Paper No. 3
Presentation Time: 8:40 AM
INQUIRING IN OCEANOGRAPHY
BROWNE, Kathleen M., Science Education and Literacy Center, Rider University, 2083 Lawrenceville Rd, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, browne@rider.edu
Inquiry instruction in science, which often uses “hands-on” activities to promote effective learning, is really about
inquiring and thinking scientifically to understand natural phenomena, and about learning ideas and concepts more deeply and effectively. In a 3-credit Introductory Oceanography non-majors section taught at Rider University, the author used multiple methods to help students practice and improve scientific inquiry. The course has four major components: 1) study of selected major topics in oceanography; 2) study and practice of selected components of the scientific process; 3) connection-making among topics in oceanography and with other disciplines; 4) mindful dialog and inquiry. These components were addressed through inquiry activities, lectures, discussions, group work, reading quizzes, and two projects (connections paper & data analysis journal). Classroom dialog was structured around three aspects of “mindfulness” in the classroom: looking closely; exploring possibilities; managing and leveraging ambiguity (Ritchart & Perkins 2000). This presentation will provide details of the course components as well as results from pre/post science literacy assessment, scientific argumentation assessment, and general critical thinking rubric assessment for a section taught fall 2011.
Preliminary testing of science literacy and critical thinking assessments from a spring 2011 oceanography section (using less intensive approaches in course design) helped revise strategies used in the most recent course. The spring 2011 course had statistical gains in students' understanding of the following concepts in science literacy: science explains physical phenomena based upon testable information; doubt plays necessary roles in advancing science; theory is a unifying explanation for observations that result from testing several hypotheses. Seniors in the section showed critical thinking scores (out of 4 points) averaging 3.0 for explanation of issue, 2.6 for use of evidence, 2.4 for student’s position, and 1.9 for conclusions. The course strategies were modified for the fall 2011 section to address weaknesses identified from these assessments. Strategies will likely be useful for 4-credit courses, different student populations and other science topic instruction.