Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 2137–2152 | Cite as

Young Children’s Thinking About Decomposition: Early Modeling Entrees to Complex Ideas in Science

  • Isi Ero-TolliverEmail author
  • Deborah Lucas
  • Leona Schauble
Article

Abstract

This study was part of a multi-year project on the development of elementary students’ modeling approaches to understanding the life sciences. Twenty-three first grade students conducted a series of coordinated observations and investigations on decomposition, a topic that is rarely addressed in the early grades. The instruction included in-class observations of different types of soil and soil profiling, visits to the school’s compost bin, structured observations of decaying organic matter of various kinds, study of organisms that live in the soil, and models of environmental conditions that affect rates of decomposition. Both before and after instruction, students completed a written performance assessment that asked them to reason about the process of decomposition. Additional information was gathered through one-on-one interviews with six focus students who represented variability of performance across the class. During instruction, researchers collected video of classroom activity, student science journal entries, and charts and illustrations produced by the teacher. After instruction, the first-grade students showed a more nuanced understanding of the composition and variability of soils, the role of visible organisms in decomposition, and environmental factors that influence rates of decomposition. Through a variety of representational devices, including drawings, narrative records, and physical models, students came to regard decomposition as a process, rather than simply as an end state that does not require explanation.

Keywords

Decomposition Decomposers Modeling Organisms Investigation Compost Matter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0628253. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. The University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Cetin, G. (2007). English and Turkish Pupil’s understanding of decomposition. Asian-Pacific forum on Science Learning and Teaching., 8(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
  3. Chappell, R. (2008). What’s going on in the compost pile? A book about systems. Vero Beach, FL: Rourke Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into students’ ideas. London, U.K.: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Gayford, C. (1986). Some aspects of the problems of teaching about energy in school biology. European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hartley, L. (2011). College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: Contrasting Principle-based and informal reasoning. Bioscience., 61(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hellden, G. (1992). Pupils’ understanding of ecological process (The LISMA group learning in science and mathematics Report No.2). Kristianstad University College, Sweden.Google Scholar
  8. Holmes, K. J. (1998). Earthworms. Mankato, MN: Capstone Press.Google Scholar
  9. Leach, J. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecology 2: Ideas found in children aged 5–16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education., 18(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., & Putz, A. (2000). Designing classrooms that support inquiry. In R. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 80–99). Reston, VA: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  11. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education., 96(4), 701–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sequeira, M., & Freitas, M. (1986). Death and decomposition of living organisms; children’s alternative frameworks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe. France: Toulouse.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, E. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1986). Alternative student conceptions of matter cycling in ecosystems. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco: California.Google Scholar
  14. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education., 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isi Ero-Tolliver
    • 1
    Email author
  • Deborah Lucas
    • 1
  • Leona Schauble
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Teaching and Learning, Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations