• Zainol Badli Budiman
  • Lilia Halim
  • Subahan Mohd Meerah
  • Kamisah OsmanEmail author


Three teaching methods were compared in this study, namely a Cognitive Conflict Management Module (CCM) that is infused into Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE), (Module A) CASE without CCM (Module B) and a conventional teaching method. This study employed a pre- and post-test quasi-experimental design using non-equivalent control groups. The design involved 130 participants from Form 2 (Grade 7) in a Malaysian secondary school. The cognitive level of all participants was classified as non-formal operational on the pre-test and were allocated to one of the four intact groups: experimental group 1, EP1 experienced Module A, experimental group, and EP2 experienced Module B, while the others were divided between two control groups. The impact of the three teaching methods on the level of cognitive development and science achievement were observed after a 20-week intervention. Data were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance/multivariate analysis of covariance, analysis of covariance and a paired-samples t test. It is hoped that this study can contribute to knowledge in the field of cognitive intervention and cognitive conflict strategy. The findings show that a high dose of cognitive intervention in CASE activities within a short period has an effect on the levels of students’ cognitive development, standard science achievement and constructive cognitive conflict.

Key words

experimental study learning activities reasoning scaffolding science education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of science teachers: An evidence-based model. Cognitive acceleration of primary and junior secondary students in science contexts. Annual International Conference of the Department of Science and Mathematics Education. May 17 – 20. University Brunei Darussalam: Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards. Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Alias, B. (1997). A study between science achievement and profile with cognitive style, science process skills amongst secondary school students. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  4. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implication for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test on taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Centre, C. D. (2002). Thinking skills in teaching and learning module. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry Education of Malaysia.Google Scholar
  8. Daniel, E. G. S. & Rohaida, M. S. (1999). Aspiration and reality of the acquisition of scientific skills among secondary science students: Never the twain shall meet? Classroom Teacher, 4(2), 9–25.Google Scholar
  9. Demetriou, A., Shayer, M. & Efklides, A. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitives development: Implication and applications for education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Demetriou, A., Shayer, M. & Efklides, A. (2008). Development of cognitive conflict module and its effect on cognitive development and science achievement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  11. Elizabeth, L. L. & Galloway, D. (1996). Conceptual links between cognitive acceleration through science education and motivational style: A critique of Adey and Shayer. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Federal School Inspectorate of Malaysia (1996). Implementation of integrated secondary school science curriculum: Intention and practice. National Science Curriculum Seminar, December 16 – 21, 1996, Ministry Education of Malaysia.Google Scholar
  13. Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. London: Rouledge & Keegan Paul Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, M. & Gott, R. (1998). Cognitive acceleration through science education: Alternative perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koufetta, C. (2000). Teaching thinking in schools: An investigation into the teaching of case and its contribution to student learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, D. (1996). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E. & O’ Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, K. W. L. (2002). Teaching children scientific thinking skills. In A. G. Tan, N. K. Goh & L. S. Chia (Eds.), New paradigms for scientific education: A perspective of teaching problem solving, creative teaching and primary science education (pp. 181–186). Singapore: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, G. & Kwon, J. (2001). What do we know about students’ cognitive conflict in science classroom: A theoretical model of cognitive conflict process. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, January 18 – 21, 2001, Costa Mesa, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G. & Park, H. K. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ng, S.B. & Siow, H. L. (2003). Creating a thoughtful classroom: Teaching profile of science teachers in Malaysian secondary school. International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, October 14–16, 2003. University of Malaya City Campus, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  24. Okey, J. R. & Dillashaw, F. G. (1980). Test of integrated science process skills. Georgia: University of Georgia. Dept. of Science Education.Google Scholar
  25. Piaget, J. (1977). The essential Piaget. Translation. Gruber, H.E & Voneche, J.J. London: Rouledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Rosnani, H. & Suhaila, H. (2003). Implication for educational theory and practice. In H. Rosnani & H. Suhaila (Eds.), The teaching of thinking in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Research Centre International Islamic University Malaysia.Google Scholar
  27. Selva, R. (2003). Infusion of thinking skills into the contextual approach of teaching chemistry: A case study of a heterogeneous classroom. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  28. Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  29. Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (1999). The science of thinking, and science for thinking: A description of cognitive acceleration through science education (CASE) (Innodata Monographs 2). Geneva: International Bureau of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (2002). Cognitive acceleration comes of age. In Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (Eds.), Learning intelligence: Cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years. Buckingham. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shayer, M., Adey, P. & Yates, C. (2001). Thinking science professional edition: The curriculum materials of cognitive acceleration through science education (CASE) project. Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd: Surrey.UK.Google Scholar
  32. Siow, H.L. (2004). Assessing student learning science: Issues and challenges. 2nd International Conference on Primary and Secondary Schools Science and Mathematics Education, Jun, 16–18, 2004. Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  33. Subahan, M. M. (1996). Teaching strategy to improve performance in science and mathematics (Seminar Proceeding on National Science and Mathematics, 1–12). Bangi: University Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  34. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Treagust, D. & Harrison, A. (1999). The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classrooms. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  36. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Nonequivalent groups analysis. Research methods knowledge based. Retrieved from :
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wahidin. (2004). Concept mapping, vee mapping and thinking skills in the teaching of chemistry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  39. Zohar, A. & Kravetsky, S.A. (2003). Cognitive conflict, direct teaching and student’s academic level. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. March 23–26. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zainol Badli Budiman
    • 1
  • Lilia Halim
    • 2
  • Subahan Mohd Meerah
    • 2
  • Kamisah Osman
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Raja Melewar Teacher Education InstituteMelakaMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationThe National University of MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations