Get Scientific Inquiry in Mathematics Theory and Practice Andrzej Sokolowski Free All Chapters
Get Scientific Inquiry in Mathematics Theory and Practice Andrzej Sokolowski Free All Chapters
Get Scientific Inquiry in Mathematics Theory and Practice Andrzej Sokolowski Free All Chapters
com
https://textbookfull.com/product/scientific-
inquiry-in-mathematics-theory-and-practice-
andrzej-sokolowski/
textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
https://textbookfull.com/product/confident-speaking-theory-
practice-and-teacher-inquiry-1st-edition-goh/
https://textbookfull.com/product/phase-transformation-in-metals-
mathematics-theory-and-practice-nestor-perez/
https://textbookfull.com/product/inquiry-based-teaching-and-
learning-across-disciplines-comparative-theory-and-practice-in-
schools-1st-edition-gillian-kidman/
https://textbookfull.com/product/exploring-resilience-a-
scientific-journey-from-practice-to-theory-siri-wiig/
Foundations of the Theory of Parthood 1st Edition
Andrzej Pietruszczak
https://textbookfull.com/product/foundations-of-the-theory-of-
parthood-1st-edition-andrzej-pietruszczak/
https://textbookfull.com/product/molecular-spectroscopy-
experiment-and-theory-from-molecules-to-functional-materials-
andrzej-kolezynski/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-reflexivity-of-language-and-
linguistic-inquiry-integrational-linguistics-in-practice-dorthe-
duncker/
https://textbookfull.com/product/new-york-scientific-a-culture-
of-inquiry-knowledge-and-learning-1st-edition-istvan-hargittai/
https://textbookfull.com/product/open-access-in-theory-and-
practice-the-theory-practice-relationship-and-openness-stephen-
pinfield/
Andrzej Sokolowski
Scientific Inquiry
in Mathematics
- Theory and
Practice
A STEM Perspective
Scientific Inquiry in Mathematics - Theory
and Practice
Andrzej Sokolowski
Scientific Inquiry
in Mathematics - Theory
and Practice
A STEM Perspective
Andrzej Sokolowski
Division of Mathematics and Science
Lone Star College
Tomball, TX, USA
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG part of
Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
1
Einstein, A. (1914). Principles of theoretical physics, inaugural address before the Prussian
Academy of Sciences, 1914. Reprinted in Einstein, A. (1973). Ideas and opinions (pp. 221–223).
London: Souvenir Press.
v
vi Preface
mathematical and scientific reasonings in a coherent STEM inquiry. The book can be
considered as a resource for STEM education students, researchers, and practitioners
seeking to develop transdisciplinary learning experiences.
The book consists of two main parts. Part 1 contains six chapters and discusses
underpinnings of STEM experiences that lead to a formulation of an integrated
theoretical framework. Part 2 comprises four chapters with four STEM projects
designated for precalculus and calculus students during which the theoretical frame-
work was put in practice and the outputs discussed.
In Chap. 1, general foundations of integrated learning are discussed, and an
argument that STEM students’ readiness can be initiated from developing their
mathematical reasoning skills using scientific contexts before engaging in engineer-
ing designs is posited. Chapter 2 delves more in depth into the current findings on
integrated science and mathematics learning and establishes this learning setting as a
viable foundation for developing students’ STEM competency. STEM learning is
strongly supported by representations. Chapter 3 is dedicated to discussing learning
effects of using representations in school practice and their effects on STEM practice.
While there are various ways of designing and performing STEM activities when
representations are enabled, modeling is being used in all of the STEM component
disciplines. Chapter 4 zooms into the underlying principles of modeling in biology,
physics, chemistry, mathematics, and engineering. It also discusses ways of integrat-
ing technology in STEM learning environment. Chapter 5 focuses on synthesizing
research findings on using scientific methods in STEM practice. The ultimate goal of
this chapter is to seek ways of bridging problem-solving in mathematics with
scientific methods. A culminating phase of Part 1 of the book is Chap. 6 that suggests
a theoretical framework for merging mathematical reasoning with scientific methods.
Intertwining of these methodologies along with applying it in practice is discussed.
Part 2 of the book opens up with Chap. 7 that contains a case study about
constructing an exponential model for a bouncing ball and using it to model the
law of conservation of energy. Extracting properties of an exponential behavior from
that context revealed new knowledge about interpretation of the base of exponential
decay that does not parallel with its traditional view. Chapter 8 is about using the
idea of function continuity to support constructing a piecewise position function of
the simulated motion of a walking man. The fact that position function must be
continuous and differentiable is not emphasized in calculus nor physics textbooks.
Applying the principle of continuity in real life highlighted the importance of
studying the principles and revealed interpretations that do not surface in traditional
context-free textbook problems. The concept of function transformations used as a
tool to produce new functions based on parent function was explored in Chap. 9. By
being situated in a simulated environment of projectile motion, this activity revealed
that parent function does not necessarily have to be expressed in its traditional
Preface vii
standard form. The simulation also disclosed certain limitations of applying func-
tions transformation in real contexts that do not surface in typical textbook questions.
Investigating function rate of change and using it to optimizing area enclosed by a
perimeter of a fixed length was the primary objective of the activity included in
Chap. 10. While traditional textbook problems ask for unique values that optimize
the quantity of interest, this activity offered students the opportunity of constructing
functions, exploring their properties and then optimizing the quantity while
reflecting on the conducted lab. General conclusions and suggestions for further
research conclude each chapter.
ix
x Contents
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Part I
Scientific and Mathematics Reasoning in
STEM: Conceptual Framework
Chapter 1
STEM Education: A Platform
for Multidisciplinary Learning
Abstract This chapter summarizes general purposes, the learning settings, and
the outcomes of using the STEM as a platform for multidisciplinary learning.
By encompassing several disciplines, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,
technology, and engineering, exercising STEM activities posit specific challenges.
These challenges are especially visible in high school where students learn contents
of STEM subjects in uncorrelated manners. While exercising multidisciplinary
STEM activities during extra designed instructional units would be the most effi-
cient, this approach might be problematic to put in practice. Therefore, alternative
routes of exercising STEM learning experiences are sought. In this chapter, a
framework for an alternative route is suggested and its general theoretical underpin-
nings discussed. Attention is given to research findings on ways of exercising
scientific inquiry and mathematical reasoning in STEM practice. These ideas will
also be further discussed in the next chapters.
Due to a broad range of aims in educational research and practice, the acronym
STEM has multiple definitions. Moore et al. (2014) described STEM as an effort to
link some or all the four disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics into one unit that is based on connections between these and real-
word problems. McComas (2014) defined STEM as an interdisciplinary approach to
learning that integrates academic concepts with real-world situations. Sanders
(2009) described integrated STEM education as proposals that explore teaching
and learning between or among any two or more of the STEM subject areas.
National Science Foundation defined STEM as the integration of subjects, which
include not only the standard disciplines of mathematics, natural sciences, engineer-
ing, computer, and information sciences, but also social and behavioral sciences,
economics, sociology, and political science (Green 2007).
A large range of STEM interpretations is followed by a high diversity of
organizing and delivering these integrated learning experiences to students. These
settings vary and one of them, called multidisciplinary, is about applying knowledge
and skills learned from two or more disciplines to help enhance the learning
experience (Vasquez et al. 2013). For example, the idea of periodic functions,
from trigonometry, might be integrated with periodical processes studied in biology
or physics where students would use real data to construct such functions and learn
more about the system behavior. Similarly, the fundamental theorem of calculus
might be applied to kinematics to support the idea that accumulation under the graph
represents the change of object’s position. Such integrated projects can be conducted
in math or science classes depending on the content emphasis. In addition to
enhancing the learning of the involved subjects, they can provide opportunities for
creating new knowledge.
STEM activities can also be classified depending on the form of the final product.
For instance; they can lead to formulating a mathematical model of a phenomenon,
or be of a form of a theoretical design, or a lead to constructing of an artifact.
The nature of the final product depends on the objective of the activity, the time
devoted to its completion, and available resources. The form of the final product
will support the contents of the involved subjects and amplify the methods of
learning. If the final product is an algebraic representation, the effort will evolve
around primarily using the attributes of algebraic functions and map them into
the observed behavior of the system under investigation. If the final product is
an artifact, technical skills will be promoted with applications of algebraic
algorithms.
While STEM epistemological framework is rooted in the various disciplines,
students’ learning can also take different routes; the learning can be teacher- or
student centered. STEM activities can be assigned as team projects defined as a
process of working collectively to achieve a common objective or as individual
projects. Research shows that teamwork produces higher learning effects when
compared to individual work because: (a) most engineering designs is done coop-
eratively, not individually, and technical skills are sometimes equally important as
interpersonal skills (Felder et al. 2000); (b) scientists work mostly in groups and less
often as isolated investigators, thus similarly, students should gain experience
sharing responsibility for learning with each other; (c) cooperative and team learning
appears to be the most thoroughly researched instructional methods in all structures
of education, (see, e.g., Alters and Nelson 2002). Springer et al. (1999) meta-
analyzed STEM learning outcomes and found out that STEM-related cooperative
learning promotes greater academic achievement and more favorable attitudes
toward learning than traditional students-centered teaching. Thus, communication
and teamwork should be prioritized during STEM projects. In such learning, stu-
dents communicate and discuss thus learn how to convey their arguments to their
peers using the language of science, mathematics, or engineering. Team members
tend to share knowledge and complement each other’s skills which can produce a
higher quality of the final projects.
1.3 Suggested Pathway to Develop Students’ STEM Readiness 5
There are several educational objectives that can be achieved using a multi-
disciplinary learning environment: (a) promoting awareness of the roles of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics in modern society; (b) enhancing famil-
iarity with at least some of the fundamental concepts from each area; (c) allowing for
integrating different teaching methods; (d) promoting active learning (Felder et al.
2000); (e) fostering students’ mathematical and scientific reasoning. Among these,
using the STEM to promoting active learning is one of the main educational
objectives because research shows (Cabrera and Cabrera 2005) that people acquire
and retain knowledge and skills more efficiently through practice. While a straight
lecturing may succeed at promoting short-term factual recall, active learning pro-
motes long-term retention of information, comprehension, motivation to learn, and
subsequent interest in the subject. STEM education also provides multiple opportu-
nities to link scientific inquiry by formulating hypotheses that are proved or
disproved through investigations before students engage in the engineering designs
to solve problems (Kennedy and Odell 2014). Findings from preliminary studies
(Honey et al. 2014) suggested that integration can lead to improved conceptual
learning in the disciplines and that the effects differ depending on: (a) the nature of
the integration, (b) the outcomes measured, and (c) the students’ prior knowledge
and experience. Another view by Koedinger et al. (2012) posited that integrated
approaches benefit those individuals who already possess some knowledge pertinent
to the integrated concepts, as compared to individuals with limited knowledge or less
adept at building connections among conceptual structures.
Along with an increasing role of technology, a new STEM learning platform can
elicit perspectives on multidisciplinary learning and open the opportunities to extend
areas not typically found in subject-specific textbooks.
While STEM is broadly promoted and recognized in education, research does not
offer explicit suggestions on what STEM format or what organizational setting
maximizes the learning effects (see Barrett et al. 2014). Explicit elaboration on the
integrated epistemic goals in STEM education is also rarely found and literature and
mostly it refers to either recognizing and applying concepts that have different
meanings across disciplines and merging them in one coherent concept or combining
practices from two or more STEM disciplines (e.g., scientific experimentation with
developing methods of quantifications or scientific experimentation with an engi-
neering design). It is common in STEM practices that one subject takes a dominant
role in the learning objectives. As the integration of disciplines is a standard umbrella
6 1 STEM Education: A Platform for Multidisciplinary Learning
for exercising STEM practices, the methodology of the integration is still being
debated. In their newly developed theoretical framework for STEM education,
Kelley and Knowles (2016) suggested applying situated learning to integrate engi-
neering design, scientific inquiry, technological literacy, and mathematical thinking,
whereas Vasquez et al. (2013) proposed a continuum of integration through trans-
disciplinary approaches supported by interconnection and interdependence among
the disciplines. Because inquiry-based instruction engages students to think and act
like scientists, which is a signature pedagogy in science (Crippen and Archambault
2012) scientific inquiry-based instruction appears as a hallmark of integrated STEM
education. Pinar (2004, p. 25) claimed that multidisciplinary curriculum fosters
intellectual development and students’ capacities for critical thinking. He also
contended (p. 25) that “well-designed curriculum should enable students to connect
their experiences with academic knowledge.” Integration should not only be
discipline-wise but also move beyond these boundaries, include students’ prior
experiences, and provide them with opportunities to construct new knowledge.
Mentzer et al. (2014) suggested that teachers should seek opportunities to demon-
strate the value of mathematical modeling and encourage students to think about
relationships and functions as ways of understanding the world around us. While
research on the impact of integrated STEM experiences on students’ achievement,
subject–domain knowledge, problem-solving ability, and the ability to make con-
nections between disciplines is not extensive, concerns related to both the design of
studies and the reporting of results hamper a need to make explicit claims about what
areas of students’ learning is affected the most.
While all types of discipline or methods of integration generate learning, the most
potent are these that include scientific methods (Davison et al. 1995). Therefore, this
area will be further discussed and explored in this book. How to integrate abstract
math structures with hypotheses formulation that are typical for scientific investiga-
tion? Alternatively, how to design the process of the derived model verification that
will reflect on both scientific phenomena embedded in the investigation and the
algebraic structure? While it is apparent that through modeling processes, students
will have the opportunities to improve their mathematics and scientific reasoning
skills, the underlying question is how to integrate inductively organized learning
experiences in sciences with a traditionally structured mathematics learning. Is there
a common area for such integration? Alternatively, how to organize activities that
would enhance a pathway suggested in Fig. 1.1?
To develop a more concise theoretical framework for multidisciplinary learning,
currently used modeling in all STEM component disciplines will be analyzed (see
Chap. 4). Following this analysis, a survey of research on using scientific contexts in
mathematics classes will also be discussed, and it will be summarized in Chap. 5.
English (2016, p.1) claimed that “We still need more studies on how student’s
learning outcomes arise not only from different forms of STEM integration but
also from the particular disciplines that are being integrated.” The book can be
considered a response to this call.
1.4 Enhancing Scientific Route in STEM Learning Settings 7
Multidiciplinary
mathematics and science •Merging mathematics and scientific reasoning
modeling
References
Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education.
Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901.
Barrett, B. S., Moran, A. L., & Woods, J. E. (2014). Meteorology meets engineering: An interdis-
ciplinary STEM module for middle and early secondary school students. International Journal
of STEM Education, 1(1), 1.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.
Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology:
A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 157–173.
Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does the integration of science and
mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 226–230.
Dym, C. (2004). Principles of mathematical modeling. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of
STEM Education, 3(1), 1.
Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering
education II. Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26–39.
Green, M. (2007). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2004. (NSF 07–307). Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status,
prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.
International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.
Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education
International, 25(3), 246–258.
Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge‐learning‐instruction
framework: Bridging the science‐practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive
Science, 36(5), 757–798.
McComas, W. F. (2014). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In The
language of science education (pp. 102–103). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
Mentzer, N., Huffman, T., & Thayer, H. (2014). High school student modeling in the engineering
design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(3), 293–316.
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014).
A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of
Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 2.
References 9
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on under-
graduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C. I., & Comer, M. W. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8:
Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. New York: Heinemann.
Chapter 2
Integrating Mathematics and Science
Within STEM Paradigm
The most frequently researched STEM education pairing is that of mathematics and
science (Marginson et al. 2013). Mathematics provides a computational system and
helps conveniently encode a rule (Bing and Redish 2008). As a teaching and learning
real-world application problems is difficult in mathematics classes (Berry and
Nyman 2002), developing students’ mathematical reasoning skills by formulating
mathematical constructs using STEM contexts appears as a strong opportunity that is
not fully explored. An aspect that is not often being undertaken in mathematics
classes is coupling algebraic representations with natural phenomena to provide
opportunities for enhancing mathematical reasoning. For example, if students find
how the speed of a cart behaves over a definite, measurable distance, they can find an
algebraic function that models the cart’s position and use it to compute the position
of the cart at any time beyond the one utilized in the lab.
A high range of mathematical apparatus studied by students allows for describing
phenomenon from multiple angles. For example, it allows for: (a) quantifying the
Poincare stated that “all laws are derived from experience, and to report them, a
special language [. . .] of mathematics is needed” Murzi (2005, p. 67). Mathematics
provides scientists with the tools to formulate the laws of nature into a concise and
symbolic language. According to Ernest (2010, p. 4). “The concepts of mathematics
are derived from direct experience of the physical world, from the generalization and
reflective abstraction of previously constructed concepts, by negotiating meanings
with others during the discourse, or by some combination of these means.” Science
provides mathematics with contexts to investigate and to model. However, physical
phenomena cannot be completely understood only by mathematical formulas and
equations, and in parallel mathematical representations standing alone do not guar-
antee that integrated learning will be nurtured.
Research shows that STEM activities can be productive if they involve students
in generating or refining mathematical representations of the systems given either in
static or dynamic forms. Honey et al. (2014) suggested that there needs to be an
explicit focus on the mathematics’ concepts and processes that arise during the
investigations. Without a focus on mathematical methods, the promotion of
problem-based STEM tasks might run the risk of sidelining mathematical reasoning
2.2 Mathematics as a Tool for Quantifying Scientific Phenomena 13
•Quantification
•Mathematical representations
Mathematics
into minor roles, e.g., routine algorithmic procedures and graphs sketching.
According to National Research Council (2013, p. 5), connecting ideas across
disciplines is challenging when students have little or no understanding of the
relevant thoughts. The challenge appears to be higher considering that students do
not always naturally use their disciplinary knowledge in integrated contexts.
Although presenting students a STEM problem without guiding them through the
stages of merging different disciplines to solve the problem might result in finding
the solution, this approach most likely will not improve the quality of their reasoning
skills. Thus, more careful planning is needed. A diagrammatic representation of a
sequence of methods that are set up to nurture the development of integrated
reasoning skills is suggested in Fig. 2.1.
Integrated mathematics—science learning experiences are initiated from observ-
ing a phenomenon. The next step in the process is identifying variables and classi-
fying them as independent and dependent. Taking data, deciding about algebraic
representation and then using the representation to reflect back on the system
behavior usually concludes the process. By formulating an algebraic representation
of the phenomenon, students are given opportunities to contextualize function’s
attributes such as monotonicity, concavity, the rate of change, domain, range,
maximum or minimum values, asymptotes, limits, and so forth. They have a chance
to develop the understanding of nature through a concise language of mathematics.
By interpreting system behaviors using this language, they will realize the impor-
tance of learning tools of mathematics and create or discover new knowledge from
the multidisciplinary STEM experience. Kelly (1989, p. 31) claimed that “to acquire
knowledge is to have students experience, observe, and form hypothesis.” It is
anticipated that such created STEM environments will help students not only with
appreciating mathematics but also with an understanding of science, where applying
the process of inquiry is the primary method of knowledge acquisition. Integrating
scientific inquiry with mathematical representations might be a bridge to solidifying
14 2 Integrating Mathematics and Science Within STEM Paradigm
the process of creating mathematical models, solving and using the models to
exercise mathematical reasoning. Studies (Honey et al. 2014) suggested that the
integration of mathematics and science can also be supported by engaging students
in the invention and revision of mathematical representations of natural systems
because concepts make sense not as isolated facts but as elements of integrated
structures of knowledge. Guiding the learners through identifying the pieces of
information that are crucial in the process of knowledge integration and yet leaving
a room for their judgments and inputs requires a careful analysis of the project’ goals
and contents of the involved disciplines. A survey of the field of empirical research
on using scientific methods in the STEM that will shed more light into current
research is synthesized in Chap. 5.
Although educational bodies support STEM, the nature of how to integrate all the
disciplines is still being debated. Many have voiced concern that mathematics is
underrepresented in the STEM paradigm (e.g., English and King 2015). While no
one questions the dominant role of scientific methods in the STEM, Hämäläinen
et al. (2014) posited that the role of abstract mathematical concepts could increase if
those concepts are considered as a process of giving mathematical structure to
theoretical knowledge and empirical observations. This idea is supported by the
notion that mathematics can be perceived as a human conceptual construction of
embodied concepts (Lakoff and Núñez 2000). It is believed that by inducing
mathematical concepts to scientific explorations, such learning settings can also
serve as a means of promoting social construction of knowledge as defined by
Buendía and Cordero (2005). While in mathematics, the notion of a generic com-
petency often relates to problem-solving, the justification for the current position of
mathematics in the curriculum is still around procedural competency (Marginson
et al. 2013). In such settings, the role of students is reduced to plugging in values and
evaluating expressions, often with the help of a calculator. The limited use of the
tools of mathematics to support scientific practice is reflected in low students’
competencies in problem-solving. Research (Bonotto 2013) showed that even
when the problems and methods encountered in class are similar to the real-world
situations, students have difficulties in associating their analytical thinking with their
problem-solving techniques. This difficulty might illustrate a gap between how
students perceive the concepts of mathematics and the applicability of these concepts
to solve real-world problems. There can be many reasons for this gap of skills and
pinpointing some based on the gathered literature might be premature. It is hypoth-
esized that this deficiency is attributed to a limited students’ exposure to actual
experiences because students learn and retain knowledge better by being actively
2.4 Scientific Methods and Inquiry in STEM Learning Settings 15
Experiment
Hypothesis
conduct
students’ ability to convert the lab prompts into semiotics that can be used to express
the lab process in a different representation. In this regard, scientific reasoning is
related to cognitive abilities such as critical thinking. Scientific reasoning can be
developed through training and can have a long-term impact on student academic
achievement. The STEM community considers that these skills are as crucial for
students to learn as the STEM content knowledge (Honey et al. 2014).
Scientific methods should be distinguished from the aim of products of science,
such as knowledge, prediction, or control. Methods can be perceived as how the goal
of the undertaking is achieved. Methods can include specific laboratory techniques,
such as taking specific measurements using more sophisticated devices such as
probes, or photogates and mathematical apparatus including the use of technology
(e.g., the techniques of computing the coefficient of determination or standard
deviation) or other specialized software or programs.
An inquiry approach to instruction requires teachers to encourage and model the
skills of scientific inquiry, as well as the curiosity, openness to new ideas, and
skepticism that characterizes science (National Research Council 2013). Scientific
inquiry trains students to ask questions, hypothesize, carry out investigations, and
formulate inferences. It guides students to think and act like real scientists. “To engage
in authentic and productive inquiry, students must come to understand inquiry not as
the accumulation of objective facts but as an enterprise that advances through the
coordination of evidence with evolving theories constructed by human knowers”
(Kuhn and Pease 2008, p. 513).
There are three main types of reasoning used to formulate new knowledge:
inductive, deductive, and abductive. In science, mathematics, and engineering,
inductive and deductive reasoning are mainly used (Prince and Felder 2006). The
inductive reasoning could occur in three progressively different avenues: structured
inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry (Staver and Bay 1987). Most common
inductive inquiry in school practice is a structured inquiry where students are given a
problem or equipment and some auxiliary information that guides them through the
solution process.
While a deductive inquiry is a process of reasoning from specific observations to
reaching a general conclusion (see Fig. 2.3), an inductive inquiry denotes the process
2.4 Scientific Methods and Inquiry in STEM Learning Settings 17
Unique solution
General premises
Problem
Analysis
Observation
Mathematical
Scientific inquiry Stem competency
reasoning
competent STEM modelers that will be ready to take the risk to develop new
technological devices. A pictorial summary of this thesis is illustrated in Fig. 2.5.
The theme of the book is to support the notion that STEM activities have the
potential to serve as a means of fostering students’ mathematical reasoning and
consequently improving their scientific modeling skills. The next chapter provides
more detailed background about why real contexts of STEM activities help with
knowledge accumulation and retention.
References
Berry, J., & Nyman, M. A. (2002). Small-group assessment methods in mathematics. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(5), 641–649.
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2008). Symbolic manipulators affect mathematical mindsets. American
Journal of Physics, 76(4), 418–424.
Bonotto, C. (2013). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 83(1), 37–55.
Buendía, G., & Cordero, F. (2005). Prediction and the periodical aspect as generators of knowledge
in a social practice framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 299–333.
Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does the integration of science and
mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 226–230.
Disessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398.
English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade
students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1.
Ernest, P. (2010). Why teach mathematics. Professional Educator, 9(2), 44–47.
Hämäläinen, R. P., Luoma, J., & Saarinen, E. (2014). Mathematical modeling is more than fitting
equations. American Psychologist, 69(6), 633–634.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., Schweingruber, H., & National Academy of Engineering and National
Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an
agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kelly, A. V. (1989). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: PCP Publishing.
Klauer, K. J. (1989). Teaching for analogical transfer as a means of improving problem-solving,
thinking and learning. Instructional Science, 18(3), 179–192.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?
Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 512–559.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from how the embodied mind brings
mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books.
References 19
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons:
International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) edu-
cation. Final report. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.
Murzi, M. (2005). Jules Henri Poincare. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/poincare/.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions,
comparison, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
Redish, E. F. (2017). Analysing the competency of mathematical modelling in physics. In Key
competences in physics teaching and learning (pp. 25–40). Cham: Springer International.
Sacks, R., & Barak, R. (2009). Teaching building information modeling as an integral part of
freshman year civil engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 136(1), 30–38.
Sokolowski, A. (2017). Graphs in kinematics—a need for adherence to principles of algebraic
functions. Physics Education, 52(6), 065017.
Staver, J. R., & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesis goal cluster orientation and
inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24
(7), 629–643.
Thagard, P., & Shelley, C. (1997). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In
Logic and scientific methods (pp. 413–427). Dordrecht: Springer.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based
inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education,
92(5), 941–967.
Chapter 3
Teaching and Learning Representations
in STEM