Thinking Journey - a New Mode of Teaching Science

  • Yaron Schur
  • Igal GaliliEmail author


Thinking Journey is introduced as a mode of science instruction based on a specially designed discussion between students and teachers in the context of an imaginary journey. The paper elaborates the rationale of this mode and its specific features: enculturation into science, analytical observation, multiple perspectives of the subject and environment, hypothetical thinking, and active interaction between the teacher and students. The role of the teacher is argued to be mediation of knowledge. The method was applied for teaching the concept of gravitation and its relationship with up-down direction. Positive results of the application suggest that the TJ mode of teaching is effective in teaching various student populations.

Key words

enculturation into science mediated and constructivist learning science instruction thinking journey 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E. & Eliovitch, R. (1982). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change. Science Education, 74(5), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. In Driver, R. Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (Chapter 10.) Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.Google Scholar
  6. Duit, R. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning in science - from behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H.E. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  8. Feuerstein, R. & Feuerstein, S. (1991). ‘MLE: A theoretical Review’. In R. Feuerstein, P. Klein & A. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Mediated learning experience: theoretical, psychological and educational implications, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mediated Learning Experience, London: Freund.Google Scholar
  9. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., Egozi, M., & Ben-Shachar-Segev, N. (1991). Intervention programs for retarded performers: goals, means and expected outcomes. In L. Idol & B. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: implication for reform (pp. 139–178). Hillsboro, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, Ra., & Schur, Y. (1997). Process as content - in regular education and in particular in education of the low functioning retarded performer.’ In Costa, A.L. & Liebmann, R.M. (Eds.), If process were content: sustaining the spirit of learning. CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R.S., Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2006). The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program. Jerusalem: ICELP Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Gagne, R. (1977). Conditions for learning. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galili, I. & Bar, V. (1997). Children’s operational knowledge about weight. International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galili, I. & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of a historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets - schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics, 68, S3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galili, I. & Lavrik, V. (1998). Flux concept in learning about light. a critique of the present situation. Science Education, 82(5), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glasson, G.E., & Lalik, R.V. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle from a social constructivist perspective: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, L. (2006). Acquiring scientific concepts to Middle School students by employing Thinking Journey instruction. M. Sc. Thesis, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Marton, F. Runesson, U. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A.B.M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Mason, L. (2001). Introduction. In Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 259–264.Google Scholar
  22. McDermott, L.C. (1996). Physics by Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. McDermott, L., & Shaffer, P. (2002). Tutorials in introductory physics. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, J. (1971). An approach to teaching and assessment: the earth concept at the second grade level. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, J. (1985). The Earth as a cosmic body. In Driver, R. Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.), Children’s Ideas in Science, Milton Keynes, NJ: Open University Press, Ch. 9.Google Scholar
  26. Piaget, J. (1930/1969). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa: Littlefield Adams.Google Scholar
  27. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reif, F., & Larkin, J. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 733–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth, W.M. (2002). From stimulus to science: The changing nature of visual perception. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  30. Schecker, H. & Niedderer, H. (1996). Contrastive teaching: a strategy to promote qualitative conceptual understanding of science. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 141–151). New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schnotz W. & Lowe R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schur, Y. (1998). A thinking journey to the Moon. Jerusalem: Ma’alot Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schur, Y. (1999). Constructivism and mediated learning experience as a basis for a process of conceptual change in students’ concepts of Earth, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
  34. Schur, Y. & Orion, N. (2002). From Earth to the Moon. Rehovot: Weizmann Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Schur, Y. & Valanides, N. (2005). Dynamic learning and perceptual changes. In D. Koliopoulos & A. Vavouraki (Eds.), Science education at the cross roads: meeting the challenges of the 21st century (pp. 121–134). Athens, Greece: EDIFE.Google Scholar
  36. Schur, Y., Brand, R. & Yair, Y. (2002a). Thinking journey to Mars. Tel Aviv: Open University.Google Scholar
  37. Schur, Y., Skuy, M., Zietsman, A., & Fridjhon, P. (2002b). A thinking journey based on constructivism and mediated learning experience as a vehicle for teaching science to low functioning students and enhancing their cognitive skills. School Psychology International, 23, 36–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwab, J.J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N.J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum and liberal education. Chicago: McNally.Google Scholar
  39. Shulman, L.S. & Keislar, E.R. (1966). Learning by discovery. a critical appraisal. Chicago, IL: McNally.Google Scholar
  40. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strike, K.A. & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R.A. Duschl & R.J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176).Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar
  42. Tseitlin, M. & Galili I. (2005). Teaching physics in looking for itself: from a physics-discipline to a physics-culture. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science Teaching CenterThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations