Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What makes lessons different? a comparison of a student's behaviour in two science lessons

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A fascinating aspect of teaching is that no two days are ever the same. Such variety makes teaching an exciting and interesting profession, but can also generate problems. Apparently small changes in the way two lessons, supposedly similar, are conducted can result in very different lessons. How this occurred for one Year Seven student during two science lessons using discrepant events is explored in this paper. Her responses to each of the lessons were similar in some respects, but quite different in others. Differences between the lessons are examined, and possible reasons for the differences in the student's responses are explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baird, J.R. & Mitchell, J. (Eds.) (1986).Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study—the PEEL Project. Melbourne: Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D. (1976).From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddulph, F. (1982).Primary science: The views of teachers and pupils. Working Paper No. 102, Learning in Science Project (Primary). Hamilton, N.Z.: Science Education Research Unit, University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddulph, F. & Osborne, R. (1984).Making sense of our world: An interactive teaching approach. Hamilton, N.Z.: SERU, University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J.B. (1987).Student approaches to learning and studying. Research Monograph. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J.B. & Moore, P.J. (1993).The process of learning (3rd ed.), Sydney: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. & Marland, P. (1981). Student thinking in a secondary biology classroom.Research in Science Education, 12, 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. & Marland, P. (1984). What are students really thinking?Educational Leadership, 42 (3), 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleer, M & Beasley, W. (1991). A study of conceptual development in early childhood.Research in Science Education, 21, 104–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P.L. & Swing, S.R. (1982). Beyond time on task: Students' reports of their thought processes during classroom instruction.The Elementary School Journal, 82, (5), 481–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P.L., Swing, S.R., Braverman, M.T. & Buss, R. (1982). Students' aptitudes and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (4), 535–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, J. (1966).Inquiry development program in physical science: Teacher's quide. Chicago: SRA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Central Queensland, 4702, Rockhampton, Qld

    Ken Appleton (Senior Lecturer)

Authors
  1. Ken Appleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Specializations: primary teacher education, teaching strategies in science, cognitive change.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Appleton, K. What makes lessons different? a comparison of a student's behaviour in two science lessons. Research in Science Education 23, 1–9 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357038

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357038

Keywords

Search

Navigation