Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "floating and sinking."

In a repeated measures design (pretest, posttest, 1-year follow-up) with 161 3rd-grade students, the authors compared 2 curricula on floating and sinking within constructivist learning environments, varying in instructional support. The 2 curricula differed in the sequencing of content and the teacher's cognitively structuring statements. At the posttest, both instructed groups showed significant gains on a test on understanding the concepts of density and buoyancy force as compared to a baseline group without instruction. One year later, the group of high instructional support was superior to the group of low instructional support on the reduction of misconceptions and the adoption of scientific explanations. Thus, instructional support within constructivist learning environments fostered elementary schoolchildren's conceptual change in the domain of physics.

[1]  J. Bruner,et al.  The role of tutoring in problem solving. , 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[2]  L. Vygotsky.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[3]  M. McCloskey.  Naive Theories of Motion. , 1982 .

[4]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[5]  S. Carey,et al.  On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density , 1985, Cognition.

[6]  G. Halford,et al.  Children's Concepts of Volume and Flotation. , 1986 .

[7]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Knowledge in pieces : An evolving framework for understanding knowing and learning , 1988 .

[8]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Using Conceptual Models to Facilitate Conceptual Change: The Case of Weight-Density Differentiation , 1992 .

[9]  W. Brewer,et al.  Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Amy S. Kohn,et al.  Preschoolers' reasoning about density: will it float? , 1993, Child development.

[11]  D. Perkins,et al.  TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING , 1993 .

[12]  William F. Brewer,et al.  The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction , 1993 .

[13]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning Project. , 1993 .

[14]  P. Cobb.  Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development , 1994 .

[15]  J. Roschelle,et al.  Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition , 1994 .

[16]  S. Vosniadou.  Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. , 1994 .

[17]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework , 1995 .

[18]  David F. Treagust,et al.  A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom , 1997 .

[19]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Teaching for Understanding: A Study of Students' Preinstruction Theories of Matter and a Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Approaches to Teaching About Matter and Density , 1997 .

[20]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. , 1997 .

[21]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. , 1997 .

[22]  J. Greeno.  THE SITUATIVITY OF KNOWING, LEARNING, AND RESEARCH , 1998 .

[23]  Kathleen M. Fisher,et al.  Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis in constructivist and traditional classrooms , 1999 .

[24]  W. Köhnlein,et al.  Vielperspektivisches Denken im Sachunterricht , 1999 .

[25]  M. Bullock,et al.  Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences , 1999 .

[26]  P. Tynjälä.  Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university , 1999 .

[27]  D. Klahr,et al.  Bridging Research and Practice: A Cognitively Based Classroom Intervention for Teaching Experimentation Skills to Elementary School Children , 2000 .

[28]  Elizabeth A. Davis,et al.  Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE , 2000 .

[29]  Susan Carey,et al.  Science Education as Conceptual Change , 2000 .

[30]  J. Bransford.  How people learn , 2000 .

[31]  Richard Lehrer,et al.  Similarity of form and substance: modeling material kind , 2001 .

[32]  S. Caravita.  A re-framed conceptual change theory? , 2001 .

[33]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science , 2001 .

[34]  E. Stern,et al.  The Nature of Teachers' Pedagogical Content Beliefs Matters for Students' Achievement Gains: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Elementary Mathematics. , 2002 .

[35]  E. Davis.  Prompting Middle School Science Students for Productive Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts , 2003 .

[36]  R. Mayer.  Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[37]  Naomi Miyake,et al.  Explorations of Scaffolding in Complex Classroom Systems , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[38]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[39]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[40]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust , 2005 .