Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching for Conceptual Change in a Density Unit Provided to Seventh Graders: A Comparison of Teacher- and Student-Centered Approaches

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

Abstract

This mixed-methods study was designed to compare the learning gains of seventh-grade students (N = 417) taught a 4-week conceptual change unit on density using either a student-centered, guided inquiry-based approach or a more direct, teacher-centered instructional strategy. Application of a multilevel model to data obtained from the administration of pre-/post-assessments demonstrated that while students in both conditions made statistically significant learning gains across the study period, average performance gains did not vary by instructional condition. A cross-level interaction between instructional method and students’ prior mathematics performance and subsequent learning gains was identified however. Within the guided inquiry condition, students with the lowest initial math scores had the largest learning gains, while the reverse was true in the teacher-centered, direct instruction condition, where initially higher-performing students demonstrated the strongest learning gains. Results associated with an authentic task assessment and systematic interviews of student participants provided additional context for understanding the nature of the performance outcomes. Implications for middle school science instruction are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almuntasheri, S., Gillies, R. M., & Wright, T. (2016). The effectiveness of a guided inquiry-based, teachers’ professional development programme on Saudi students’ understanding of density. Science Education International, 27(1), 16–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Rawahi, N. M., & Al-Balushi, S. M. (2015). The effect of reflective science journal writing on students’ self-regulated learning strategies. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 367–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: evidence from Qatar. Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M. H. (2005). Attacking a dense problem: a learner-centered approach to teaching density. Science Activities, 42(1), 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, A., Bergendahl, C., & Lundberg, B. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Glaser, R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R., & Van Scotter, P. (2007). Reinventing the science curriculum. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, D., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, B., Morocco, C., Tivnan, T., & Meed, P. (1997). Supported inquiry science: teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeo, S. (2001). Beyond density: an inquiry-based activity involving students searching for relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 201–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual framework in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echevarria, M. (2003). Anomalies as a catalyst for middle school students’ knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frietas, I. M., Jimenez, R., & Mellado, V. (2004). Solving physics problems: the conceptions and practice of an experienced teacher and an inexperienced teacher. Research in Science Education, 34, 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gengarelly, L. M., & Abrams, E. D. (2009). Closing the gap: inquiry in research and the secondary science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school laboratory manuals: promoting science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gette, C. R., Kryjevskaia, M., Stetzer, M. R., & Heron, P. R. L. (2018). Probing student reasoning approaches through the lens of dual-process theories: a case study in buoyancy. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010113–010111.

  • Grob, R., Holmeier, M., & Labudde, P. (2017). Formative Assessment to Support Students’ Competences in Inquiry-Based Science Education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 117-159.

  • Hashweh, M. Z. (2016). The complexity of teaching density in middle school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassard, J., & Dias, M. (2008). The art of teaching science: inquiry and innovations in middle school and high school. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, A. (2005). Attaching a dense problem: a learner-centered approach to teaching density. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 42, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 755–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, N. G., & Wieman, C. E. (2016). Examining and contrasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020103–020101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, F., & McComas, W. F. (2015). The effects of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes: evidence from propensity score analysis of PISA data. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 554–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of student’s cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1037–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, S., & Rice, D. C. (2010). Multilevel effects of student and classroom factors on elementary science achievement in five countries. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1337–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, P. (2015). Science formative assessment, volume 1: Seventy-five practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, P., & Harrington, R. (2010). Forty-five new force and motion assessment probes. Arlington: National Science Teaching Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Z., Taconis, R., Bolhuis, S., & Gravemeijer, K. (2013). Some key issues in creating inquiry-based instructional practices that aim at the understanding of simple electric circuits. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 579–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., & Fishman, B. (2000). Inquiry based science supported by technology: achievement among urban middle school students. (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED443676).

  • Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1990). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Research Series No. 194.

  • Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 607–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LoCasale-Crouch, J., Williford, A., Whittaker, J., DeCoster, J., & Alamos, P. (2018). Does fidelity of implementation account for changes in teacher–child interactions in a randomized controlled trial of banking time? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11, 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. C., & Alston, D. M. (2014). Effective, sustained inquiry-based instruction promotes higher science proficiency among all groups: a 5-year analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(7), 807–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, C. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVarish, J., & Solloway, S. (2002). Self-evaluation: creating a classroom without unhealthy competitiveness. The Educational Forum, 66(3), 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. R., McNeal, K. S., & Herbert, B. E. (2010). Inquiry in the physical geology classroom: supporting students’ conceptual model development. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(4), 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2015). Which instructional practices most help first-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 184–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2013). Adapting to a changing world: challenges and opportunities in undergraduate physics education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2000). Foundations: inquiry thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Education (2010). Technical report 2009-2010: Oregon's statewide assessment system: Annual Report (Vol. 1). Salem, OR.

  • Oregon Department of Education. (2013). District report card. Retrieved from https://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/ReportArchive.aspx Retrieved on May 28 2019.

  • Penner, D., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: a study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709–2727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. (2005). Reforming cookbook labs. Science Scope, 29, 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., Phelps, S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: a comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera Maulucci, M. S., Brown, B. A., Grey, S. T., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Urban middle school students’ reflections on authentic science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1119–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground: a literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm, J. W., Jin, H., Keeling, E. G., Johnson, M., & Shin, H. J. (2018). Improved student reasoning about carbon-transforming processes through inquiry-based learning activities derived from an empirically validated learning progression. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 887–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T. Y., & Lee, Y. H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading versus doing: the relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., Brigham, F. J., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2013). Common core science standards: implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Frenette, M., & Gard. (1985). Weight, density and matter: A study of elementary children's reasoning about density with concrete materials and computer analogs (Technical Report 85-15). Cambridge: Educational Technology Center. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09907-8.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Snir, J., Grosslight, L., & Frenette, M. (1986). Promoting 6th graders' understanding of density: A computer modeling approach (Technical Report 86-5). Cambridge: Educational Technology Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1987). Teaching for conceptual change using a computer-based modeling approach: The case of weight/density differentiation (Technical Report 87-11). Cambridge: Educational Technology Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding: a study of students’ pre-instruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 317–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snir, J., Smith, C., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: a software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87, 794–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N., Lee, H., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: what are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: a meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 188–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 381–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M. J., Bloom, H. S., & Brock, T. (2014). A conceptual framework for studying the sources of variation in program effects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 778–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenning, C. (2005). Levels of inquiry: hierarchies of pedagogical practices and inquiry processes. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 2(3), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. (2015). Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses. Physics Teacher, 53, 349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, K. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: what works? Clearing House, 69, 337–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., & Smith, C. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: when should the atomic molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2016). Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort? Some thoughts worth considering. Science & Education, 25, 897–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Methodology, Policy and Leadership, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-5267, USA

    Keith Zvoch, Susan Holveck & Lorna Porter

Authors
  1. Keith Zvoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Holveck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lorna Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Zvoch.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zvoch, K., Holveck, S. & Porter, L. Teaching for Conceptual Change in a Density Unit Provided to Seventh Graders: A Comparison of Teacher- and Student-Centered Approaches. Res Sci Educ 51, 1395–1421 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09907-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09907-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation