Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How is “Knowledge” Constructed During Science Activities? Detaching Instructional Effects of “Playing” and “Telling” to Optimize Integration of Scientific Investigations

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

Abstract

Despite recommendations from science educational standards which claim that science teaching should engage students in scientific investigations the same way scientists practice their profession to discover the unknown, thereby allowing students to actively construct their own knowledge, a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that this may not be the most effective approach. The present research tests the separate effects of two instructional elements that often co-occur when characterizing scientific investigations in science activities: the role of interacting with investigation materials and the role of telling in teacher guidance. Kindergarten and first-grade students participated in one of four versions of a lesson on light in their classrooms: (1) students were either asked to physically interact with scientific investigations themselves or to watch the instructor perform them and (2) students were either directly told the concepts the investigations were designed to teach or they only heard neutral guidance. Learning was assessed through change in scores from the pretest to posttest. Results show that answers in teacher guidance resulted in more learning than neutral guidance. There was no effect from manipulating materials. Implications of these results for future research and real-world classroom practice 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: are they separable? Child Development, 77(6), 1698–1716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2019). Problem-solving or explicit instruction: which should go first when element interactivity is high? Educational Psychology Review, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09500-5.

  • Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin’! agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

    Article  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 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: an exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, S., Wang, J., & Zhong, Z. (2017). Influence of science instruction reform on academic performance of eighth grade students in Chinese inner-Mongolia autonomous region. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1365285

  • Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., 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(8), 922–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W. S. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Assessment of hot and cool executive function in young children: age-related changes and individual differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 617–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerrim, J., Oliver, M., & Sims, S. (2019). The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction, 61, 35–44.

    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 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction on the acquisition of students’ science inquiry skills in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 421–441.

    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 

  • Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.

  • Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., Woods-McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: a retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006. Science Education, 98(6), 963–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction - what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 605–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2010). Evidence for improved conclusion accuracy after reading about rather than conducting a belief-inconsistent simple physics experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 792–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 7(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Pedagogical praxis: the professions as models for postindustrial education. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401–1421.

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: what are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32, 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2018). Withholding answers during hands-on scientific investigations? Comparing effects on developing students’ scientific knowledge,reasoning, and application. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.14296922018.1429692.

  • Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students' learning of energy-relatedscience concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.001.

  • Zhang, L., & Li, Z. (2019). How does inquiry-based scientific investigation relate to the development of students’ science knowledge, knowing, applying, and reasoning? An examination of TIMSS data. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 19(3), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00055-9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the teachers and students for participating in this research as well as the many student research assistants who helped with allstages of this project.

Funding

The work is funded by the Caplan Foundation for Early Childhood.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Elementary & Special Education, Providence College, 324 Harkins Hall, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, RI, 02918-0001, USA

    Lin Zhang

  2. Department of Psychology, Providence College, Sowa Hall 0122, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, RI, 02918-0001, USA

    Jennifer Van Reet

Authors
  1. Lin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Van Reet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Zhang.

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

Zhang, L., Van Reet, J. How is “Knowledge” Constructed During Science Activities? Detaching Instructional Effects of “Playing” and “Telling” to Optimize Integration of Scientific Investigations. Res Sci Educ 52, 1435–1449 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09990-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09990-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation