Development of A Checklist for Helping Students' Open Scientific Inquiry Report Writing

학생의 열린 과학 탐구 보고서 작성을 돕기 위한 점검표 개발

  • Received : 2015.09.25
  • Accepted : 2015.12.28
  • Published : 2015.12.31


The purpose of this study is to develop a checklist for helping students write scientific inquiry reports after conducting open inquiry. To do this, eight scientifically gifted middle school students' worksheets for open inquiry, inquiry activities during conducting open inquiry, and final scientific inquiry reports were analyzed. Parts that were considered unsuitable in the writing inquiry reports as well as good parts were identified, and using this result, a checklist for helping students write good inquiry reports was developed. The checklist consisted of five categories and 46 items. The checklist was applied to inquiry reports written by seven other gifted students. Analyzing agreement rates of the checklists with two evaluators, high reliability could be obtained. Finally, recommendations for more effective use of the developed checklist were discussed.


open inquiry;scientific inquiry report;science writing;checklist;scientifically gifted student


  1. Berg, C.A.R., Bergendahl, V.C.B., Lundberg, B.K.S., & Tibell, L.A.E. (2003). Benefiting from an open ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
  2. Berry, D., & Fawkes, K. (2010). Constructing the components of a lab report using peer review. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 57-61.
  3. Brigati, J.R., & Swann, J.M. (2015). Facilitating improvements in laboratory report writing skills with less grading: A laboratory report peer-review process. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(1), 61-68.
  4. Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
  5. Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement, but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 551-558.
  6. Deiner, L.J, Newsome, D., & Samaroo, D. (2012). Directed self-inquiry: A scaffold for teaching laboratory report writing. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1151-1514.
  7. Doerr, H.M. (1997). Experiment, simulation and analysis: an integrated instructional approach to the concept of force. International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 265-282.
  8. Duit, R., & Tesch, M. (2010). On the role of the experiment in science teaching and learning - Visions and the reality of instructional practice. In M. Kalogiannakis, D. Stavrou & P. Michaelides (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hands-On Science (pp. 17-30). Rethymno, Greece: University of Crete.
  9. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23-34.
  10. Keys, C.W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grad writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6
  11. Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  12. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2012). Searching for effective strategies on teaching open-inquiry -Based on cases of a science high school carrying our KYPT problem solving activities-. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 1489-1501.
  13. Klein, P.D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-tolearn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270.
  14. Krystyniak, R.A., & Heikkinen, H.W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1160-1186.
  15. Kundel, H. L., & Polansky, M. (2003). Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology, 228, 303-308.
  16. Lim, S., Yang, I., Kim, S., Hong, E., & Lim, J. (2010). Investigation on the difficulties during elementary pre-service teachers' open-inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 291-303.
  17. Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: what practical work in science education really for. In J. Wellington (ed.), Practical Work in School Science (pp. 16-31). London: Routledge.
  18. Nellist, J., & Nicholle, B. (1986). ASE Science Teachers' Handbook. London: Hutchinson.
  19. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. (2003). Designing a written assignment to promote the use of critical thinking skills in an introductory chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 889-903.
  20. Park, J. (2005). Analysis of the characteristics and processes of the generation of scientific inquiry problems. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 50(4), 203-211.
  21. Park, J. (2013a). Developing and applying teaching materials to help students' generation of scientific-inquiry problems. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(4), 360-367.
  22. Park, J. (2013b). Development and application of the checklist for finding inquiry problems, design of experiment and writing inquiry report. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Korean Physical Society, Daejeon: Daejeon Convention Center.
  23. Park, J., & Lee, K. (2012). Exploring the components and functions of scaffolding in open inquiry through factor analysis. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1204-1221.
  24. Park, J., & Yang, H,-G. (2013, February). Helping students to design scientific experiment by themselves for open-inquiry approach. Paper presented at the 63th Conference of The Korean Association for Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  25. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.
  26. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461-467.
  27. Schepmann, H.G., & Hughes, LA. (2006). Chemical research writing: A preparatory course for students capstone research. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1024-1028.
  28. Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  29. Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa static. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-366.
  30. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  31. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry:"how preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
  32. Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenge and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383-399.