloflearningtechnology,5, doi: /ijlt Gotwals,A.W.,&Songer,N.B.(2010).Reasoningupanddownafoodchain:Usinganasesmentframeworktoinvestigate students middleknowledge.scienceeducation,94, doi: /sce Haury,D.L.(1993).Teachingsciencethroughinquiry.ERIC/CSMEEDigest.Retrievedfromhtp:/fles.eric.ed.gov/fultext/ ED pdf Heinz,J.,Lipowsky,F.,Gröschner,A.,&Seidel,T.(2012).Indicatorsandinstrumentsinthecontextofinquiry-basedscience education.münster:waxmann. Herenkohl,L.,Palincsar,A.,DeWater,L.,&Kawasaki,K.(1999).Developingscientifccommunitiesinclasrooms:A sociocognitiveapproach.journalofthelearningsciences,8, doi: / Herenkohl,L.R.,Tasker,T.,&White,B.(2011).Pedagogicalpracticestosupportclasroomculturesofscientifcinquiry. CognitionandInstruction,29(1),1 44.doi: / Hickey,D.T.,Taasoobshirazi,G.,&Cros,D.(2012).Asesmentaslearning:Enhancingdiscourse,understanding,and achievementininnovativesciencecuricula.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,49, doi: / tea Hickey,D.T.,&Zuiker,S.J.(2012).Multilevelasesmentfordiscourse,understanding,andachievement.Journalofthe LearningSciences,21, doi: / Hmelo,C.E.,Holton,D.L.,&Kolodner,J.L.(2000).Designingtolearnaboutcomplexsystems.JournaloftheLearningSciences, 9, doi: /S JLS0903_2 Hmelo-Silver,C.E.,Duncan,R.G.,&Chinn,C.A.(2007).Scafoldingandachievementinproblem-basedandinquirylearning: AresponsetoKirschner,Sweler,andClark(2006).EducationalPsychologist,42, doi: / Hofstein,A.,Navon,O.,Kipnis, M.,& Mamlok-Naaman,R.(2005).Developingstudents abilitytoask moreandbeter questionsresultingfrominquiry-typechemistrylaboratories.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,42, doi: /tea Holton,D.,&Clarke,D.(2006).Scafoldingandmetacognition.InternationalJournalofMathematicalEducationinScience andtechnology,37, Huang,C.-J.,Wang,Y.-W.,Huang,T.-H.,Chen,Y.-C.,Chen,H.-M.,&Chang,S.-C.(2011).Performanceevaluationofanonline argumentationlearningasistanceagent.computers&education,57, doi: /j.compedu Jiménez-Aleixandre,M.P.,&Erduran,S.(2007).Argumentationinscienceeducation:Anoverview.InS.Erduran&M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre(Eds.),Argumentationinscienceeducation.Perspectivesfromclasroom-basedresearch(pp.3 27). NewYork,NY:Springer. Kaberman,Z.,&Dori,Y.J.(2009).Questionposing,inquiry,andmodelingskilsofchemistrystudentsinthecase-based computerizedlaboratoryenvironment.internationaljournalofscienceand MathematicsEducation,7, doi: /s Kely,G.J.,Druker,S.,&Chen,C.(1998).Students reasoningaboutelectricity:combiningperformanceasesmentswith argumentationanalysis.internationaljournalofscienceeducation,20, doi: / Ketelhut,D.J.,&Nelson,B.C.(2010).Designingforreal-worldscientifcinquiryinvirtualenvironments.EducationalResearch, 52, doi: / Kim,H.,&Song,J.(2006).Thefeaturesofpeerargumentationinmiddleschoolstudents'scientifcinquiry.Researchin ScienceEducation,36, doi: /s Kirschner,P.A.,Sweler,J.,&Clark,R.E.(2006).Whyminimalguidanceduringinstructiondoesnotwork:Ananalysisofthe failureofconstructivist,discovery,problem-based,experiential,andinquiry-basedteaching.educationalpsychologist, 41,75 86.doi: /s ep4102_1 Klahr,D.,&Nigam,M.(2004).Theequivalenceoflearningpathsinearlyscienceinstruction:Efectsofdirectinstruction anddiscoverylearning.psychologicalscience,15, doi: /j x Kubasko,D.,Jones,M.G.,Treter,T.,&Andre,T.(2008).Isitliveorisitmemorex?Students'synchronousandasynchronous communicationwithscientists.internationaljournalofscienceeducation,30, doi: / Kyza,E.A.(2009).Middle-schoolstudents reasoningaboutalternativehypothesesinascafolded,software-basedinquiry investigation.cognitionandinstruction,27, doi: /

37 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 195 Lavoie,D.R.(1999).Efectsofemphasizinghypothetico-predictivereasoningwithinthesciencelearningcycleonhigh schoolstudent'sprocesskilsandconceptualunderstandingsinbiology.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,36, Lederman,N.G.(2006).Syntaxofnatureofsciencewithininquiryandscienceinstruction.InL.B.Flick&N.G.Lederman (Eds.),Scientifcinquiryandnatureofscience:Implicationsforteaching,learningandteachereducation(pp ). Dordrecht:Springer. Lin,S.-S.,&Mintzes,J.J.(2010).Learningargumentationskilsthroughinstructioninsocioscientifcisues:Theefectof abilitylevel.internationaljournalofscienceandmathematicseducation,8, doi: /s Linn,M.C.,Davis,E.A.,&Bel,P.(Eds.).(2004).Internetenvironmentsforscienceeducation.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Asociates. McComas,W.F.,&Olson,J.K.(1998).Thenatureofscienceininternationalscienceeducationstandarddocuments.InW. F.McComas(Ed.),Thenatureofscienceinscienceeducation:Rationalesandstrategies(pp.41 52).Dordrecht:Kluwer. McElhaney,K.W.,&Linn,M.C.(2011).Investigationsofacomplex,realistictask:Intentional,unsystematic,andexhaustive experimenters.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,48, doi: /tea McNeil,K.L.(2009).Teachers useofcuriculumtosupportstudentsinwritingscientifcargumentstoexplainphenomena. ScienceEducation,93, doi: /sce McNeil,K.L.(2011).Elementarystudents viewsofexplanation,argumentation,andevidence,andtheirabilitiestoconstruct argumentsovertheschoolyear.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,48, doi: /tea McNeil,K.L.,&Krajcik,J.(2008).Scientifcexplanations:Characterizingandevaluatingtheefectsofteachers instructional practicesonstudentlearning.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,45,53 78.doi: /(ISSN) Minner,D.D.,Levy,A.J.,&Century,J.(2010).Inquiry-basedscienceinstruction-whatisitanddoesitmater?Resultsfrom aresearchsynthesisyears1984to2002.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,47, doi: /tea MistlerJackson,M.,&Songer,N.B.(2000).Studentmotivationandinternettechnology:Arestudentsempoweredtolearn science?journalofresearchinscienceteaching,37, doi: /(ISSN) Mulis,I.V.A.,Martin,M.O.,Ruddock,G.J.,O Sulivan,C.Y.,&Preuschof,C.(2009).TIMSS2011asesmentframeworks. Boston,MA:TIMSS&PIRLSInternationalStudyCenter. NationalResearchCouncil.(1996).Nationalscienceeducationstandards.Washington,DC:TheNationalAcademiesPres. NationalResearchCouncil.(2000).Inquiryandthenationalscienceeducationstandards:Aguideforteachingandlearning. Washington,DC:TheNationalAcademiesPres. NationalResearchCouncil.(2012).AframeworkforK-12scienceeducation:Practices,croscutingconcepts,andcoreideas. Washington,DC:TheNationalAcademiesPres. NationalResearchCouncil.(2013).Nextgenerationsciencestandards:Forstates,bystates.Washington,DC:TheNational AcademiesPres. Neumann,I.,Neumann,K.,&Nehm,R.(2011).Evaluatinginstrumentqualityinscienceeducation:Rasch basedanalysesof anatureofsciencetest.internationaljournalofscienceeducation,33, doi: / Nicolaou,C.T.,&Constantinou,C.P.(2014).Asesmentofthemodelingcompetence:Asystematicreviewandsynthesis ofempiricalresearch.educationalresearchreview,13,52 73.doi: /j.edurev Osborne,J.(2014).Teachingscientifcpractices:Meetingthechalengeofchange.JournalofScienceTeacherEducation,25, doi: /s Osborne,J.,Colins,S.,Ratclife,M.,Milar,R.,&Duschl,R.(2003).What IdeasaboutScience shouldbetaughtinschool science?adelphistudyoftheexpertcommunity.