• Ying TaoEmail author
  • Mary Oliver
  • Grady Venville


The purpose of this research was to explore the long-term outcomes of either participating or not participating in early childhood science education on grade 6 students’ conceptual understanding of science. The research is situated in a conceptual framework that evokes Piagetian developmental levels as both potential curriculum constraints and potential models of efficacy. The research design was a multiple case study of grade 6 children from 3 schools in China (n = 140) who started formal science education in the third grade and grade 6 children from 3 matched schools in Australia (n = 105) who started learning science in kindergarten. The students’ understanding was assessed by a science quiz and an in-depth interview. The data showed that participating children from the high socioeconomic schools in China and Australia had similar understandings of science. Divergence between the medium and low socioeconomic schools, however, indicated that the grounding in early childhood science education in Australia may have placed these children at an advantage. Alternative explanations for the divergence, including the nature of classroom instruction in the two countries, are discussed.

Key words

comparative study conceptual understanding elementary children science education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J. & Huang, T. C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, P. J., & Bennett, K. (2008). SPSS for the health and behavioural sciences. South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B. & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Science Education, 84, 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anning, A., Cullen, J. & Fleer, M. (2009). Research contexts across cultures. In A. Anning, J. Cullen & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education: Society and culture (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493–536). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Science Technology and Engineering Council (1997). Foundations for Australia's future: Science and technology in primary schools. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Baddock, M. & Bucat, R. (2008). Effectiveness of a classroom chemistry demonstration using the cognitive conflict strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1115–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45–68). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.Google Scholar
  9. Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and after: The case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25, 139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. California Department of Education (2011). A look at kindergarten through grade 6 in California public schools. Retrieved 16 June 2011 from
  11. Campbell, C. & Tytler, R. (2007). Views of student learning. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The art of teaching primary science (pp. 23–42). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Cao, W. D. (2005). Thoughts of the current situation of science teaching in primary schools. Science Lesson, 2, 46 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  13. Chang, C. Y. & Mao, S. L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students' outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, Q. (2004a). Reflection upon the current primary science education. Beijing Education, 7, 15–17 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  15. Chen, Q. (2004b). Scientific inquiry and early science education. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education, 10, 49–52 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Curriculum Council Western Australia (1998). Curriculum framework learning statement for science. Retrieved 20 March 2009 from
  19. Dawson, V. & Venville, G. (2007). The art of teaching primary science (1st ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. Department of Elementary Education (2008). Grade 1–9 science and technology curriculum guidelines. Retrieved 13 May 2011 from (in Chinese).
  21. Ding, Z. Y. (1984). Congnitive development of early primary children in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2, 139–146.Google Scholar
  22. Fan, Q. & Zhao, J. (2002). A survey of Chinese primary students’ science literacy: A report from National Primary Science Curriculum Board. Science Lesson, 6, 16–18 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  23. Fensham, P. (1999). International success, but is it science? Identifying strengths and weaknesses in Australian primary school science from TIMSS and other data. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(2), 39–44.Google Scholar
  24. Fleer, M. (1994). Determining children’s understanding of electricity. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(4), 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M. & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  27. Greenfield, D. B., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M. & Fuccilo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education and Development, 20(2), 238–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Hao, J. H. (2002). Interpretations to science curriculum standards (3–6 grades) of full-time compulsory education. Wuhan: Hubei Education Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  30. Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison, A., Grayson, D. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student's evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hickey, R. (2007). Understanding how children learn science. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The art of teaching primary science (pp. 43–61). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  33. Hu, W. P., Han, Q. & Liu, J. W. (2007). Investigation into and thoughts of the current situation of the implementation of new curriculum of science in the primary schools. Theory and Practice of Education, 27(3), 58–63 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  34. Li, H. (2004). A brief history of primary science curriculum reform in China. Beijing: People's Education Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  35. Li, Z. C. (2006). The status of science subject in primary schools. Science Lesson, 9, 38–39 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  36. Li, F. G. (2007a). Students’ understanding of pressure: Preliminary findings. Retrieved 15 February 2009 from (in Chinese).
  37. Li, Y. F. (2007b). Enhancing the reform of rural primary science education. Educational Science and Research, 8, 33–35 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  38. Liu, M. G. (1998). Study on the reform of primary nature curriculum in China. Wuhan: Hubei Education Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  39. Lokan, J., Hollingsworth, H. & Hackling, M. W. (2006). Teaching science in Australia: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Retrieved 9 February 2010 from
  40. Luo, H. J. (2006). Case study on students’ understanding of floating and sinking: Preliminary findings. Retrieved 15 February 2009 from (in Chinese).
  41. Luo, Y. W. (2006). Students' understanding of expansion and contraction. Retrieved 15 February 2009 from (in Chinese).
  42. Luo, P., Wang, M. Y. & Liang, X. (2009). On the “force and movement” understanding of children aged 5–6 years old. Studies in Preschool Education, 11, 26–31 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  43. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.Google Scholar
  44. Metz, K. E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151–163.Google Scholar
  45. Ministry of Education (2001). An outline of curriculum reform of basic education. Journal of Subject Education, 7, 1–5 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  46. Moore, T. & Harrison, A. (2004). Floating and sinking : Everyday science in middle school. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  47. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Olson, J. F., Berger, D. R., Milne, D. & Stanco, G. M. (2008). TIMSS 2007 encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world, volume 1 A-L. Retrieved 14 May 2009 from
  48. Murcia, K. (2007). Science for the 21st century: Teaching for scientific literacy in the primary classroom. Teaching Science, 53(2), 16–19.Google Scholar
  49. Nussbaum, J. & Novak, J. D. (1976). An assessment of children’s concepts of the earth utilizing structured interviews. Science Education, 60(4), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring knowledge from an integrated science and social studies unit. The Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 303–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O. & Mullis, I. V. S. (2008). TIMSS 2007 technical report. Retrieved 14 May 2009 from
  52. Pattie, I. & Groves, R. (1993). What do they know? The understanding of science and technology by children in their last year of primary school in Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  53. Perry, L. & McConney, A. (2010). School socio-economic composition and student outcomes in Australia: Implications for educational policy. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 72–85.Google Scholar
  54. Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research—Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Qu, T. H. & Wang, J. (2000). The development and enlightenment from science education in modern China. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Science), 6, 89–95 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  57. Quek, G., Goh, K. H., Yen, Y. P., Liu, Y. M., Tan, Q. L., Chin, T. Y., et al. (2008). Singapore. TIMSS 2007 Encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world. Volume 2 M-Z and benchmarking participants. Retrieved 7 June 2011 from
  58. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2011). The Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved 20 May 2011 from
  59. Saçkes, M., Trundle, K. C., Bell, R. & O’Connell, A. (2011). The influence of early science experience in kindergarten on children’s immediate and later science achievement: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stevenson, H. W. & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  61. Tao, Y., Oliver, M. & Venville, G. (2012). Chinese and Australian Year 3 children’s conceptual understanding of science: A multiple comparative case study. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 879–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomson, S. (2006). Science achievement in Australia: Evidence from national and international surveys. Retrieved from
  63. Thomson, S., Ainley, J. & Nicholas, M. (2007). Australia. TIMSS 2007 Encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world, volume 1 A-L. Retrieved 14 May 2009 from
  64. Thomson, S. & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. Retrieved 30 September 2010 from
  65. Thomson, S. & Fleming, N. (2004). Examining the evidence: Science achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. Retrieved 30 September 2010 from
  66. Thomson, S., Wernert, N., Underwood, C. & Nicholas, M. (2008). TIMSS 2007: Taking a closer look at mathematics and science in Australia. Retrieved 6 October 2010 from
  67. Tian, S. C. & Guo, Y. J. (2009). Science learning contexts in primary and secondary schools. China Education, 11, 58–60 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  68. Tytler, R., Prain, V. & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: A case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Venville, G. (2007). A sociocultural perspective on young children’s conceptions of the moon: Two case studies from Australia. Paper presented at the 17th European Early Childhood Education Research Association Annual Conference Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  71. Venville, G. & Donovan, J. (2007). Developing year 2 students’ theory of biology with concepts of the gene and DNA. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1111–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Venville, G., Gribble, S. J. & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children's understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89(4), 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Venville, G., Louisell, R., & Wilhelm, J (in press). A complex dynamic systems view of young children’s knowledge about the Moon. Research in Science Education, Accepted March 6th 2011. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9220-y.
  74. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the Earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wan, D. S. (2007). Students’ understanding of friction: Priliminary findings. Retrieved 2 March 2009 from (in Chinese).
  77. Wei, Y. (2008a). Minutes of the first board meeting on proposed national primary science curriculum. Retrieved 8 October 2008 from (in Chinese).
  78. Wei, Y. (2008b). Recovering science education in primary year 1 and year 2. Retrieved 8 October 2008 from (in Chinese).
  79. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  80. Xiang, Y. H. (2006). Students’ ability of controlling variables: Priliminary findings. Retrieved 15 February 2009 from (in Chinese).
  81. Yang, H. (2004). Piaget’s theory has great sense to the curriculum designing. Journal of Zhengzhou Institute of Aeronautical Industry Management (Social Science Edition), 23(5), 79–81.Google Scholar
  82. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  83. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Yu, X. L. (1997). Piaget’s theory and science education. Educational Research, 1, 66–71 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  85. Zhang, Q. M. (2006). Students’ scientific hypotheses on lever balance. Retrieved 15 February 2009 from (in Chinese).
  86. Zhang, L. J. & Fang, F. X. (2005a). Effect of relevant training on understanding of plant reproduction in preschoolers aged 5 to 6. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19(9), 579–582.Google Scholar
  87. Zhang, L. J. & Fang, F. X. (2005b). Understanding of naive theory of biology for animal reproduction in 4-to-7-year-olds. Acta Psychological Sinica, 37(5), 613–622.Google Scholar
  88. Zhong, Q. Q. (2002). Congnitive issues in science education. Global Education Outlook, 31(2), 6–10 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  89. Zhu, L. Q. & Fang, F. X. (2005). Children’s understanding of aging. Acta Psychological Sinica, 37(3), 335–340.Google Scholar
  90. Zhuang, X. Z. (2001). Piaget’s stage theory and educational reform. Journal of Changzhou Teachers College of Technology, 7(3), 8–11 (in Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Education (M428)The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations