Journal of Elementary Science Education

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 23–37

Elementary students’ retention of environmental science knowledge: Connected science instruction versus direct instruction



This study compares 3rd-grade elementary students’ gain and retention of science vocabulary over time in two different classes—connected science instruction versusdirect instruction. Data analysis yielded that students who received connected science instruction showed less gain in science knowledge in the short term compared to students who received direct instruction. On the other hand, the growth curve demonstrated a lower rate of loss of science knowledge among students in connected science classes compared to students in direct instruction classes.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990).Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bahrick, H. P. (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for Spanish learning in school.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, A. C. (1998). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, A. C. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (In press). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  6. Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffold.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Bringing in the outsiders: Reshaping the sciences of the future.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise.Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delpit, L. D. (1995).Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Falk, J., & Adelman, L. M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior knowledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gradening.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 860–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hake, R. R. (2004). Direct science instruction suffers a setback in California — Or does it?AAPT Announcer, 34(2), 177.Google Scholar
  13. Hammond, L. (2001). An anthropological approach to urban science education for language minority families.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 983–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001).Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  15. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning.Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knapp, D., & Barrie, E. (2001). Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1980). The distinction between inquiry and scientific inquiry and why high school students should be cognizant of the distinction.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kyllonen, P. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude: Introduction to a special issue in honor of Richard E. Snow.Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994).The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, C. (1995). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation.Journal of Black Psychology, 21(4), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981).Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  22. Lowery, L. F. (2003).Research on hands-on science programs. Retrieved on March 17, 2008, from Scholar
  23. Lundberg, M. A., & Moch, S. D. (1995). Influence of social interaction on cognition: Connected learning in science.Journal of Higher Education, 66(3), 312–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction.American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDermott, D. (1991). Regression planning.International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 6(4), 357–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Messing, D. (2005). Social reconstructions of schooling: Teacher evaluations of what they learned from participation in the funds of knowledge for teaching. In N. Gonzalez & L. Moll (Eds.),Theorizing practices: Funds of knowledge in households (pp. 184–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Moll, L., & Gonzalez, N. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge.Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. Moll (Ed.),Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moses, R. P., Kamii, M., Swap, S. M., & Howard, J. (1989). The algebra project: Organizing in the spirit of Ella.Harvard Educational Review, 59(4), 423–443.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC). (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 745–798). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  32. Rumelhart, E. D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Semb, G. B., Ellis, J. A., & Araujo, J. (1993). Long-term memory for knowledge learned in school.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Semb, G. B., & Ellis, J. A. (1994). Knowledge taught in school: What is remembered?Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 253–286.Google Scholar
  35. Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (2000).Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Stahl, S. A., & Clark, C. H. (1987). The effects of participatory expectations in classroom discussion on the learning of science vocabulary.American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 541–555.Google Scholar
  38. Stahl, S. A., & Vancil, S. J. (1986). Discussion is what makes semantic maps work in vocabulary instruction.The Reading Teacher, 40, 62–69.Google Scholar
  39. Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (1995).Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra.Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thao, J. Y. (2003). Empowering Mong students: Home and school factors.The Urban Review, 35, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P.D. (1985). Learning to learn from texts: A framework for improving classroom practice. In H. S. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 860–878). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  44. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning.Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.Google Scholar
  45. Upadhyay, B. (2006). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An elementary school teacher’s thinking.Science Education, 90, 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velez-Ibanez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households.Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23, 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Learning: Alternative conceptions. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.),Handbook on research in science teaching (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations