Abstract
This interpretive case study describes how students, their parents and teacher identified specific characteristics of a classroom learning environment that provided a scaffold for first graders to engage in science inquiry. Using the hermeneutic-dialectic process of negotiating consensus, a shared description of five components of a science inquiry classroom learning environment is described. Specific characteristics of the physical environment, material resources, social interactions, intrapersonal habits of engagement in learning, and the co-participation by students and teachers in the refinement of the learning environment are presented. This study reports some of the shared perceptions of a classroom teacher, 20 students, and parents who engaged in co-constructing and co-researching one learning environment that supported science inquiry. The importance of making the constructs of the learning environment explicit to elementary school students is documented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
H.J. (1998). Enhancing science education through laboratory environments: more than walls, benches, and widgets. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 595–608). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ayers, W. (1993). To teach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I.S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15–35). New York: Cambridge Press.
Durie, R. (1997, April). An interview with Howard Gardner. Mindshift Connection: Multiple Intelligence [On-line], 2(1). Available: http://www.zephyrpress.com/gardner.htm
Edwards, C., Gandini L. & Forman G. (Eds.). (1994). The hundred languages of children: the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Field, T. (1980). Preschool play: effects of teacher/child ratios and organization of classroom space. Child Study Journal, 20, 191–205.
Forester, A.D. & Reinhard, M. (1989). The learners' way. Winnipeg, MB: Peguis Publishers.
Fraser, B.J. (1998a). Science learning environments: assessment, effects, and determinants. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B.J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.
Fraser, B.J., Giddings, G.J. & McRobbie, C.J. (1995). Evolution, validation, and application of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 399–422.
Fraser, B.J. & Wubbels, T. (1995). Classroom learning environments. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 117–144). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: a theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Harper and Row.
Getzels, J. (1974). Images of the classroom and visions of the learner. School Review, 82, 527–540.
Goldberg, L. (1997). Teaching science to children. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Gordon, T. (1974). T.E.T.: teacher effectiveness training. New York: McKay.
Graves, D. (1991). Build a literate classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Haban, K. (1998, November 5). Educator sounds warning on schools. Courier-Post, pp. A1, A4.
Harlen, W. (1996). The teaching of science in primary schools. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Harste, J., Short, K. & Burke, C. (1988). Creating classrooms for authors. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Harwood, A.C. (1979). The way of the child. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. New York. Ashton Scholastic.
Iula, M. (1998). Social language skills as they relate to academic functioning and interpersonal adeptness, Haddonfield Public School District, Haddonfield, NJ, unpublished manuscript.
Iula, M. & Tourre, J. (1990). The pragmatic language program. Glen Burnie, MD: Richard Henry Lee Elementary School.
Kovalik, S. (1993). ITI: the mode – integrated thematic instruction. Village of Oak Creek, AZ: Books for Educators.
Loughlin, C. & Martin, M. (1987). Supporting literacy: developing effective learning environments. New York: Teachers College Press.
Martin, J. (1980). Teaching through encouragement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Marzano, R.J. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: a framework for curriculum and instructions. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, R.J. (1996). Writing across the curriculum in middle and high schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
McGonigal, J. (1998a). Blurring the boundaries between home and school to engage first graders in self-selected individual science inquiries, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, unpublished manuscript.
McGonigal, J. (1998b). How to do science inquiry: a model of co-learning and co-researching among students, parents, and a teacher, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, unpublished manuscript.
Montessori, M. (1965). Spontaneous activity in education. New York: Schocken.
Moore, G. (1986). Effects of the spatial definition of behavior setting on children's behavior: a quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 205–231.
Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, P. & Morrison, P. (1984). Primary science: symbol or substance? New York: City College Workshop Center.
Morrow, L.M. (1997). The literacy center: contexts for reading and writing. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Nash B. (1981). The effects of classroom spatial organization on four-and five-year old children's learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 144–155.
Pottenger, F., Young, B., Brennan, C. & Pottenger, L. (1993). Instructional guide: developmental approaches in science and health (DASH) program. Honolulu, HI: Curriculum Research & Development Group, University of Hawaii.
Rich, D. (1988). MegaSkills: how families can help children succeed in school and beyond. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shapiro, B.L. (1994). What children bring to light: a constructivist perspective on children's learning in science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Shapiro, B. (1998). Reading the furniture: the Semiotic interpretation of science learning environments. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 609–623). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser B.J. & White, L. (1994, April). CLES: an instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Tobin, K., Briscoe, C. & Holman, J. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74, 409–420.
Vygotsky, L. (1989). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McGonigal, J.A. Constructing a Learning Environment that Scaffolds Science Inquiry in First Grade. Learning Environments Research 2, 21–41 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009953722849
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009953722849