No description available.

College students rarely engage model-based epistemological reasoning about scientific data and evidence. The purpose of this study was to (1) investigate how scaffolding treatments influenced college students' epistemological reasoning about how data are used as evidence, (2) describe students' epistemological reasoning practice over the course of the study, (3) learn more about relationships among students' domain knowledge, epistemological beliefs about scientific knowledge, and epistemological reasoning, and (4) investigate how scaffolding for epistemological reasoning influences knowledge gain. Participants in this study consisted of three-hundred fifteen undergraduate students; all were juniors and seniors and all students were enrolled in one of two introductory genetics laboratory courses. Study participants included non-majors (Experiment 1, N =143) and majors (Experiment 2, N = 172). A partially mixed-methods sequential research design was used in this study; qualitative and quantitative phases were mixed during data analysis. A distributed scaffolding system was used in this study. All participants from each laboratory section were randomly assigned to one of three treatments; no scaffolds, domain-general scaffolds, or domain specific scaffolds. Study variables included domain knowledge, epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge, and epistemological reasoning, scaffolding treatment was the manipulated variable. Findings were: (1) Chi square analysis indicated no statistically significant differences in epistemological reasoning by scaffolding treatment; model-based reasoning was not observed in students' explanations; (2) Spearman rho indicated no change in epistemological reasoning over the course of the study, however, statistical significance was not reached, however, a repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction indicated a statistically significant within subjects change in epistemological reasoning, implications are discussed; (3) statistically significant bivariate correlations were found and (4) ANCOVA indicated pretest domain knowledge was a statistically significant covariate for posttest domain knowledge and a statistically significant main effect for scaffolding treatment was reached by Experiment 1 participants but not by Experiment 2 participants. Implications for instructional design and future research are discussed.

The purpose of the study was to examine college science professors’ beliefs regarding the use of inquiry in the college science classroom, how these beliefs impacted their instructional choices and how these beliefs were enacted in the classroom. Additional questions were how teachers’ beliefs vary across institution types (community college, private, four year college, and large research institution), and how beliefs vary across disciplines (life sciences and physical sciences). A case study design was required for this study due to the complexity of the topic and different data sources needed to answer the fore stated research questions. These data sources included surveys, interviews, classroom and laboratory observations and written records such as laboratory activities and syllabi. Twelve college professors at three different institutions; large research institution, small, private four year college and community college were interviewed. In addition to interviews, classes and labs were observed, a questionnaire on the five essential features of inquiry was given and samples of labs and syllabi were obtained. A laboratory coordinator was also interviewed as she was responsible for the laboratory section for two of the professors at the research institution. All schools were located in the southeast United States. The perception of inquiry by college science professors has been found to be a barrier to the inclusion of inquiry in college classrooms and was supported in the current study. While the professors described constraints to inquiry such as large class size, lack of time, disinterest of students, and lack of equipment, these limitations were due, in part, to the professors’ incomplete view of inquiry as what researchers do. This view was most pronounced with the professors at the large, research institution. At the research institution, observations in the classroom mirrored the beliefs of inquiry. Lecture was the primary instruction in the science classroom, and the labs were scripted and shown to be “cookbook” with little or no evidence of inquiry noted in the labs iv obtained. There was more evidence of inquiry at the private four-year college and community college than at the large research institution; what was observed in the classroom mirrored what the professors believed about inquiry. There was a difference in the beliefs between institutions with the professors at the research institution holding an incomplete view of inquiry while the professors at the private college and community college included many aspects of the inquiry continuum in their view of inquiry. There were no differences noted between disciplines.