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,40, Osborne,J.,Erduran,S.,&Simon,S.(2004).Enhancingthequalityofargumentationinschoolscience.JournalofResearch inscienceteaching,41, doi: /tea Osborne,J.F.&Paterson,A.(2011).Scientifcargumentandexplanation:Anecesarydistinction?ScienceEducation,95, Osborne,J.,Simon,S.,Christodoulou,A.,Howel-Richardson,C.,&Richardson,K.(2013).Learningtoargue:Astudyoffour schoolsandtheiratempttodeveloptheuseofargumentationasacommoninstructionalpracticeanditsimpacton students.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,50, doi: /tea Pedaste,M.,Mäeots,M.,Siman,L.A.,deJong,T.,vanRiesen,S.A.N.,Kamp,E.T.,&Tsourlidaki,E.(2015).Phasesofinquiry-based learning:defnitionsandtheinquirycycle.educationalresearchreview,14,47 61.doi: /j.edurev Pickering,A.(Ed.).(1992).Scienceaspracticeandculture.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPres. Repenning,A.,Ioannidou,A.,Luhn,L.,Daetwyler,C.,&Repenning,N.(2010).Mr.Vetro:Asesingacolectivesimulation framework.journalofinteractivelearningresearch,21, Rivet,A.E.,&Kastens,K.A.(2012).Developingaconstruct-basedasesmenttoexaminestudents analogicalreasoning aroundphysicalmodelsinearthscience.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,49, doi: /tea Ruiz-Primo, M.A.,&Furtak,E. M.(2007).Exploringteachers informalformativeasesmentpracticesandstudents understandinginthecontextofscientifcinquiry.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,44,57 84.doi: / tea Ruiz-Primo,M.A.,Furtak,E.M.,Ayala,C.C.,Yin,Y.,&Shavelson,R.J.(2010).Formativeasesment,motivation,andscience learning.inh.l.andrade&g.j.cizek(eds.),handbookofformativeasesment(pp ).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

38 196 S.RÖNNEBECKETAL. Ruiz-Primo,M.A.,Li,M.,Ayala,C.,&Shavelson,R.J.(2004).Evaluatingstudents sciencenotebooksasanasesmenttool. InternationalJournalofScienceEducation,26, doi: / Ruiz-Primo,M.A.,Li,M.,Tsai,S.-P.,&Schneider,J.(2010).Testingonepremiseofscientifcinquiryinscienceclasrooms: Examiningstudents scientifcexplanationsandstudentlearning.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,47, doi: /tea Ryu,S.,&Sandoval, W.A.(2012).Improvementstoelementarychildren sepistemicunderstandingfromsustained argumentation.scienceeducation,96, doi: /sce Sadler,D.R.(2013).Makingcompetentjudgementsofcompetence.InS.Blömeke,O.Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia,C.Kuhn,&J. Fege(Eds.),Modelingandmeasuringcompetenciesinhighereducation (pp.13 27).Roterdam:Sense. Samarapungavan,A.,Mantzicopoulos,P.,&Patrick,H.(2008).Learningsciencethroughinquiryinkindergarten.Science Education,92, doi: /sce Samarapungavan,A.,Patrick,H.,&Mantzicopoulos,P.(2011).Whatkindergartenstudentslearnininquiry-basedscience clasrooms.cognitionandinstruction,29, doi: / Sampson,V.,Grooms,J.,&Walker,J.P.(2011).Argument-driveninquiryasawaytohelpstudentslearnhowtoparticipatein scientifcargumentationandcraftwritenarguments:anexploratorystudy.scienceeducation,95, doi: / sce Sandoval,W.A.(2003).Conceptualandepistemicaspectsofstudents scientifcexplanations.journalofthelearningsciences, 12,5 51. Schroeder,C. M.,Scot,T.P.,Tolson,H.,Huang,T.-Y.,&Lee,Y.-H.(2007).A meta-analysisofnationalresearch:efectsof teachingstrategiesonstudentachievementinscienceintheunitedstates.journalofresearchinscienceteaching,44, doi: /tea Schwab,J.J.(1962).Theteachingofscienceasenquiry.InJ.J.Schwab&P.F.Brandwein(Eds.),Theteachingofscience(pp ).Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPres. Schwartz,R.,Lederman,N.G.,&Lederman,J.S.(2008).Aninstrumenttoasesviewsofscientifcinquiry:TheVOSIquestionnaire. PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheNationalAsociationforResearchinScienceTeaching,Baltimore,MD. Schwarz,C.V.,&White,B.Y.(2005).Metamodelingknowledge:Developingstudents'understandingofscientifcmodeling. CognitionandInstruction,23, doi: /s xci2302_1 Shemwel,J.T.,&Furtak,E.M.(2010).Scienceclasroomdiscusionasscientifcargumentation:Astudyofconceptualy rich(andpoor)studenttalk.educationalasesment,15, doi: / Simons,K.D.,&Klein,J.D.(2007).Theimpactofscafoldingandstudentachievementlevelsinaproblem-basedlearning environment.instructionalscience,35,41 72.doi: /s So,W.W.-M.(2003).Learningsciencethroughinvestigations:AnexperiencewithHongKongprimaryschoolchildren. InternationalJournalofScienceand MathematicsEducation,1, Retrievedfromhtp:/link.springer.com/ article/ %2fb%3aijma af Spires,H.A.,Rowe,J.P.,Mot,B.W.,&Lester,J.C.(2011).Problemsolvingandgame-basedlearning:Efectsofmiddlegrade students'hypothesistestingstrategiesonlearningoutcomes.journalofeducationalcomputingresearch,44, doi: /ec.44.4.e Stecher,B.M.,Klein,S.P.,Solano-Flores,G.,McCafrey,D.,Robyn,A.,Shavelson,R.J.,&Haertel,E.(2000).Theefectsof content,format,andinquirylevelonscienceperformanceasesmentscores.appliedmeasurementineducation,13, doi: /S AME1302_2 Steinberg,R.N.,Cormier,S.,&Fernandez,A.(2009).Probingstudentunderstandingofscientifcthinkinginthecontext ofintroductoryastrophysics.physicalreviewspecialtopics PhysicsEducationResearch,5, doi: /physrevstper Taasoobshirazi,G.,&Hickey,D.T.(2005).Promotingargumentativediscourse:Adesign-basedimplementationand refnementofanastronomymultimediacuriculum,asesmentmodel,andlearningenvironment.astronomyeducation Review,4,53 70.doi: /AER Taasoobshirazi,G.,Zuiker,S.J.,Anderson,K.T.,&Hickey,D.T.(2006).Enhancinginquiry,understanding,andachievementin anastronomymultimedialearningenvironment.journalofscienceeducationandtechnology,15, doi: / s Toth,E.E.,Suthers,D.D.,&Lesgold,A.M.(2002). Mappingtoknow :Theefectsofrepresentationalguidanceandrefective asesmentonscientifcinquiry.scienceeducation,86, doi: /sce Toulmin,S.E.(1958).Theusesofargument.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPres. Tsai,P.-S.,Hwang,G.-J.,Tsai,C.-C.,Hung,C.-M.,&Huang,I.(2012).Anelectroniclibrary-basedlearningenvironmentfor supportingweb-basedproblem-solvingactivities.educationaltechnology&society,15, Valanides,N.,&Angeli,C.(2008).Distributedcognitioninasixth-gradeclasroom.JournalofResearchonTechnologyin Education,40, doi: / Velom,R.P.,&Anderson,C. W.(1999).Reasoningaboutdatain middleschoolscience.journalofresearchinscience Teaching,36, White,B.Y.,&Frederiksen,J.R.(1998).Inquiry,modeling,andmetacognition:Makingscienceaccesibletoalstudents. CognitionandInstruction,16,3 118.doi: /s xci1601_2

39 STUDIESINSCIENCEEDUCATION 197 Wilson,C.D.,Taylor,J.A., Kowalski,S. M.,&Carlson,J.(2010).Therelativeefectsandequityofinquiry-basedand commonplacescienceteachingonstudents knowledge,reasoning,andargumentation.journalofresearchinscience Teaching,47, doi: /tea Wong,K.K.H.,&Day,J.R.(2009).Acomparativestudyofproblem-basedandlecture-basedlearninginjuniorsecondary schoolscience.researchinscienceeducation,39, doi: /s Yoon,C.H.(2009).Self-regulatedlearningandinstructionalfactorsinthescientifcinquiryofscientifcalygiftedKorean middleschoolstudents.giftedchildquarterly,53, doi: / Zion, M., Michalsky,T.,& Mevarech,Z.R.(2005).Theefectsof metacognitiveinstructionembedded withinan asynchronouslearningnetworkonscientifcinquiryskils.internationaljournalofscienceeducation,27, doi: /