Learning of Core Disciplinary Ideas: Efficacy Comparison of Two Contrasting Modes of Science Instruction

Abstract

Science curricula and teaching methods vary greatly, depending in part on which facets of science are emphasized, e.g., core disciplinary ideas or science practices and process skills, and perspectives differ considerably on desirable pedagogies. Given the multi-faceted nature of science and the variety of teaching methods found in practice, it is no simple task to determine what teaching approaches might be most effective and for what purposes. Research into relative efficacy faces considerable challenges, with confounding factors, ambiguities, conflations, and lack of controls being threats to validity. We provide a conceptual framework characterizing the many teaching strategies found in practice as being variants of two fundamental contrasting epistemic modes, and we disentangle conflations of terms and confusions of constructs in both teaching practice and research. Instructional units for two science topics were developed in parallel in the alternative epistemic modes, differing in concept learning paths but otherwise equivalent. We conducted a randomized controlled study of the comparative efficacy of the two modes for learning core disciplinary ideas, using operationally defined active-direct and guided-inquiry teaching methods. Five middle school teachers taught each unit in both modes over 4 years of classroom trials in an 8-day summer program for eighth grade students. Student understanding of core ideas was assessed using pre-and post-tests, and learning gains were analyzed by mode, teacher, topic, and trial year. Although routes to concept understanding were very different in the two modes, eventual student learning gains were similar, within statistical variation. Efficacy variations between and within teachers were greater than between modes, indicating the importance of teacher effects on student achievement. Findings suggest that teachers need not be bound to one mode throughout and can flexibly decide on the pedagogical approach for each concept and situation, on several grounds other than efficacy of core content acquisition alone.

Implementation challenges influencing the efficacy of group-work tasks that require inductive or deductive reasoning during physical sciences lessons

“…See Stott (2008) for a detailed description of the numerous action research cycles that were conducted. We acknowledge that the particular classroom context, learner, and teacher characteristics affect which challenges will arise and the efficacy of the two approaches under various pedagogical practices as Schuster et al, (2017) have reminded us. Rich descriptions are given to allow the readers to form their own judgements about this.…”

“…However, while group work remains a ubiquitous strategy in our classrooms, there has been much debate about the reasoning strategy to be used in group work that will promote the most effective sense-making. Some authorities (see, for example, Mahjoob, 2015) have debated whether such instruction should require learners primarily to reason inductively, that is, to draw general conclusions from specific data, or deductively, that is, to explain specific data by referring to general conclusions, while others, such as Schuster, Cobern, Adams, Undreiu, & Pleasants (2017), have provided evidence that neither approach is necessarily superior to the other. The latter support Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian's (1968) assertion that meaningful learning can occur during reception learning when information is presented as a known product, or during discovery learning when learners are required to co-produce the information.…”

Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead

“…In inquiry learning, still based on the necessary preconditional surface knowledge, students first carry out explorations and then create concepts and laws together with their teachers. Schuster, Cobern, Adams, Undreiu, and Pleasants () called this ready‐made science versus science in the making . In traditional learning settings, experiments that students perform are meant to confirm what they have been learning in their lessons, whereas in inquiry learning, the lab exercises are meant not only to confirm knowledge but also to construct meaning (Trout, Lee, Moog, & Rickey, ).…”

Developing Professional Skills of the Convict through Entrepreneurship Education

“…Faced with the new educational scenario, which base remains solid, as the objective remains in the scientific, ontological and epistemological preparation of the person as an active participant in the areas of social activity. To that end, the (Palmer et al, 2018;Schuster et al, 2018;Hill, 2019).…”

“…In this sense, Meaningful Learning complements this method, since it is known that the object to be learned has meaning for the learner, and that the learner shows willingness to relate the new object to the cognitive structure that they already have. Thus, learning becomes more attractive because the results are felt and internalized by the learner (Knowles et al, 1986;Crawford, 2008;Lin & Chuang, 2018;Parappilly et al, 2019;Schuster et al, 2018).…”