Abstract
This article describes the outcome of a collaborative project between the Hong Kong Institute of Education and four secondary schools that aims to promote the development of scientific investigation skills. The project team designed scientific investigation tasks collaboratively with the teachers and provided school-based support when the tasks were implemented. A total of six teachers and 575 students were involved. Data were collected through questionnaires completed by the students and individual interviews with science teachers about their classroom practice after the completion of the project. The findings suggest that the students did not meet many difficulties and that there were positive influences on students’ interest in learning science. The teachers perceived that there were challenges related to raising students’ self-regulated learning abilities, structuring tasks that were at appropriate levels of difficulty, and promoting group cooperation among the students. Finally, the article argues that the strategies implemented in this study were effective, though it takes much time and effort to help students develop self-regulated learning abilities. The conclusion suggests that teachers consider these challenges collectively and proposes a two-staged model for planning scientific investigation tasks.
Résumé
Cet article présente les résultats d’un projet réalisé par le Hong Kong Institute of Education, en collaboration avec quatre écoles secondaires, dont le but était de promouvoir l’acquisition d’habiletés dans le domaine de l’investigation scientifique L’équipe responsable du projet, de concert avec les enseignants, a élaboré une série de tâches d’investigation scientifique et a également fourni un soutien à l’école lors de la mise en application de ces différentes tâches. En tout, six professeurs et 575 élèves ont participé au projet. Au terme du projet, les données ont été recueillies d’une part au moyen de questionnaires distribués aux étudiants et, d’autre part, au moyen d’entrevues individuelles avec les enseignants de sciences au sujet de leurs pratiques d’enseignement. Les résultats indiquent que les élèves n’ont éprouvé aucune difficulté particulière et que le projet a eu des effets positifs sur leur intérêt pour l’apprentissage des sciences en général. Quant aux enseignants, ils ont pu cerner les défis qu’il leur fallait relever pour améliorer les habiletés d’apprentissage autonome de leurs élèves, pour structurer des tâches d’investigation dont le niveau de difficulté est adéquat et pour promouvoir la coopération et le travail en groupe. Enfin, l’article montre que les stratégies adoptées dans le cadre de cette étude sont efficaces, mais qu’elles impliquent des efforts et un temps considérables si l’on veut favoriser le développement d’habiletés d’apprentissage autonome chez les élèves. En conclusion, l’article, qui propose que les enseignants se penchent collectivement sur ces questions, présente un modèle à deux étapes pour la planification générale des tâches d’investigation scientifique.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACT Department of Education and Community Services (2000). Curriculum profiles for Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Curriculum profiles for Australian schools.
Alao, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (1999). Predicting Conceptual Understanding with Cognitive and Motivational Variables. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 243–54.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Arisawa, S., & Tsukimoto, K. (1998). Free study handbook. Tokyo: Fukuinkan Shoten Publishers.
Baldwin, R. S., Peleg-Bruckner, Z., & McClintock, A. H. (1985). Effects of Topic Interest and Prior Knowledge on Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 497–504.
Bame, A., & Booth, R. (2000). Design problem solving: The signature of technology education. In G. E. Martin (Ed.), Technology education for the 21st century: A collection of essays (pp. 21–32). New York: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.
Bachta, L. M. (2001). Concrete inquiry. The Science Teacher, 68(1), 40–48.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Brown, D. C., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions by analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.
Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17–34.
Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64, 6–8.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & H.v.Z. Emily, Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 21–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, Prior Knowledge, Interest, and Experience in Electricity and Conceptual Change Text Manipulations in Learning about Direct Current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–23.
Chin, C. (2003). Success with investigations. The Science Teacher, 70, 34–40.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education London: Routledge.
Colvill, M., & Pattie, I. (2002). Science skills—The building blocks. Investigating, 18(4), 27–30.
Conner, L. N. (2004). Teaching values through the process of facilitation. Pacific Asian Education, 16(2), 65–80.
Costa, A. (1991). Mediating the metacognitive. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching Vol. 1, pp. 211–214. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.cmec.ca
Crossland, J. (1998). Teaching for progression in experimental and investigative science. Primary Science Review, 53, 18–20.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Science education, key learning area curriculum guide (Primary 1–Secondary 3). Hong Kong: The Curriculum Development Council.
Cuseo, J. (1992). Cooperative learning vs small-group discussions and group projects: The critical difference. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(3), 5–10.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2006). An overview and comparison of Australian State and Territory K–10 science curriculum documents. Teaching Science, 52(2), 17–24.
Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office. (1989). Science in the national curriculum. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO).
Donnelly, J. F. (1987). Fifteen-Year-Old Pupils’ Variable Handling Performance in the Context of Scientific Investigations. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5, 135–147.
Donelly, J. (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 585–596.
Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small scale research: A teachers’ guide. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education (SCRE).
Duggan, S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). A critical point in investigative work: Defining variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 461–474.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Science Teaching and School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175–86.
Fitzgerald, M. A., & Byers, A. (2002). A rubric for selecting inquiry-based activities. Science Scope, 26, 22–25.
Goldsworthy, A., & Feasey, R. (1997). Making sense of primary science investigations. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hackling, M. W., & Fairbrother, R. W. (1996). Helping students to do open investigations in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42, 26–33.
Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1995). The development of expertise in science investigation skills. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(4), 80–86.
Haigh, M., & Hubbard, D. (1997). “I really know I have learned something”: Investigative work in science education. In B. Bell and R. Baker, Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand, 53–65, New Zealand: Addison Wesley Longman.
Hodson, D.(1996). Laboratory workasscientific method: three decadesofconfusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st. century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2002). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kreke, K., Fields, A., & Towns, M. H. (1998, April). An action research project on student perspectives of cooperative learning in chemistry: Understanding the efficacy of small-group activities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Laase, L., & Clemmons, J. (1998). Helping students write the best research reports ever. New York, New York: Scholastic Press.
Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Base for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255–281.
Lotan, R. A., Cohen, E. G., & Holthusi, N. C. (1994). Talking and working together: Conditions for learning in complex instruction. Paper presented to Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 4–8, 1994.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.
Sawyer, K. R. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as discipline improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic setting. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 75–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Solano-Flores, G., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Development of performance assessments in science: Conceptual, practical, and logistical issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(13), 16–25.
Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict a basis for teaching quantitative aspectsof the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64, 679–692.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong. (2003). The first HKPISA report. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research.
Warner, S. A. (2003). Teaching design: Taking the first steps. The Technology Teacher, 62, 7–10.
Watson, S. B. (1991). Cooperative learning and group education modules: Effects on cognitive achievement of high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 141–146.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60–66.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research and applications (pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Development phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, M.Mh. Identifying Strategies to Support Junior Secondary Students to Engage in Scientific Investigation Tasks. Can J Sci Math Techn 8, 99–120 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802169222
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802169222