Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Biology instruction using a generic framework of scientific reasoning

and argumentation
Tobias Dorfner*, Christian Fo
€rtsch, Michael Germ, Birgit J. Neuhaus
Biology Education, Department of Biology I, LMU Munich, Germany

h i g h l i g h t s

Fostering students' learning requires further and new implications.

SRA offers the possibility to foster students' learning.

We observe biology lessons using a framework of SRA.

The use of SRA and its influence on students' achievement are demonstrated.

The study offers a complementary perspective on how to foster students' learning.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We investigated biology instructiondusing a generic framework of scientific reasoning and argumen-
Received 29 June 2017 tation (SRA) with eight epistemic activitiesdon how to foster student learning in biological literacy
Received in revised form which had not been clarified in previous studies. Our analysis of videotaped biology lessons and student
28 May 2018
achievement showed varying frequencies in using these activities and their effects on achievement.
Accepted 4 July 2018
Those students taught with more epistemic activities had higher achievement. We believe that the SRA
framework can be a worthwhile methodical tool for teaching biology to foster student learning.
Therefore, we draw practically orientated implications for educational research, practitioners, teacher
Keywords:
Scientific literacy
educators, and curriculum developers.
Scientific reasoning and argumentation © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Biology instruction
Video study

1. Introduction knowledge, scientific inquiry, communication, and scientific judge-

More than ten years ago, low results of German students in
scientific literacy from international comparative studies, like the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1995 (Baumert,
Bos, & Lehmann, 2000) or the Programme for International Stu-
dents Assessment 2000 (Baumert et al., 2001) led to the intro-
duction of the German National Education Standards (NES) for
three subjects, biology, chemistry, and physics in 2005 (The
Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural
Affairs of The La€nder in the Federal Republic of Germany [KMK],
2005a; 2005b; 2005c). These standards are the framework for a
national evaluation of these subjects. To clearly mention students'
performance, four competencies were established: content
* Corresponding author. Biology Education, Department of Biology I, Ludwig-
Maximilians University Munich, Winzererstraße 45/II, 80797, Munich, Germany.
E-mail address: tobias.dorfner@bio.lmu.de (T. Dorfner).
ment. These four competencies could be seen as subdimensions of
scientific literacy and could be divided into one content sub-
dimension: content knowledge and three process subdimensions:
scientific inquiry, communication, and scientific judgment (Kampa &
Ko€ ller, 2016).
Despite the time that has passed since the introduction of the
German NES, the question of how to foster students' learning
within these four subdimensions still plays a major role in the
agendas for researchers as well as instructional approaches for
teachers. In different publications, scientific reasoning is discussed
as one crucial element of the subdimension scientific inquiry
(Hartmann, Upmeier zu Belzen, Krüger, & Pant, 2015; Mayer, 2007;
Nowak, Nehring, Tiemann, & Upmeier zu Belzen, 2013;
Zimmerman, 2005). By comparing different approaches which aim
that students become deeply involved with authentic processes of
scientific reasoning and argumentation (SRA), Fischer et al. (2014)
described that “it has been found crucial to provide students with

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.003
0742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
structural support” (p. 31). So, scaffolding students with prompts
and hints on SRAdin individual learning or whole classroom
learningdis an effective method to foster students' scientific
reasoning skills (Fischer et al., 2014). On the basis of current
research findings and deficits from studies on SRA (for details of the
studies, see Fischer et al., 2014, pp. 29e31), Fischer et al. argued to
expand future research on SRA by the range of epistemic activities,
and therefore, developed a framework of SRA with eight epistemic
activities usable across domains. So, using this generic framework
as a structural element for biology instruction seems to be a
worthwhile and promising approach to foster students' scientific
reasoning skills. Thereby, we try to create our awareness that it is
interesting and rewarding to take elements from the research on
SRA and to use them in biology instruction. It is obvious that some
elements are already established in biology instruction, but we
demonstrate further important aspects of the research on SRA that
are useful and interesting for teaching biology. By doing so, we
want to connect research disciplines, namely, the research on SRA
and the research in biology education. We are convinced that
research in both disciplines could benefit by mutual consideration,
but there is a need to demonstrate this mutual benefit. Important to
mention is that teaching biology should definitively not be rein-
vented with our approach. But, some aspects are new or differ in
comparison to the already known elements of scientific inquiry.
Therefore, in our study, we were interested in how often the
eight epistemic activities of SRA from the framework of Fischer
et al. (2014) had already been used in videotaped biology lessons
from grade nine (N ¼ 85 videos), and which of these epistemic
activities had been used in the lessons. Furthermore, we focused on
whether or not the used epistemic activities have an effect on
students' achievement in biology. More precisely, we had the
following two main goals in our study: (1) to show the current use
of the eight epistemic activities in regular biology instruction, and
(2) to show the effects of the epistemic activities on students'
achievement in biology.
2. Theoretical background
To frame our study, we start with a short general introduction to
scientific reasoning and argumentation (SRA). Then, we illustrate
theoretical conceptualizations of SRA and subsequently describe
the generic framework of SRA from Fischer et al. (2014). Finally, we
demonstrate the interconnection of SRA and educational standards,
which give reasons for using SRA in our study to foster students'
learning within the correlated subdimensions content knowledge
and scientific inquiry.
2.1. General introduction to scientific reasoning and argumentation
Over the previous years, research in cognitive and develop-
mental psychology has been implemented to study constructs such
as scientific reasoning and argumentation (Chinn & Clark, 2013;
Zimmerman, 2000). Research in this area has the basic intention to
foster knowledge about the natural world and to support processes
to explore, evaluate, revise, and communicate that knowledge
(Klahr, Zimmerman, & Jirout, 2011). This scientific knowledge could
be generated with a combination of scientific process skills like
observing or questioning (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Kremer, Specht,
Urhahne, & Mayer, 2013; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, &
Schwartz, 2002; Roberts & Gott, 1999). However, Fischer et al.
(2014) remarked that there is need for a more interdisciplinary
research to condense scattered knowledge on this topic over
different research disciplines. Therefore, a generic framework of
SRAdto foster the learning of scientific reasoning skills domain-
independently and interdisciplinarilydwas developed and
233
suggested by Fischer et al. (2014). Thereby, their theoretical
assumption refers to the following two constructs: scientific
reasoning and argumentation.
2.2. Conceptualizations of scientific reasoning and argumentation
Scientific reasoning relates to proof of a theory by collecting data
about the natural world and to recognize patterns in the data. It also
relates to formulation of theories and hypotheses referring to the
natural world and to verify or reject those hypotheses with ex-
periments (Furtak, Hardy, Beinbrech, Shavelson, & Shemwell, 2010;
Lawson, 2005). In brief, reasoning means to draw conclusions from
principles and from evidence (Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). A
prominent and strong conceptualization of scientific reasoning is
the model of scientific discovery as dual search (SDDS) from Klahr
and Dunbar (1988). They assume that “scientific reasoning requires
search in two related problem spaces: the hypothesis space, con-
sisting of the hypotheses generated during the discovery process,
and the experiment space, consisting of all possible experiments
that could be conducted” (p. 32). In this model, scientific reasoning
is an interaction of nonlinear processes consisting of formulating
hypotheses, designing experiments for testing the hypotheses, and
evaluating the hypotheses.
Argumentation is part of scientific reasoning and arguments
given by students and teachers in science classrooms are collected
to provide support for previously made claims. This process also
includes the creation of artefacts for proofing claims (Furtak et al.,
2010; Sampson & Clark, 2008). In the research field of argumen-
tation, various conceptualizations of argumentation exist (for an
overview, see Bricker & Bell, 2008). In general, Bricker and Bell
(2012) defined argumentation as “the process of constructing ar-
guments” (p. 119) and described that it is field-dependent and
situated. Rationally, we briefly review here some theories of argu-
mentation that fit with Bricker and Bell's conceptualization and
which could influence classroom practice. Osborne, Erduran, and
Simon (2004) named the contribution of Kuhn (1991) as signifi-
cant to the research field of argumentation because Kuhn showed
the “basic capacity of individuals to use reasoned argument” (p.
996). Kuhn (1991) concluded that children and adults have poor
capacity to coordinate and to establish a connection between data
and theory. However, Kosloswski (as cited in Osborne et al., 2004)
criticized “Kuhn's emphasis on covariation” (p. 996) and stressed
the interdependence of data and theory (as cited in Bricker & Bell,
2008). Therefore, Kuhn (as cited in Osborne et al., 2004) “was less
doubtful of young people's ability to reason” (p. 996), because
missing theoretical or conceptual knowledge could crucially reduce
people's reasoning ability (Osborne et al., 2004). Furthermore,
Andriessen (as cited in Bricker & Bell, 2008) “proposes the notion of
collaborative argumentation, which he says is the type of argu-
mentation in which scientists engage” (p. 490). According to
Andriessen (as cited in Bricker & Bell, 2008), this type of argu-
mentation should be taught to students so that they could “arguing
to learn” (p. 490). By conducting a systematic review of argument
interventions in K-12 science contexts, Cavagnetto (2010) identified
three orientations that are used as approaches for learning of
argument. In short, these are named as (1) immersion, (2) structure,
and (3) socioscientific. The interventions with an orientation of (1)
immersion had their focus on emphasizing the “relationship be-
tween investigation and explanation” (Cavagnetto, 2010, p. 347).
Therefore, “scaffolds were used to inform both argument con-
struction and student investigative decisions” (Cavagnetto, 2010, p.
347). The interventions using an orientation of (2) structure
focused on the construction of explanations by “explicitly teaching
a structure for argument and asking students to apply the structure
in scientific and sometimes socioscientific contexts” (Cavagnetto,
234 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
2010, p. 348). The last orientation of (3) socioscientific focused on
the interaction of society and science. This means, “moral, ethical,
and political influences on decision making in scientific contexts”
(Cavagnetto, p. 349) were used. In fact, Cavagnetto (2010) consti-
tuted that “the immersion orientation appears to fully capture the
culture, including the epistemic nature, of science that is embedded
in scientific practice” (p. 352).
2.3. Fostering interdisciplinary research e a generic framework of
SRA (Fischer et al., 2014)
In general, studies within SRA can be divided into two main
types of investigation: (1) studies on types of knowledge, which are
further divided into (a) domain-specific knowledge, including
topics from physics, chemistry, biology, Earth sciences, and so on,
and (b) domain-general knowledge, containing aspects such as
equilibrium, time, feedback, and causality, and (2) studies on types
of scientific processes, which includes formulation of hypotheses,
design of experiments and observations, and evaluation of evi-
dence (Klahr et al., 2011; Zimmerman, 2000). Fischer et al. (2014)
described that research on SRA “has substantially progressed over
the last two decades” (p. 32), but there are still important gaps
within this research field. For example, “while research on SRA
focused on commonalities across domains, investigations on the
differences of SRA between disciplines have been rare (e.g.,
Herrenkohl & Cornelius, 2013)” (p. 35). Therefore, they argued for
“more systematic and interdisciplinary research on SRA” (p. 32).
Consequently, they developed a generic framework of SRA with
scientific processes as eight epistemic activities. The crucial aim of
Fischer et al.’s (2014) framework is to synthesize different research
disciplines. Furthermore, Bricker and Bell (2008) discussed that
science education and the learning sciences could probably benefit
from each other by considering “both science education and
learning sciences theories” (Bricker & Bell, 2008, p. 493). Therefore,
Fischer et al. postulated eight epistemic activities as interdiscipli-
narily valid scientific processes. By setting up this framework of
SRA, they asked researchers to identify (a) domain-specific and (b)
domain-general aspects of SRA in future research. In the following,
these eight epistemic activities are briefly described:
(1) Problem identification: Scientific processes often result from
a concrete problem. These problems could be practical, for
example, real-world problems. So, the beginning of SRA is a
missing explanation of a particular phenomenon.
(2) Questioning: Based on the problem, at least one answerable
question is formulated.
(3) Hypothesis generation: As the upcoming process, a hypoth-
esis relating to the question is generated.
(4) Construction and redesign of artefacts: Physical artefacts are
constructed according to theoretical concepts.
(5) Evidence generation: In this activity, evidence gets generated
in different ways. Fischer et al. (2014) described the
hypothetico-deductive or inductive way as possibilities to
generate evidence.
(6) Evidence evaluation: Evidence evaluation means the
assessment of evidence with a claim or theory. Therefore, a
critical appraisal of the generated evidence is needed.
(7) Drawing conclusions: This activity means to draw at least
one inference based on the previous reasoning process.
(8) Communicating and scrutinizing: The reasoning process it-
self and its results have to be shared and critically
reconsidered.
However, although this framework was developed to describe
SRA in different research disciplines, Fischer et al. outlined the
crucial necessity to identify domain-specific elements of this
framework. This aims to clearly mention similar and different skills
of SRA across domains.
2.4. The interconnection of SRA and educational standards
“Science educators, scientists, and policy makers agree that
development of students' scientific literacy is an important aim of
science education” (Gormally, Brickman, & Lutz, 2012). Content
knowledge and scientific inquiry are crucial subdimensions of sci-
entific literacy (Bybee, 2002; Kampa & Ko €ller, 2016; Shavelson
et al., 2008). Kampa and Ko € ller (2016) described that content
knowledge contains knowledge about facts and concepts. So, this
subdimension relates to the “declarative (factual, conceptual)
knowledge …. and being able to reason with this knowledge”
(Shavelson et al., 2008, p. 302). Important to mention is that con-
tent knowledge is not simply a recall of knowledge; it describes
rather active dealing and working with scientific content for solv-
ing problems (Kampa & Ko €ller, 2016; Pant et al., 2012). Further-
more, Kampa and Ko €ller (as cited in Shavelson et al., 2008)
described that scientific inquiry refers to the “procedural (step-by-
step or condition-action) knowledge and reasoning with this
knowledge” (p. 302). So, ways to answer scientific questions can be
defined as scientific inquiry (Nowak et al., 2013), but there is not yet
a homogeneous definition of this construct (Lederman &
Lederman, 2012; Nowak et al., 2013). The whole process of scien-
tific inquiry can be specified as a problem-solving task (Abd-El-
Khalik et al., 2004; Klahr, 2000; Mayer, 2007; Nowak et al., 2013)
and scientific reasoning is discussed as one crucial element of sci-
entific inquiry (Hartmann et al., 2015; Mayer, 2007; Nowak et al.,
2013; Zimmerman, 2005). Due to their importance, these two
subdimensions have been considered in normative education
standards in different countries. In the United States, the National
Research Council (NRC) formulated standards for science education
(National Research Council [NRC], 1996, 2012). Based on guiding
principles, a framework with three dimensions (Dimension 1:
Practices; Dimension 2: Crosscutting Concepts; Dimension 3:
Disciplinary Core Ideas) (NRC, 2012, p. 29) was created. By intro-
ducing these three dimensions, the NRC intended, among other
things, to ensure “that students will themselves engage in the
practices and not merely learn about them secondhand” (NRC,
2012, p. 30), and “to prepare students with sufficient core knowl-
edge so that they can later acquire additional information on their
own” (NRC, 2012, p. 31). Consequently, it is important, among other
things, to develop “students' knowledge of how science and engi-
neering achieve their ends while also strengthening their compe-
tency with related practices” (NRC, 2012, p. 41), for example “asking
questions and defining problems, developing and using models,
planning and carrying out investigations, …” (Alshamali & Daher,
2016, p. 1004; see also; NRC, 2012, p. 42). In Germany, within the
German NES for the subjects biology, chemistry, and physics, con-
tent knowledge and scientific inquiry are formulated as two sub-
dimensions (Kampa & Ko € ller, 2016). For each subject, content
knowledge and scientific inquiry are described, in addition to some
given examples, in the NES. In biology instruction, content
knowledge contains knowing living things, biological phenomena,
concepts, principles, facts and assigning them to the core concepts.
Scientific inquiry includes observing, comparing, conducting experi-
ments, using models, and using scientific working methods (KMK,
2005a). In the context of research on scientific inquiry in Ger-
many, central skills within the process of scientific inquiry have
been defined. Based on the results of several studies (e.g.
Hammann, 2004; Klahr, 2000; Koslowski, 1996), Mayer (2007)
identified four central skills of scientific inquiry: formulating ques-
tions, generating hypotheses, planning investigations, and interpreting
 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
data. Klos, Henke, Kieren, Walpuski, and Sumfleth (2008) differ-
entiated between generating hypotheses, implementing experiments,
and drawing conclusions. In general, scientific inquiry skills are
differently taken into account during science instruction. For
example, asking questions and generating hypotheses are rarely
used compared to implementing experiments (e.g. Bao et al., 2009;
Hammann, 2004; Nehring, Stiller, Nowak, Upmeier zu Belzen, &
Tiemann, 2016; Stiller, 2016). For biology instruction, empirical
results showed that less time during lessons is spent on using sci-
entific working methods (e.g. experiments) (Berck & Graf, 2010;
Füller, 1992; Gropengieber, 2013; Jatzwauk, 2007). For example,
Jatzwauk (2007, p. 133) analyzed 45 videotaped biology lessons
with the topic “blood and blood circulation” and found that only in
two of these 45 lessons were questions and hypotheses generated.
Experiments and scientific investigations were not planned at all,
but at least in four of these 45 lessons, experiments were con-
ducted. Additionally, recent studies on biology instruction showed
that methodological and epistemological aspects during the con-
duction of scientific working methods are rarely taken into account
(Ehmer, 2008; Eschenhagen, Kattmann, & Rodi, 2006).
Besides the German NES, there are also several other frame-
works in Germany for describing scientific and biology literacy. An
overview of the different frameworks was described by Kampa and
Ko€ller (2016). In compiling different frameworks, Kampa and Ko € ller
showed that the majority of these frameworks contain at least a
content part and a process part. Many frameworks have additional
dimensions like communicative aspects or epistemological beliefs.
Until now, there has still not been a consensus about these addi-
tional dimensions. As there is a missing agreement on the addi-
tional dimensions, for example, communicative aspects, within the
compared frameworks, Kampa and Ko €ller only referred to the two
consensual subdimensions content knowledge and scientific inquiry
in their study. By measuring students' biology literacy, Kampa and
Ko€ller (2016) showed that these two subdimensions highly corre-
lated in their study and concluded that “students could activate
both subdimensions while solving scientific problems” (p. 918).
However, it could not be derived how to promote students' learning
within both subdimensions, therefore, Kampa and Ko € ller suggested
in their discussion that that students may benefit from transferring
knowledge from one to the other subdimension. Furthermore,
Nowak et al. (2013) confirmed the reasonable separation of these
two subdimensions, and based on their measurement of students'
abilities in scientific inquiry, they concluded that it is important in
designing learning environments to foster students' abilities within
this subdimension.
3. Aims and hypotheses
Three key findings of previous studies led to the intention of our
study. First, students may benefit from transferring knowledge
between the two subdimensions of scientific literacy: content
knowledge and scientific inquiry (Kampa & Ko €ller, 2016). Second, it
was not yet fully clarified in those studies regarding how to foster
students' learning within these two subdimensions (Kampa &
Ko€ller, 2016; Nowak et al., 2013). Third, scientific reasoning is one
key element of scientific inquiry (Hartmann et al., 2015; Mayer,
2007; Nowak et al., 2013; Zimmerman, 2005). Based on these
initial considerations, it seems worthwhile in our study to observe
biology instruction in terms of the generic framework of SRA with
eight epistemic activities (Fischer et al., 2014) for gathering more
information about fostering students' learning. Our main goals
were: (1) to show the current use of the eight epistemic activities in
regular biology instruction, and (2) to show the effects of SRA on
students' achievement in biology lessons. Therefore, we formulated
the following two research questions: (a) How often and which
235
epistemic activities are already used in regular biology lessons? We
expected that the eight epistemic activities had been used with a
varying frequency in biology instruction (Hypothesis 1) (based on
Bao et al., 2009; Hammann, 2004; Nehring et al., 2016; Stiller,
2016). (b) Is there an effect of the epistemic activities of SRA on stu-
dents' achievement in biology instruction? We expected positive ef-
fects of the eight epistemic activities on students' achievement
(Hypothesis 2) (based on Fischer et al., 2014; Kampa & Ko € ller, 2016;
Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Klahr et al., 2011; Kremer et al., 2013;
Lederman et al., 2002; Roberts & Gott, 1999).
4. Methods
The data and videos we used in this study were selected from
the cooperative German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF)-funded1 project Professional Knowledge of Sci-
ence Teachers (ProwiN) (Tepner et al., 2012). Besides the video-
taping of teachers' regular biology lessons in the project ProwiN,
different data from the participating students were also collected
before and after the videotaping.
4.1. Design and sample
In the biological part of the project ProwiN, two lessons of 9th
grade biology instruction within the topic neurobiology of each of
the 43 participating teacher were videotaped (N ¼ 85 videos2). The
randomly selected schools were located in the federal state of
Bavaria in Germany. The teachers participated voluntarily, and both
videotaped lessons per teacher were about the teaching of the topic
neurobiology. For the first lesson, the teachers were asked to teach a
lesson on the topic reflex arc. All participating teachers fulfilled the
requirements to teach biology in German secondary schools
(Gymnasium) (Fo €rtsch, Werner, von Kotzebue, & Neuhaus, 2016).
Details about the teacher education in Germany were described in
Cortina and Thames (2013). For the multilevel analyses, we used
data from a subsample of 39 teachers (53% female; teaching
experience after traineeship in years: M ¼ 6.1, SD ¼ 5.7; age in
years: M ¼ 35.6, SD ¼ 8.3) and their 78 videos. We used this sub-
sample because we could not collect students' post-test achieve-
ment data of four teachers who were, therefore, not included in our
multilevel analyses. The student subsample consisted of 788 stu-
dents (M ¼ 21.2 students per class; 49.7% female; age in years:
M ¼ 14.3; SD ¼ .60).
4.2. Students' data
Students' achievement was assessed in a pre-post-test design
with a paper-and-pencil knowledge test (with 18 or 22 items) to
measure the competencies content knowledge and scientific inquiry
of the German NES integrated with the Bavarian curriculum on the
topic neurobiology. The topic neurobiology is taught in about 18
lessons as suggested by the Bavarian biology curriculum (Bavarian
State Ministry for Education and Culture [StMUK], 2004). Therefore,
multiple-choice items, as well as open partial credit items, were
used in the knowledge test. The items were constructed in accor-
dance with the competency content knowledge of the German NES.
Content knowledge deals with students' “active engagement with
scientific content in order to solve specific scientific problems”
(Pant et al., 2012, p. 4). To solve these items, students needed
cognitive skills and conceptual understanding. An example item
was: Explain how the human nervous system is adapted to humans'
1
Grant No.: BMBF 01JH0904.
2
One teacher was sick on the day of the second videotaping.
236 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243

way of living. Give two examples. Furthermore, items were designed
to cover the competency scientific inquiry of the German NES and its
“sub-areas scientific investigation, scientific modelling, and scientific
theorizing” (Pant et al., 2012, p. 5). In an example item, students
were shown a drawing of an experiment and they had to solve the
following task: Formulate a hypothesis which could be investigated
with this experiment. The students completed the pre-test before
the topic neurobiology was taught and then completed the post-
test one lesson after the teaching of the topic neurobiology was
completed. To ensure the objectivity of the measurement, two in-
dependent test markers scored 10% of each of the pre- and post-test
items (Fo €rtsch et al., 2016). The two-way random ICCs, ICC(abso-
lute), showed a high agreement between the scores awarded by the
two markers, pre-test: ICC(absolute) ¼ .99, F(1277,1277) ¼ 77.92,
p < .001, N ¼ 1278; post-test: ICC(absolute) ¼ .98,
F(2477,2477) ¼ 56.50, p < .001, N ¼ 2478 (Fo €rtsch et al., 2016;
Werner, 2016; Wirtz & Caspar, 2002). The Partial Credit Model
(PCM) (Bond & Fox, 2007) was used for analyzing the results of the
tests with the software Winsteps 3.81 (Linacre, 2015) and the item
thresholds of the post-test were anchored to those of the pre-test
(Bond & Fox, 2007; Fo €rtsch et al., 2016). Good fit values of all
items were shown: all Outfit-MNSQ < 1.3. Also the reliabilities were
satisfactory, person reliability (pre-test) ¼ .63; item reliability (pre-
test) ¼ 1.0; person reliability (post-test) ¼ .78; item reliability (post-
test) ¼ 1.0 (Bond & Fox, 2007; Boone, Staver, & Yale, 2014; Fo €rtsch
et al., 2016; Werner, 2016). In addition, the students answered a
questionnaire on motivational aspects (Wild, Gerber, Exeler, &
Remy, 2001). This questionnaire included items on their willing-
ness to make an effort (3 items; a ¼ .72) (Fo €rtsch et al., 2016). This
motivational aspect means the readiness of students to deal inde-
pendently with the biological content of the lessons. One example
item was: When I will be examined in biology lessons (e.g. oral ex-
amination), I make a big effort to be successful.
4.3. Coding of the eight epistemic activities
All videotaped lessons (N ¼ 85 videos) were analyzed in terms of
the eight epistemic activities. For the coding of the eight epistemic
activities, we used a self-developed coding manual (see Table 1).
With this manual, we coded whether or not each epistemic activity
could be observed at least once per lesson (0 ¼ “not observed”,
1 ¼ “observed”). In this coding manual, each epistemic activity has
a “description”, which illustrates how each epistemic activity could
be observed in biology lessons. This description was developed
using the theoretical description of the eight epistemic activities
and using a pilot sample of videos (N ¼ 10 videos) from the German
Research Foundation (DFG)-funded project Competence orientation
and Task Culture in Nature and Science Instruction (LerNT) with the
€rtsch, Werner, Dorfner, von Kotzebue, & Neuhaus,
topic “botany” (Fo
2017; von Kotzebue et al., 2015). This pilot sample was used to
identify if the theoretically developed descriptions illustrate ac-
tivities that could be observed in biology lessons and therefore
would be rated appropriately. After the piloting, the coding manual
was revised and this new version was used for the coding. To verify
the quality of the coding, two independent raters coded 10% of all
85 videotaped lessons and a Cohen's kappa value was found to be
.66 indicating a substantial inter-rater agreement (Landis & Koch,
1977).
4.4. Multilevel analyses
Our data had a hierarchical structure. The epistemic activities of
SRA were measured on the class level. Students' achievement in the
pre- and post-test and their willingness to make an effort were
measured on the individual student level. Students' achievement in
the post-test was used as an outcome variable on the student and
the class levels. We conducted the multilevel analysis with the
program MPlus 7.3 (Muthe n & Muthe n, 1998e2012). Since not all
the variables were distributed normally, we conducted the multi-
level analysis using the weighted least squares means and variance-
adjusted estimator. The results of the used estimator were quite
similar to the maximum likelihood estimator (Beauducel &
Herzberg, 2006). To ensure the model fit, the comparative fit in-
dex (CFI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA),
and the standardized root-mean-square residuals for the between-
class (SRMRbetween) and the within-class (SRMRwithin) covariance
matrices were used. Hu and Bentler (1998) described a good model
fit by the following values of measures: CFI above .90, RMSEA below
.05, and SRMR below .08. The calculated results of the multilevel
analysis were shown as standardized values. Thus, one unit change
means a standard deviation change in the original values (z-stan-
dardized). Additionally, the epistemic activities of SRA were grand-
mean centered. In our analysis, we modelled the data on both levels
(class and student levels) simultaneously. Concerning our second
hypothesis, we had interest in the effects of the eight epistemic
activities of SRA on the class level. To construe the differences in
students' achievement in the post-test on the eight epistemic ac-
tivities of SRA (class-level variable), we used students' achievement
in the pre-test and their willingness to make an effort as control
variables on the student level. Both control variables were found to
have an effect on achievement in Schmidt-Atzert's (2006) study.
To evaluate the amount of between-class variance of students'
achievement in the post-test, we first calculated the ICC of the null
model. In this calculation, no predictor was used for modelling
students' achievement in the post-test on both the class and stu-
dent levels. Afterwards, we conducted the multilevel analysis, in
which the eight epistemic activities were found to have effects on
students' achievement in the post-test.

Table 1
Coding manual of the eight epistemic activities.

Epistemic activity Description

Problem identification A biological phenomenon is presented problem-orientedly or a key problem is posed.

Questioning The present problem is articulated or formulated (e.g. using questions, leading discussions).
Hypothesis generation A presumption, a hypothesis or a main research question is posed.
Construction and redesign of artefacts Biological methods (experiments, investigations, observations, heuristic procedures, comparison with known
phenomena) are planned.
Evidence generation Biological methods are performed or retraced.
Evidence evaluation The biological methods are interpreted.
Drawing conclusions General conclusions are drawn based on the biological methods.
Communicating and scrutinizing The biological phenomenon or the key problem from the beginning is picked up again after conducting the
biological methods. The presumptions are falsified or confirmed.
 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
5. Results
5.1. Current use of the different epistemic activities in regular
biology lessons
According to our first research question about how often the
epistemic activities had already been used in regular biology les-
sons, we found in this study the number of different epistemic
activities in the lessons (N ¼ 85 videos) but in nine lessons, no
epistemic activity was used at all (see Fig. 1). In ten lessons, at least
one epistemic activity was implemented. In 25 lessons, which
means in around 30% of all the lessons, two epistemic activities
were applied. In 15 lessons, three epistemic activities were used,
whereas in five lessons, four epistemic activities were used. Five
epistemic activities were applied in 14 lessons. Six epistemic ac-
tivities were used in six lessons, and seven epistemic activities were
used in only one lesson. None of all the lessons implemented all the
eight epistemic activities. On average, 2.8 different epistemic ac-
tivities (SD ¼ .93) were used in the lessons.
Since we were also interested in which epistemic activities had
already used in regular biology lessons, we found in our study the
number of videotaped lessons which used each of the eight
epistemic activities (see Fig. 2). The graph in Fig. 2 shows that some
epistemic activities were more often used than others, for example,
problems were identified in 37 lessons, but only in 32 lessons did
the teachers ask a question related to the problems. Hypotheses
were even only generated in 16 lessons. A very conspicuous aspect
is that the epistemic activity construction and redesign of artefacts
was almost never used in the lessons. Just in one lesson was this
epistemic activity conducted. Nonetheless, evidence was generated
in 56 lessons and evaluated in 47 lessons. This means that the
teachers took less time in planning the evidence generation phase
with the students and instead they just did the evidence generation
and evaluation. In 26 lessons, conclusions were drawn, whereas in
23 lessons, epistemic activity communicating and scrutinizing was
used. Finally, we found examples for each epistemic activity from
the videotaped lessons. These examples were intended to illustrate
practically the current use of the epistemic activities in biology
instruction (see Table 2).
Fig. 1. Number of different epistemic activities in the lessons (N ¼ 85 videos).
237
5.2. Effects of the epistemic activities of SRA on students'
achievement
Considering our second research question about the effects of
the eight epistemic activities of SRA on students' achievement, we
conducted multilevel analysis of the data. First, the ICC (null model)
was found to be .192, that is, 19.2% of variance in students'
achievement in the post-test could be explained by between-class
differences. To test our second hypothesis, we calculated a two-
level path model (see Fig. 3). In this model, the eight epistemic
activities of SRA predicted students' achievement in the post-test
on the class level. Students' achievement in the pre-test and their
willingness to make an effort were used as control variables. Ac-
cording to Hu and Bentler (1998), the model fit indices showed
suitable values: c2 (3) ¼ 154.18, p < .001; CFI ¼ 1.000,
RMSEA < .001; SRMR within < .001, SRMR between < .001.
On the class level, the results of the multilevel analysis showed a
positive significant effect of the eight epistemic activities of SRA on
students' achievement in the post-test, ß ¼ .30, SE ¼ .15, p < .05. In
other words, the use of epistemic activities in the lessons had
positive effects on students' achievement. Furthermore, the eight
epistemic activities explained 9% of variance in students' achieve-
ment in the post-test on the class level, R2 ¼ .09 (see Fig. 3).
On the student level, the two control variables each showed a
positive significant effect on students' achievement in the post-
test: ß ¼ .37, SE ¼ .03, p < .001 (students' achievement in the pre-
test); ß ¼ .18, SE ¼ .03, p < .001 (willingness to make an effort) and
explained 18% of the variance in students' achievement in the post-
test on student level, R2 ¼ .18 (see Fig. 3).
6. Discussion
We had two goals in this study: to show the current use of
epistemic activities and to show the effects of the epistemic ac-
tivities on students' achievement in biology instruction. We first
discuss our results according to our first goal to show the current
use of the eight epistemic activities in biology lessons. Then, we
discuss the results according to our second goal to show the effects
of the epistemic activities on students' achievement. Finally, we
address several limitations of our study.
6.1. Current use of the epistemic activities in regular biology lessons
We examined how often the epistemic activities were used in
videotaped biology lessons and showed that the epistemic activ-
ities were not used at all in some of our analyzed lessons (see Fig. 1).
In more than half of the lessons, three or less epistemic activities
were used. Not all the eight epistemic activities were observed in
any one single lesson. In view of the fact that “an understanding of
how scientists work is necessary to be scientifically literate”
(Nowak et al., 2013, p. 182), it seems necessary to give students an
understanding of the whole scientific process by using more
epistemic activities in one lesson. So, the most consistent practice
would be to use all epistemic activities during one lesson. It is
obvious that focusing extensively on specific epistemic activities in
some lessons could help students to understand the scientific
process that should be embedded in these activities. Here, we see
more need of using all or at least more epistemic activities in a
continuous way during biology instruction. By using only one single
epistemic activity, only fragments and parts of the scientific process
could be shown.
We also showed in this study which epistemic activities were
used in the lessons (see Fig. 2). Some epistemic activities could be
observed more often than others in the 85 videotaped lessons. It
was remarkable that we could obtain evidence and evaluated these
238
Table 2
Examples from the video study ProwiN for each epistemic activity.
Epistemic activity
Problem identification
Questioning
Hypothesis generation
Construction and redesign of
artefacts
Evidence generation
Evidence evaluation
Drawing conclusions
Communicating and
scrutinizing
a
“Lidschlussreflex” in German, that is, “lid reflex” or “corneal reflex” in English biology textbooks.
T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
Fig. 2. Use of the eight epistemic activities of SRA in the lessons (N ¼ 85 videos).
Example (Important: Read each example separately, no coherent storyline)
{Part of a movie is shown (“Dinner for One” or “The 90th Birthday”)}
Teacher: “You know this, it [stumbling over objects] increases in the course of this movie, that the waiter always has these problems with
the head of the tiger [an object on the carpet which he stumbles over]. You may also know such situations that you sometimes
underestimate the height of a step or the height of a curb or a cobblestone pavement. You stumble. Normally you do not fall.”
In relation to the problem presented above (see “Problem identification”)
Teacher: “Why do you not stumble? How does the body react?”
{Teacher and students talk about the patellar reflex}
Teacher: “Let's make a presumption, a hypothesis. What happened in your body […] when you hit on the knee area?”
S3: “When you hit this area, then a muscle become tense.”
Teacher: “So, suppose you are scientists and you want to find out what meaning the spinal cord has in human beings. How could one clarify
this? Student1.”
Student1: “So that would not be a good idea now, but you could take a spinal cord from a human being and then look, which functions this
person does not have, in contrast to a person who has the spinal cord.”
[…]
Teacher: “Yes, this may not be so easy now. The approach is not bad, modify a little bit of your approach.”
Student2: “So, it is possible to look at a human being who is somehow paralyzed and therefore, cannot trigger [the functions of] the spinal
cord. Then you can see what he cannot do.”
Teacher: “Okay. So, that is, one possibility, when it comes to the meanings of some organs or structures in the human body. One could look,
what happens when this organ is somehow injured. For example, if the spinal cord is injured this is what we name cross-paralysis. You
could actually do that.”
Teacher: “You should measure your reaction time. That means, how it is written here. {Points to a slide} Form teams of two or three. […]
One is the experimenter, who holds the ruler somewhere at the top. The other, the guinea pig, has index finger and thumb on the zero mark
[of the ruler]. But please do not hold the ruler, the fingers should be at a distance of one centimeter left and right of the ruler. […] The
experimenter releases the ruler at some point and the guinea pig should catch the ruler [with both fingers]. […] You must conduct this
experiment three times and record the three distances of the catches [from zero to the point of the catch on the ruler], calculate their mean
value and find the reaction time using the given table {Shows the table}.”
Teacher: “Think again of this experiment here {holding glasses with bellows}. Student closed his eyes. What is probably known about the
commonality between the lid-closing reflexa and the reduction of the pupils? What is the meaning and purpose of these reflex reactions?”
{Discussion about the patellar reflex, which was carried out before}
Teacher: “[…] Principally, this is a kind of “stumbling reflex” that prevents you from falling in a normal movement process, yes? If the leg
somehow does not remain in the normal movement process. This is a defensive reflex. This would be the so-called reflex arc. A reflex arc is,
so to say, a description of this interconnection. It always has similar components. What components does each reflex arc have?”
Teacher: “This is the way a normal transmission of signals at the synapse works. Let's go back to the beginning of the lesson with the dance
or recreational drug “ecstasy.” Why is there the persistent state of intoxication?”
 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
Fig. 3. Multilevel analysis of the eight epistemic activities of SRA and students' achievement data.
epistemic activities in most lessons using this SRA framework,
without which few activities like problem identification, ques-
tioning or hypothesis generation could be identified. These results
were in line with those from other studies. For example, asking
questions or generating hypothesis is rarely taken into account
during the teaching of the scientific inquiry process (Hammann,
2004; Nehring et al., 2016; Sodian, Zaitchik, & Carey, 1991; Stiller,
2016). Consequently, students could hardly understand the link
between a problem and its scientific investigation (Di Fuccia, 2007).
There was a missing link between these epistemic activities
(questioning and hypothesis generation)din which teachers intend
to show to their students why evidence has to be generateddand
the activities, in which evidence is generated and evaluated. There
was also a missing link between the epistemic activities construc-
tion and redesign of artefactsdwhich is meant as an activity for
planning to generate evidencedand evidence generation (Fischer
et al., 2014). The former activity, which was used only once in all
the observed lessons, was very conspicuous (see Fig. 2). This result
means that students were very marginally involved in developing
scientific methods to investigate the scientific question and hy-
pothesis. Nehring et al. (2016) described similar results and they
observed that a lot of time was spent on planning and conducting
experiments in videotaped chemistry lessons. Unfortunately,
Nehring et al. did not distinguish between activities in planning and
conducting experiments. In our investigation, we could show that
more activities were used in generating and evaluating evidence in
biology lessons than those in planning beforehand. In conclusion,
our analysis of the observed biology lessons showed that students
might not have an idea of how to plan the generation of evidence
but they just conducted scientific methods. The last two activities
drawing conclusions and communicating and scrutinizing were
observed in the videotaped lessons, but not so often. This result was
approximately in line with the results from Nehring et al. (2016)
who reported that these activities were used in their analyzed
chemistry lessons, but not so often like the activity for generating
evidence.
6.2. Effects of the epistemic activities on students' achievement
Unless there were not enough epistemic activities used in a
continuous way during the lessons, we showed their positive sig-
nificant effects on students' achievement in terms of the compe-
tencies content knowledge and scientific inquiry (see Fig. 3). We also
found that students achieved higher when they used more of these
eight epistemic activities of SRA during instruction. As a conse-
quence, our results could be interpreted in the way Kampa and
Ko€ller (2016) discussed their results which showed that during
the problem-solving process, students could activate elements
239
from the content and the process subdimensions. As Kampa and
Ko€ller argued, students may benefit from transferring knowledge
from one subdimension of scientific literacy to the other, that is,
from content knowledge to scientific inquiry. So, our findings
provided further evidence for this relation. Furthermore, Kampa
and Ko € ller (2016) concluded that using elements from one sub-
dimension might foster students' learning in both of these sub-
dimensions. Before our study, the subdimension scientific inquiry
of the German NES had been evaluated with different developed
competence models and investigations (cf. Kampa & Ko €ller, 2016;
Mayer, 2007; Nehring et al., 2016; Nowak et al., 2013; Wellnitz &
Mayer, 2013). For example, Nowak et al. (2013) pointed out that
according to their “diagnosis of students' abilities, specific learning
environments can be created to promote students' inquiry skills”
(p. 187). Practical elaborations on how to foster students learning
within this subdimension are missing so far (Kampa & Ko € ller, 2016).
Therefore, the eight epistemic activities of SRA we used in this
study are one possible and feasible methodical tool to foster stu-
dents' learning in both subdimensions.
6.3. The application of epistemic activities in regular biology
instruction
We derive further discussion points of our study by additionally
using an application for practitioners to accentuate these aspects.
Although we showed in our study that some epistemic activities of
SRA had already often been used in biology instruction whereas
others were used rarely, for example, construction and redesign of
artefacts, we also showed their positive effects on students'
achievement. In view of this fact, it seems quite necessary to
demonstrate how all eight epistemic activities could be applied in
biology instruction. Furthermore, there are many instructional
frameworks, but examples of applying these frameworks in regular
instruction for practitioners rarely exist. Therefore, we decided to
briefly plan three biology lessons, which show exemplarily how all
eight epistemic activities of SRA could be considered in regular
biology instruction (see Table 3). The biological topics of the lessons
and the grades are based on the curriculum of Bavaria, a federal
state of Germany. We describe the epistemic activities for the in-
struction in each of the lessons which are planned for 45 min.
Before the instructional activities are described, the needed prior
knowledge for the students is also explained. In general, students
need certain prior knowledge to understand the biological content
of a lesson, and to identify specific outlined problems. Additionally,
there is a relationship between prior knowledge and further steps
of scientific investigation (Zimmerman, 2005). The first lesson
considers the topic “human respiration” in grade 5, the second
lesson deals with the topic “germination of plant seeds” in grade 6
240 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
Table 3
Planned biology lessons in three different grades referring to the Bavarian curriculum.
Human respiration (5th grade)
Students' prior knowledge
Students know the respiratory organs of the
human body.
Epistemic Instructional activity
activity
Problem Students inhale and exhale normally. During
identification breathing, they measure their own chest
abdominal girth with a measuring tape.
Their girth increases by inhaling and decreases by
exhaling.
Questioning Why does the abdominal girth increase, even
though the lungs are located in the chest cavity?
Hypothesis Inhalation and exhalation rely on movements of
generation the midriff.
Construction For comparison with the natural structures, the
and redesign lung model (Donders' model) is made available to
of artefacts students.
Evidence Students observe what happens if they pull the
generation “midriff” of the model and then carefully release it.
Evidence Use of a model for prediction of the results of
evaluation testing: By contracting the midriff, the volume of
the lungs is increased and air is sucked in. By
dilating the midriff, the volume of the lungs is
reduced and air flows outwards.
Drawing The movements of the midriff affect a substantial
conclusions change in the volume of the lungs, whereby
therefore, the abdominal girth changes at the
same time.
Communicating The results of the model use, and their conclusions
and are noted. Problems and limitations of the model
scrutinizing are discussed.
and the third lesson is about the topic “reflexes” for grade 9. For
example, these lessons could be used by teachers for a better un-
derstanding of how all the eight epistemic activities could be
considered in their instruction. Important to mention is that these
suggested lessons should not imply to explicitly use these eight
epistemic activities as a structure for instruction and ask students
to apply these epistemic activities step-by-step for several biolog-
ical contexts, like a recipe in a cookbook. Since Cavagnetto (2010)
provided strong evidence against the claim of explicit teaching
approaches, which are not as strong as often illustrated. Therefore,
our described instructional practices in class are meant in a way to
provide enough and necessary opportunities for students to ask
questions about illustrated scientific phenomena and to guide them
with scaffolds such as prompts through the epistemic activities of
SRA. Such prompts could be questions like: “What is the illustrated
problem?” “What is the main research question?” “How does an
experiment look like to test your hypothesis?” and “What are the
main conclusions you draw from your generated evidence?” Hence,
students should clearly understand that the developed scientific
explanations are related to their self-developed investigating ac-
tivities. Considering the result of the review from Cavagnetto
(2010) also leads us to a further discussion point of our study. As
Germination of plant seeds (6th grade) Reflexes (9th grade)
Students know the structures of plant seeds and Students know reflexes (definition of reflex arc
can describe their respective function. In addition, and two examples: knee-jerk reflex, eyelid
they can establish a link between the energy reflex).
sources of the seeds and the nutrition of animals.
Students find various plant seeds in the dry food of Picture collage is shown to the students (e.g. car
a hamster. These seeds do not germinate. driver steps on brake, goalkeeper catches ball, …)
Students should justify if one of these shown
actions is a reflex. Students conclude that all of
these actions are fast reactions.
Why do the plant seeds not germinate in the food How do a reflex and an arbitrary reaction differ in
of the hamster? How could these seeds their speed? How could the different speeds be
germinate? explained?
Various external factors (e.g. water, temperature Reflexes are probably faster than arbitrary
…) are necessary for the germination of plant reactions because the stimulus-response neural
seeds. pathway of reflexes is possibly shorter.
The students plan a control experiment (with the Two reflexes should be investigated: (1) patellar
variable for testing, e.g. water) and an experiment tendon reflex, and (2) eyelid reflex.
(lacking in variable for testing, e.g. water)*. Students plan comparative experiments (reflex
For assistance, students get the hint that only the vs. arbitrary reaction), and additionally, students
variable for testing has to be manipulated in their search a wide range of models for suitable ones to
experiments. test the hypothesis.
*Mangelexperimente in German
Each student implements the planned control Students conduct possible comparative
experiment and the planned experiment to experiments and use suitable models (see
investigate a factor (e.g. water) necessary for seed Appendix A for possible experiments/suitable
germination. models)
Empirical data generation for predicting the Empirical data generation for predicting the
results of testing: The plant seeds do not results of testing: patellar tendon reflex and
germinate if one or more of the three factors eyelid reflex proceed faster than comparable
(water, heat, and oxygen) is/are missing. arbitrary reactions.
Use of models for predicting the results of
testing:
The stimulus-response neural pathway of a reflex
is shorter at the designated locations.
For germination of plant seeds, water, heat, and The speed of reflexes is faster because of a shorter
oxygen are necessary. stimulus-response neural pathway. The
interconnection is simpler and short links of the
neural pathway exist.
The experimental results and their conclusions are The results of the experiment/model use and
noted. Problems and limitations in the their conclusions are noted. Problems and
experimental setup are discussed. limitations in the experimental setup/model are
discussed.
mentioned above, we see much potential in using more epistemic
activities to make students more aware of the whole scientific
process. So, it definitely should be clarified how many and which
epistemic activities are needed in one single lesson to appreciable
convey SRA to students in biology instruction. But maybe it is not
just the question how many and which epistemic activities are
needed per lesson, but rather how is the interconnection between
several epistemic activities in one biology lesson. According to an
orientation of immersion this approach could show students the
important relationship between their investigations and their
explanations.
6.4. Limitations
There are some limitations of this study. First, the current use
and the effects of the epistemic activities have to be evaluated in
other grades, in lessons with other biological topics and in further
school types, for example, in primary school. Second, our results
should be reinforced by further studies, especially the effects of
epistemic activities has to be re-evaluated according to other stu-
dents' outcome variables, e.g. students' interest as dependent var-
iable. This may lead to draw more general conclusions on effects
 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
using the epistemic activities in class. Further, in our study stu-
dents' achievement was measured using a paper-and-pencil
knowledge test. In general, paper-pencil knowledge tests measure
the knowledge of students, but not necessarily how effectively they
use their knowledge in practice. So, an alternative way to measure
students' knowledge would be to develop a knowledge test in
which students' knowledge is measured by solving a specific sci-
entific problem in a practical way. Such a test could, inter alia, raise
students' dexterity, their accuracy, and their logic of applying sci-
entific investigations or their knowledge. Such a practical knowl-
edge test would definitely complement our results to make further
statements according to the effects of the eight epistemic activities
of SRA in biology instruction. Third, our analyzed videotaped les-
sons were not standardized between the different teachers. Only
the taught topic and the grade were the same. Therefore, it is
possible that students' achievement may also be influenced by
other variables, for example, instructional quality features like
classroom management. This also showed that we could not
explain the whole variance in students' achievement with the
epistemic activities. Fourth, an open question, which we could not
yet answer, is the question about qualitative aspects of the
epistemic activities. We just coded whether or not each epistemic
activity could be observed at least once per lesson. This means, we
could not judge how good the epistemic activities were qualita-
tively addressed during the videotaped lessons. For example, how
strong were the generated hypotheses or how clear were the evi-
dences generated? Here, further and more research is definitively
needed.
Nevertheless, the epistemic activities played an important role
in affecting students' achievement in our study. However, we need
more research according to the epistemic activities with specific
settings. One possibility could be an experimental setup, in which
the instruction is standardized and the use of different epistemic
activities is varied systematically.
7. Conclusions and implications
In conclusion, we have showed and discussed in this article the
current use of epistemic activities of SRA in biology instruction we
found in our study and their positive effects on students' achieve-
ment. Additionally, we discussed the meaningful application of the
eight epistemic activities in regular biology instruction. According
to our findings, the framework of SRA could be stated as one
effective possibility to improve students' achievement in biology.
Finally, we derive several implications of our study. First for
educational research, our study demonstrated that a psychological
framework, the generic framework of SRA by Fischer et al. (2014),
which was developed by considering results from psychological
research, is suitable to describe the use of scientific processes in
biology lessons. This means an interdisciplinary exchange between
different research disciplines about ideas and further collaborations
should be fostered, which is also required by different authors (cf.
Bricker & Bell, 2008; Fischer et al., 2014). In consequence, we as-
sume that psychological research disciplines may also benefit from
considering results from biology education. Second, creating op-
portunities for students to get aware of interrelated epistemic ac-
tivities during class is a major task for practitioners, but especially
teacher educators are further required to develop assistances for
practitioners, which show how epistemic activities could be
imparted during biology instruction and how single epistemic ac-
tivities could be interrelated in the classroom discourse, e.g. using
appropriate questions. Finally, of course, several frame conditions
must be given to implement epistemic activities in regular biology
lessons. Although, educational standards, e.g. the German NES,
require fostering scientific inquiry in biology, this requirement has
241
to be considered in curricula through scheduling enough time pe-
riods for biology instruction, which allows conducting epistemic
activities during regular instruction. Since of course, some time is
needed to usefully consider these eight epistemic activities during
regular biology instruction. Overall, our study reinforces further call
to provide students with opportunities in biology classes to use
epistemic activities of SRA.
Funding statement
This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und For-
schung e BMBF) [Grant number 01JH0904].
Appendix A
Possible comparative experiments:
(1) acoustic "knock tests"
A student “knocks” his/her leg against the edge of a table. The
time of stimulus (“hitting” with a reflex hammer on the knee
tendon or striking with a reflex hammer on the thigh) to the re-
action (the leg kicks forward) is measured (with the aid of simple
audio recording).
(2) eyelid reflex
Investigation in groups of two students:
(a) One student blows another, who has opened his eyes, with a
rubber tube about 10 cm away from one of his eyes (reflex
glasses)
/ Observation?
(b) A short text is read to a student, who always closes an eyelid
at the word "and".
/ Observation?
Possible models:
Images of the human nervous system and stimulus-response
neural pathway (receptor, afferent nervous system, CNS, efferent
nervous system, reaction).
There are speed delays which are unavoidable due to anatomical
conditions. Are there anatomical possibilities to make a reflex faster
than an arbitrary reaction?
a) short neural pathways (e.g. knee-length reflex: interconnection
in the spinal cord, eyelid reflex: interconnection in the brain or
brain stem)
b) as few synapses as possible
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.003.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspec-
tives. Science Education, 88(3), 397e419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118.
Alshamali, M. A., & Daher, W. M. (2016). Scientific reasoning and its relationship
with problem solving: The case of upper primary science teachers. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1003e1019. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10763-015-9646-1.
242 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., et al. (2009). Physics. Learning
and scientific reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586e587. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1167740.
Baumert, J., Bos, W., & Lehmann, R. (2000). TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathe-
matik- und Naturwissenschaftsstudie. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche
Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn [[TIMSS/III. Third international mathematics
and science study. Mathematical and science education at the end of school]].
Opladen: Leske þ Budrich.
Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., et al.
(2001). PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im inter-
nationalen Vergleich [[PISA 2000: Basic competencies of students in international
comparison]]. Opladen: Leske þ Budrich.
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Culture [StMUK] (Ed.). (2004). Lehrplan
für das Gymnasium in Bayern [Curriculum for the Bavarian Gymnasium]. Woln-
zach: Kastner.
Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood
versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186e203.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2.
Berck, K.-H., & Graf, D. (2010). Biologiedidaktik: Grundlagen und Methoden [[Biology
education: Basics and methods]]. Wiebelsheim: Quelle und Meyer.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement
in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science
studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of
science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473e498. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.20278.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2012). Argumentation and reasoning in life and in school:
Implications for the design of school science learning environments. In
M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation. Theory, practice and
research (pp. 117e133). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-2470-9_7.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). Scientific literacy - mythos oder realit€ at? [[Scientific literacy -
myth or reality?]] In W. Gr€ aber, P. Nentwig, T. R. Koballa, & R. H. Evans (Eds.),
Scientific Literacy. Der Beitrag der Naturwissenschaften zur Allgemeinen Bildung
[Scientific literacy. The contribution of science to education] (pp. 21e43). Wies-
baden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argu-
ment interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80,
336e371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953.
Chinn, C., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In
C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), The interna-
tional handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314e332). Hoboken: Taylor and
Francis.
Cortina, K. S., & Thames, M. H. (2013). Teacher education in Germany. In M. Kunter,
J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive
activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers.
Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 49e62). New York: Springer.
Di Fuccia, D.-S. (2007). Schülerexperimente als Instrument der Leistungsbeurteilung
[[Students' experiments as instrument for performance assessment]]. Berlin: Uni-
Ed.
Ehmer, M. (2008). Fo €rderung von kognitiven Fa €higkeiten beim Experimentieren im
Biologieunterricht der 6. Klasse: Eine Untersuchung zur Wirksamkeit von meth-
odischem, epistemologischem und negativem Wissen [[Promoting cognitive abili-
ties during experimentation in biology instruction in grade 6: An investigation
about the effectiveness of methodological, epistemological and negative knowl-
edge]]. Doctoral thesis. Germany: Christian-Albrechts-Universita €t zu Kiel.
Eschenhagen, D., Kattmann, U., & Rodi, D. (Eds.). (2006). Fachdidaktik biologie
[biology education]. Ko €ln: Aulis.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., et al. (2014).
Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary
research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 5, 28e45. https://
doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i3.96.
€rtsch, C., Werner, S., Dorfner, T., von Kotzebue, L., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2017). Effects of
Fo
cognitive activation in biology lessons on students' situational interest and
achievement. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 559e578. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11165-016-9517-y.
€rtsch, C., Werner, S., von Kotzebue, L., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2016). Effects of biology
Fo
teachers' professional knowledge and cognitive activation on students'
achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 2642e2666. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1257170.
Füller, F. (1992). Biologische Unterrichtsexperimente: Bedeutung und Effektivita €t:
[Biological experiments: Importance and effectiveness] (Vol. 8). München:
Münchner Schriften zur Didaktik der Biologie.
Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010).
A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom
discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3e4), 175e196. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10627197.2010.530553.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy
skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates' evaluation of scientific information
and arguments. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364e377. https://doi.org/
10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026.
Gropengießer, H. (2013). Experimentieren [[Experimentation]]. In H. Gropengießer,
U. Harms, & U. Kattmann (Eds.), Fachdidaktik biologie. Die biologiedidaktik (pp.
284e293). Hallbergmoos: Aulis Verlag.
Hammann, M. (2004). Kompetenzentwicklungsmodelle. Merkmale und ihre
Bedeutung - dargestellt anhand von Kompetenzen beim Experimentieren
[[Competence development models. Characteristics and their meaning - rep-
resented by competencies in experimentation]]. Mathematische und Natur-
wissenschaftliche Unterricht, 57(4), 196e203.
Hartmann, S., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., Krüger, D., & Pant, H. A. (2015). Scientific
reasoning in higher education. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 47e53. https://
doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000199.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students' scien-
tific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3),
413e461. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.799475.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3(4), 424e453. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.3.4.424.
Jatzwauk, P. (2007). Aufgaben im biologieunterricht: Eine analyse der merkmale und
des didaktisch-methodischen einsatzes von aufgaben im biologieunterricht [[Tasks
in biology lessons: An analysis of characteristics and the use of didactic method-
ological tasks in biology lessons]]. Berlin: Logos.
Kampa, N., & Ko € ller, O. (2016). German national proficiency scales in biology: In-
ternal structure, relations to general cognitive abilities and verbal skills. Science
Education, 100(5), 903e922. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21227.
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery pro-
cesses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning.
Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1e48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1.
Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Jirout, J. (2011). Educational interventions to advance
children's scientific thinking. Science, 333(6045), 971e975. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1204528.
Klos, S., Henke, C., Kieren, C., Walpuski, M., & Sumfleth, E. (2008). Natur-
wissenschaftliches Experimentieren und chemisches Fachwissen - zwei ver-
schiedene Kompetenzen [[Science experimentation and chemical expertise -
two different competencies]]. Zeitschrift für Padagogik, 54(3), 304e321.
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning.
Learning, development, and conceptual change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
von Kotzebue, L., Fo €rtsch, C., Reinold, P., Werner, S., Sczudlek, M., & Neuhaus, B. J.
(2015). Quantitative Videostudien zum gymnasialen Biologieunterricht in
Deutschland e aktuelle Tendenzen und Entwicklungen [[Quantitative video
studies on German biology instruction in the Gymnasium e actual trends and
developments]]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 21(1), 231e237.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-015-0033-9.
Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2013). The relationship in biology
between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Edu-
cation, 48(1), 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.788541.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159e174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and
scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716e740.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20067.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of
nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of
learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(6), 497e521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and sci-
entific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional develop-
ment. In B. J. Fraser (Ed.), Second international handbook of science education (pp.
335e359). Berlin: Springer.
Linacre, J. M. (2015). A user's guide to Winsteps/Ministep: Rasch-model computer
programs. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com/manuals.htm. (Accessed
29 June 2017).
Mayer, J. (2007). Erkenntnisgewinnung als wissenschaftliches Problemlo €sen [[Sci-
entific inquiry as scientific problem solving]]. In D. Krüger, & H. Vogt (Eds.),
Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung. Ein Handbuch für Lehramts-
studenten und Doktoranden [Theories in biology education research. A handbook
for pre-service teachers and doctoral students] (pp. 177e186). Berlin: Springer.
Muthe n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles:
Muthe n & Muthe n.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). The national science education standards.
Washington: National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:
Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Academies
Press.
Nehring, A., Stiller, J., Nowak, K. H., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Tiemann, R. (2016).
Naturwissenschaftliche Denk- und Arbeitsweisen im Chemieunterricht e eine
modellbasierte Videostudie zu Lerngelegenheiten für den Kompetenzbereich
der Erkenntnisgewinnung [[Inquiry methods and scientific reasoning in
chemistry education e a model-based video study on learning opportunities in
the field of scientific inquiry]]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften,
22(1), 77e96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-016-0043-2.
Nowak, K. H., Nehring, A., Tiemann, R., & Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2013). Assessing
students' abilities in processes of scientific inquiry in biology using a paper-
and-pencil test. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 182e188. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00219266.2013.822747.
 T. Dorfner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 232e243
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation
in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994e1020.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.
€hlmann, C. (2012).
Pant, H. A., Stanat, P., Schroeders, U., Roppelt, A., Siegle, T., & Po
The IQB national assessment study. Competencies in mathematics and the sciences
at the end of secondary level I. Summary. Münster: Waxmann.
Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (1999). Procedural understanding: Its place in the biology
curriculum. School Science Review, 81(294), 19e25.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate ar-
guments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for
future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447e472. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.20276.
Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2006). Leistungsrelevante rahmenbedingungen/leistungsmoti-
vation. Einleitung [[Achievement-related framework conditions/achievement
motivation. Introduction]]. In K. Schweizer (Ed.), Leistung und Leis-
tungsdiagnostik [Achievement and achievement diagnostics] (pp. 224e241). Ber-
lin: Springer.
Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-
Primo, M. A., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative
assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment
developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295e314. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08957340802347647.
Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hy-
pothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62(4), 753e766. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1131175.
Stiller, J. (2016). Scientific Inquiry im Chemieunterricht - eine Videoanalyse zur
Umsetzung von Erkenntnisgewinnungsprozessen im internationalen und schul-
stufenübergreifenden Vergleich [[Scientific inquiry in chemistry teaching - A video
analysis for the implementation of scientific inquiry processes in international and
interschool comparison]]. Doctoral thesis. Germany: Humboldt-Universita €t zu
Berlin.
Tepner, O., Borowski, A., Dollny, S., Fischer, H. E., Jüttner, M., Kirschner, S., et al.
(2012). Modell zur Entwicklung von Testitems zur Erfassung des Pro-
fessionswissens von Lehrkr€ aften in den Naturwissenschaften [[Model for the
development of test items measuring science teachers' professional knowl-
edge]]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 18, 7e28.
The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of The
La€nder in the Federal Republic of Germany [Kultusministerkonferenz or KMK]
(Ed.). (2005a). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren
243
Schulabschluss [Educational standards in biology for the intermediate school-
leaving qualification]. München: Wolters Kluwer.
The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of The
L€ander in the Federal Republic of Germany [Kultusministerkonferenz or KMK]
(Ed.). (2005b). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss
[Educational standards in chemistry for the intermediate school-leaving qualifi-
cation]. München: Wolters Kluwer.
The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of The
L€ander in the Federal Republic of Germany [Kultusministerkonferenz or KMK]
(Ed.). (2005c). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss
[Educational standards in physics for the intermediate school-leaving qualifica-
tion]. München: Wolters Kluwer.
Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and
content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wellnitz, N., & Mayer, J. (2013). Erkenntnismethoden in der Biologie - entwicklung
und Evaluation eines Kompetenzmodells [[Scientific methods in biology e
development and evaluation of a competence model]]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik
der Naturwissenschaften, 19, 315e345.
Werner, S. (2016). Zusammenha €nge zwischen dem fachspezifischen Professionswissen
einer Lehrkraft, dessen Unterrichtsgestaltung und Schülervariablen am Beispiel
eines elaborierten Modelleinsatzes [[Teachers' domain-specific professional
knowledge, instructional quality using the example of elaborated model use, and
students' variables]]. Doctoral thesis. Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit€ at
München.
Wild, E., Gerber, J., Exeler, J., & Remy, K. (2001). Dokumentation der Skalen- und Item-
Auswahl für den Kinderfragebogen zur Lernmotivation und zum emotionalen
Erleben [[Documentation of the scales and items of the questionnaire on motiva-
tion and emotional experience]]. Bielefeld: Universita €t Bielefeld.
Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilita €t
[[Interrateragreement and interraterreliability]]. Go € ttingen: Hogrefe.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Develop-
mental Review, 20(1), 99e149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497.
Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning skills: What psy-
chologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. In
Final draft of the national research council committee on science learning
kindergarten through eighth grade. Retrieved on 4th July, 2018 from: https://sites.
nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_
080105.pdf.