Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasoning strategies of urban Year 6 students involved in creating their own questions and plans for scientific investigations. The study focused on how the students generated ideas for their investigations, characteristics of their questions, cognitive tasks involved in designing investigations, the management of variables and the emerging roles of the teachers who mediated investigative activities. The instruction was based on the generative model of teaching primary science (Harlen & Osborne, 1985), which includes stages for exploration, investigation and reflection. The interpretive study was based on videotaped data of students’ discussions during investigation planning, the students’ written documents and field notes. The results indicated that students pursued two major avenues for question generation, varying the teacher directed exploration activity and inventing questions from their own imaginations. Students designed investigations that were both experimental and descriptive in nature. Cognitive tasks for the students centred around transforming abstract ideas into physical objects and events, especially with regard to defining, choosing, and measuring variables. Main roles for the teachers were identified as encouraging group collaboration, and evaluating and influencing variable selection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biddulph, F., & McMinn, B. (1983).Experimenting with an alternative teaching approach on ‘metals.’ LISP(P) Working Paper No. 113. Hamilton, New Zealand: SERU, University of Waikato.
Biddulph, F., & Roger, J. (1983).Exploring an laternative science teaching approach. LISP(P) Working Paper No. 109. Hamilton, New Zeland: SERU, University of Waikato.
Biddulph, F., & Osborne, R. (1982).Some issues relating to children’s questions and explanations. LISP(P) Working Paper No. 106. Hamilton, New Zealand: SERU, University of Waikato.
Biddulph, F., Symington, D., & Osborne, R. (1986). The place of children’s questions in primary science education.Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(1), 77–88.
Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge.Educational Psychologist, 28, 235–251.
DeTure, L. R., Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & Doran, R. L. (1995). Assessment and investigation of science laboratory skills among year 5 students.Research in Science Education, 24(5), 253–266.
Duggan, S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). A critical point in investigative work: Defining variables.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 461–474.
Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr, & K. Kotovsky (Eds.),Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (Proceedings of the 21st Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition, pp. 109–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
Germann, P. J., Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 79–99.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995).Investigative work in the science curriculum. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Hackling, M. W., & Fairbrother, R. W. (1996). Helping students do open investigations in science.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 26–33.
Harlen, W., & Osborne, R. (1985). A model for learning and teaching applied to primary science.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 133–146.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education, 77, 319–337.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988).The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning.Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285–327.
Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction.Review of Educational Research, 65, 93–127.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, R. (1984).Learning how to learn. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process.Science Education, 67, 489–508.
Rath, A., & Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry: A microanalysis of students’ orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1083–1097.
Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859–882.
Symington, D., Osborne, R., Biddulph, F., & Freyburg, P. (1982).Procedures for exploring aspects of primary school pupils’ views of the world. LISP(P) Working Paper No. 105. Hamilton, New Zealand: SERU, University of Waikato.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keys, C.W. A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education 28, 301–316 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461565
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461565