CHAPTER 18

Elementary Science Teaching

Ken Appleton

Central Queensland University, Australia

This chapter is about research related to the teaching of science in the elementary school, that is, to students from 5 to 12 years of age. This age range covers grades 1 to 6 or 7 in most education systems. In some countries, particularly those with an English (UK) heritage, this level of schooling is called primary school; and to complicate things further, the term middle school is used for students aged 10 to 15 years in a number of education systems. For consistency, in this chapter I use the term elementary school for grades 1 to 7.

In many countries science in the elementary school is a relatively recent addition to the curriculum, in most instances having been introduced in the decade or two following World War II. Prior to this, any science was essentially nature study. Furthermore, elementary teacher preparation in universities has tended to be a more recent phenomenon and is still to be achieved in a number of countries. Elementary teacher preparation in science, particularly in universities, consequently does not have a long tradition. Because educational research tends to be done by university professors engaged in teacher preparation, research into elementary science teaching remains an emergent area. Fortunately, some research into lower secondary school science has application to the upper elementary grades and has provided a boost for research in elementary science.

Over the last few decades, there has been an increasing amount of research into elementary science teaching, so I have been necessarily selective. I have chosen to review work published over the last decade, mainly in journals, and tried to avoid major overlap with other chapters in this Handbook; though for some topics that cross schooling and cognate boundaries, that is unavoidable. My selection and comments naturally reflect my own views and beliefs about research and elementary science teaching.

I have organized the chapter under headings that summarize the main trends in relevant research over the last decade, which, not surprisingly, mirror some chapters in this Handbook. The headings are also comparable to several sections in the previous Handbook (Gabel, 1994), making the choice of concentrating on research during the last decade more appropriate. I have deliberately omitted a section on learning (see Chapters 2–7), though key ideas about learning surface in several sections. I begin with a consideration of trends in elementary science education research, then discuss the context for teaching and learning, moving on to consider the teacher, the curriculum, assessment, pedagogy, and finally future research directions. The research into elementary science teacher preparation and professional development has its own extensive literature (see Chapters 34–39), so it is referred to only incidentally.

TRENDS IN RESEARCH INTO ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHING

Research into elementary science teaching is not immune from the pressures and influences on research into schooling more generally, and science education more specifically. The current, dominant social issues such as political demands for accountability in education, maximizing student learning outcomes, and social justice are demanding the attention of educational researchers. However, a majority of elementary science education researchers have moved to academia after commencing their careers as elementary teachers and subsequently undertaking doctoral studies. They therefore tend to have an interest in the type of research that will make a difference in the classroom. The research literature therefore abounds with investigations focusing on the pedagogical application of theories of learning, enhancing conceptual learning of science, current practices in science teaching, and ways of addressing the identified problems in elementary science teaching and learning through pre-service and in-service teacher education. Studies dealing with the larger social agendas and those that might inform policy making are less frequent. Perhaps this is understandable, given that elementary science is just one part of the overall elementary school context, so policy and social issues impinge more broadly on all aspects of the elementary school rather than just one subject. Yet a consequence of this is that elementary science education researchers are largely reactive to policy changes and do not help shape them. This is particularly significant when policy changes affect science teaching and learning in a detrimental way. In making this comment, I acknowledge that merely doing research does not guarantee that it informs policy—networking and lobbying are perhaps even more critical. But having research findings is a necessary starting point.

Over the last few decades there has been a change in the type of research conducted. With the growing popularity of constructivist views of learning in elementary science, I have noted a corresponding shift in epistemological beliefs held by elementary science education researchers from positivist views to constructivist views, and within constructivism, from cognitive to social constructivism. A consequence has been a growing tendency for researchers to select interpretive research designs rather than the experimental designs that dominated educational research 30 years ago. The shift in constructivist views has also resulted in a change from research involving clinical interviews to probe understandings to case studies of social settings and influences. This means that a change has also been under way in the type of research questions asked by researchers. Questions like, Which teaching strategy is more effective? and What misconceptions do these students hold in ___? are rare nowadays, whereas questions such as What aspects of the teaching strategy enhance students’ learning? are more common. The trend is toward trying to understand the complexities of the learning and teaching interface. Instead of trying to control variables, there is a preference to describe how they interact. Instead of describing problems in teaching and learning, there is a preference to understand how the problems come about and how to reduce the likelihood of their occurrence. Such trends are particularly evident in the context of elementary science teaching.

THE CONTEXT FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING ELEMENTARY SCIENCE

Science in the elementary school is framed by the social and cultural context of elementary schooling. This varies considerably from country to country, despite some similarities in tradition and practice. An overriding tradition is that elementary schooling's major priorities are literacy and numeracy, with other subjects taking second place. Such traditions and perceived priorities have consequently shaped research into elementary science teaching. Inasmuch as science is a relatively new elementary curriculum area with low priority, two major research foci have been science teaching practices in the elementary school, and teacher preparation and professional development in elementary science education. Other influences on elementary science research have tended to flow from science education research in the secondary school and from research into learning. Most researchers investigating elementary science teaching have had their thinking framed by historical developments in elementary science education research and science education research generally. My own thinking has, for example, evolved from a concern for the state of elementary science teaching to an emphasis on process skills, to cognitive constructivism and emergent pedagogies, to a more social constructivist orientation, and finally to a focus on standards-based conceptual learning and teaching. Within these trends has been an ongoing and overarching interest in elementary science teacher preparation and professional development. My research practices have correspondingly evolved from quantitative, quasi-experimental studies to qualitative studies taking a constructivist perspective, with a heavy reliance on case-study techniques. Many of my colleagues throughout the world have taken a similar journey.

Understanding the context of schooling is an essential starting point for making sense of research in elementary science. Science in the elementary school is one of a number of subjects that are usually taught by a generalist teacher. Research into the social and cultural setting of science in the elementary school is consequently a subset of a vast literature that cannot be reviewed in a chapter such as this (see the special issues of Journal of Research in Science Teaching, volume 36 issue 3 and volume 38 issue 5).

A defining set of studies about the context of science teaching and learning was conducted by Nuthall (2001). He reported the effect on student learning in science and social studies of the intersecting variables of the instructional social setting, peer-peer social interaction, and internal cognitive processing and attending behaviors of students. He used multiple data sources from intensive and extensive observation of classroom events over several weeks, including interviews, and artefacts. He tracked conceptual development in students by identifying each concept introduced during teaching and categorizing each item of data from the focus students into the respective concept. He was thus able to construct a time-event overview of experiences for each student that influenced that student's learning of each concept. In his studies, he highlighted how each of these variables can dramatically influence the learning that occurs. Consequently, I refer to his studies in a number of places in this chapter.

Although not addressed by Nuthall, it is critical to note that students’ internal cognitive processing and attending behaviors are derived from their cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery, & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001). These influence considerably the nature of previous experiences students bring to the learning situation and consequently what they learn (Nuthall, 1999). They also influence the types of social interactions that can occur within a small group of students (Kurth, Anderson, & Palincsar, 2002). Peer-peer interactions are largely invisible to the teacher in a busy classroom, particularly when small groups are working on activities or projects, but can either enhance or interfere with learning (Kurth et al., 2002; Nuthall, 2001; Ritchie, 2002).

It is such considerations that, I believe, have caused many researchers in elementary science education to move away from experimental and quasi-experimental studies toward qualitative ones, because these are variables that cannot be controlled and are usually hidden in experimental statistical error estimates. Nuthall (1999) makes the point, for instance, that what students learn from a lesson is not related to their ability, but to how they interact with and interpret learning experiences. Large-scale experimental designs cannot control for such a variable, but they can be identified and described with the use of qualitative data. A further example of this trend in research is presented in the next section, on the elementary science teacher.

THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHER

Early research into elementary science teaching tended to use self-report surveys of teacher practice. Later studies have focused more on understanding classroom events from both the teachers’ and students’ perspectives.

Current Practice

Current practice in elementary science has been an ongoing research topic for decades, and despite huge efforts it seems that little has changed.

Teacher Avoidance of Science

That elementary teachers tend to avoid science has been an issue for a long time. For instance, Tilgner (1990) commented that the situation had not changed in 20 years, and in the decade since, there have been continuing reports along similar lines across the world (e.g., Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Harlen, 1997; Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Lee & Houseal, 2003; Osborne & Simon, 1996; Schoon & Boone, 1998). The main issues identified in research over the decades are that elementary teachers tend to have limited science subject matter knowledge, limited science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986), and low confidence/ self-efficacy in science and science teaching, with the consequence that many avoid teaching science. Harlen (1997) identified six avoidance strategies used by teachers:

1. avoidance—teaching as little of the subject as possible,
2. keeping to topics where confidence is greater—usually meaning more biology than physical science,
3. stressing process outcomes rather than conceptual development outcomes,
4. relying on the book, or prescriptive work cards which give pupils step-by-step instructions,
5. emphasising expository teaching and underplaying questioning and discussion,
6. avoiding all but the simplest practical work and any equipment that can go wrong. (p. 335)

Factors related to the school and/or school system, such as resources, time (both personal and class schedules), and personal and system perceptions of the importance of science in the elementary school, are cited as other reasons for limited teaching of science (e.g., Appleton & Kindt, 1997; Goodrum et al., 2001; Levitt, 2001).

Harlen also cautioned that, although some teachers are more confident about teaching science, avoidance behaviors allow them to teach a form of science with which they are comfortable, and therefore they do not see their science teaching as problematic. In self-report surveys, these teachers may appear as confident, regular teachers of science. However, King, Shumow, and Lietz (2001) found that there was a considerable discrepancy between teachers’ views of their own practice in elementary science and the views of science educators who observed their teaching. What the teachers saw as inquiry, the science educators saw as expository. This has implications for research that relies solely on teachers’ self-reporting of their science teaching practice.

A consequence of elementary teachers’ limited science knowledge and low confidence in teaching science is a tendency for them to use teaching strategies that allow them to maintain control of the classroom knowledge flow, but which are often not appropriate ways of engaging students in science (e.g., Skamp, 1993; Woodbury, 1995). In a case study of a grade 4/5 teacher, Roth (1996) found that “the teacher's competence in questioning was related to her discursive competence in the subject-matter domain” (p. 709), but also noted the complex interaction of content knowledge and context. A naïve solution to this problem has been to demand that elementary teachers take more science content in their pre-service preparation. However, Roth noted that “subject-matter competence in and of itself was insufficient” (p. 731), and others (e.g., Morell & Carroll, 2003; Skamp & Mueller, 2001) have shown that more content knowledge, of itself, does not necessarily help teachers use strategies appropriate to recent reform initiatives (National Research Council, 1996). Schoon and Boone (1998) suggested that there may be key, fundamental misconceptions held by some elementary teachers, characteristic of a lack of understanding of foundational ideas in science, that particularly affect their self-efficacy. They suggested that misconceptions in other, more minor, ideas in science have less impact.

Even when science is taught in elementary classes, the way it is taught can be problematic. D. P. Newton and Newton (2000), for instance, concluded that there was little causal reasoning promoted in the science classes studied: “teachers’ discourse was often largely confined to developing vocabulary and descriptive understandings of phenomena and situations. Often, there was little evidence of an oral press for causal understanding … with its persistent emphasis on reasoning, argument and explanation. The teachers who gave least time to causal questioning in their oral discourse also tended to be amongst those who did not provide a practical activity” (p. 607). Newton and Newton also noted that the more science studied in high school by the teacher, the greater the tendency for them to engage the students in causal reasoning. Such an emphasis in teaching conveys inappropriate views of the nature of science. Chinn and Malhotra (2002), for instance, argued that “the epistemology of many school inquiry tasks is antithetical to the epistemology of authentic science” (p. 175, emphasis in the original).

Teachers’ perceptions of themselves as learners, of learning and of epistemology, also influence their teaching. For instance, Laplante (1997) reported that two grade 1 French immersion teachers tended to present science information from books during science lessons. The knowledge they presented was descriptive and anecdotal. Laplante attributed this to their epistemological beliefs about science. They saw themselves, and their students, as consumers of science, rather than inquirers in science. “They put scientists on a pedestal and consider them to be gifted with cognitive abilities they and their students do not possess” (p. 290). The tendency for elementary teachers to hold and convey inappropriate views of science has been noted by others (e.g., Watters & Ginns, 1997). These views are passed on to students. For example, grade 4 students saw science with “an inductivist, empiricist view of scientific inquiry, a view in which we approach knowledge of the world through an unbiased accumulation of data” (Varelas, Becker, Luster, & Wenzel, 2002, p. 867).

However, perceptions held by elementary teachers that they are somehow inadequate in doing and teaching science are unfounded. Harlen (1997) reported that, “[w]hat holds back teachers’ understanding is not ability to grasp ideas but the opportunity to discuss and develop them” (p. 336). Indeed, Summers, Kruger, and Mant (1998), among many others, have reported how appropriate professional development can transform elementary teachers’ science teaching practices. With appropriate professional development, teachers can make their own personal curriculum and pedagogical decisions for effective teaching of science and can even devise different pedagogical pathways for achieving the same learning goals for students (Kruger & Summers, 2000). However, not all teachers are able to make the same progress—not because of ability or lack of it, but because they tend to hold beliefs more or less consonant with reform moves (Levitt, 2001). Levitt categorized elementary teachers, after professional development in reform science, as being traditional, transitional (moving toward reform), or transformational (transformed their teaching to be consistent with reform initiatives). Their alignment with reform beliefs determined the extent to which their science teaching was reform-oriented.

Even if elementary teachers hold beliefs consistent with reform initiatives, they are not always able to make the transition to such teaching themselves. Ramos (1999) reported that most of the teachers she surveyed believed that constructivism was the best basis for teaching science but felt that external constraints prevented them from teaching this way. On the other hand, some teachers appear to be able to use their general pedagogical knowledge to teach science effectively (Kelly, Brown, & Crawford, 2000), despite limited knowledge and perceived constraints. Some use knowledge from other subjects: Flick (1995) reported how a teacher used language pedagogical skills to encourage discussion and exploration in science in a grade study of the solar system. Some teachers who teach science use constructivist principles such as eliciting children's ideas as a basis for their teaching, though their facility in doing this depends on their science content knowledge (Akerson, Flick, & Lederman, 2000). In their study, Akerson et al. (2000) described how the least-knowledgeable teacher of the three studied inhibited students’ further sharing of ideas by the nature of her responses to the students. This, however, could be due to the fact that she was also a beginning teacher and had limited general pedagogical knowledge.

Given the incidence of science avoidance in the elementary school, it is tempting to attribute this to an anti-science attitude among teachers. However, even though many elementary teachers have limited science knowledge and avoid teaching it, Cobern and Loving (2002) reported that the teachers in their study were not “anti-science.”

Making changes to the school and system context through, for example, pro-active school leadership can change the teaching of elementary science in a school (Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, & Jita, 2001). In this study, school administrators successfully embarked on a deliberate process to develop the human capital within the school, with an emphasis on providing resources and improving pedagogy for science. Support from administrators and colleagues within the school as well as from personal friends/family has been identified as an important factor in helping even very capable beginning teachers to be effective in their own classroom teaching (Martinez, 1994).

The research into science teaching practices reveals a fairly depressing picture. A naïve reaction is to blame elementary teachers for not doing their job properly. However, the overwhelming majority are doing the best they can under the circumstances.

Gender Trends in Science

In the last decade, there have been relatively few studies on gender in elementary school science that give a new or different perspective (see Chapter 11 for a full discussion). Some studies show ongoing gendered preferences about science—boys toward science and physics, girls away from science and toward biology (Farenga & Joyce, 1997; Johnson, 1999; Stark & Gray, 1999). Liu and Lederman (2002) noted that girls’ and boys’ informal writing in science differed in both style and content. They concluded that “[g]irls seemed to personalize their knowledge more; they perceived science as a social activity involving fun and communication, appreciated the importance of science as a practical field, wrote in greater detail, and preferred to write about plants, animals, and topics relevant to their lives” (pp. 264–265). By contrast, “[b]oys’ writing was condensed and formal, and contained the technical attributes normally ascribed to scientific writing. They also seemed to have a more imaginative perspective of science, to prefer informative tasks, and to write significantly more about technological applications in the physical sciences” (p. 365). It appears that socialization into such interests starts early, as parents give kindergarten girls three times as many opportunities to take part in biological activities than in physical science activities (Johnson, 1999). In a different vein, Warwick, Stephenson, and Webster (2003) reported that boys had greater difficulty expressing their understanding in writing than girls, but whether this is also a consequence of socialization is unknown. An apparent decline in boys’ performance over recent years has generated controversy in the media and is an emergent research area.

Generalist/Specialist Science Teaching

One way of addressing difficulties generalists experience in teaching science is to appoint science specialists in elementary schools. However, there is limited research specifically focusing on specialist science teachers. Most reports that I have found tend to have a different research focus, such as professional development, and mention incidentally that the teacher was a specialist.

Specialists in science. There are ambiguities in the literature in defining science specialists, as some label generalist teachers who take school leadership in science curriculum as specialists (Schwartz & Lederman, 2000; Spillane et al., 2001), some refer to generalists who have studied more science (e.g., D. P. Newton & Newton, 2000), and some think of those who take science exclusively (e.g., Owens, 2001). Those who take science exclusively also tend to be well qualified in science and elementary science and take curriculum leadership within the school for science (Schwartz & Lederman, 2000). I prefer this view of a science specialist, and call generalists who take some initiative in science, science curriculum leaders. Sometimes a school administration may deliberately invest resources in science by appointing a science specialist for the school. In some education systems, science specialists are appointed for middle school classes, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

Where specialists are appointed, it is important to choose the right people. Beeth (Beeth, 1998b; Beeth & Hewson, 1999) reported a study of an exemplar specialist teacher who achieved high-quality learning outcomes with her students. The teacher reportedly had considerable subject matter knowledge, excellent pedagogy, and extensive science pedagogical content knowledge. However, not all specialists fit this pattern. Owens (2001), for instance, had a specialist teacher in her sample of teachers who was not well qualified and held beliefs about using the textbook that were similar to those of many other generalist teachers. In fact, a generalist teacher who had the most pre-service and in-service experience in science was best able to use writing effectively within a broader inquiry framework. In this case, there was no advantage in this teacher being a specialist. In one of the few studies of any advantage in appointing science specialists, Schwartz and Lederman (2000) compared the views of science and teaching practices of elementary science specialists in grades 4 to 6 with generalist teachers’ science teaching. They concluded that “elementary science specialists may be more ‘effective’ than elementary science teachers in implementing the reforms vision” (p. 191). Another study by Jones and Edmunds (2006) compared the effect on science in three different schools that employed specialists and science curriculum leaders. While the effect of a science curriculum leader was positive, science had a higher profile in the school where there was a specialist.

Turn teaching by generalists (swapping subjects)

In many schools there is usually little leadership support for science compared with mathematics and language arts. Leadership involvement tends to be limited to human and material resource allocation, not instructional leadership (Spillane et al., 2001). If any leadership is provided at all, it is left to classroom teachers acting as science curriculum leaders, who receive little acknowledgment or time release. These actions “reinforce the belief that science is not important” (p. 925).

A common occurrence is an informal arrangement between two or three teachers to divide subjects between them (Summers et al., 1998; Watters & Ginns, 1997), which I call turn teaching. That is, teachers who lack confidence in science may negotiate with more confident colleagues to teach their science for them. This is another form of science avoidance (Harlen, 1997).

THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM

Curriculum Influences

There are numerous influences on the curriculum that can be broadly categorized as cultural, systemic, and those internal to the teacher. Cultural influences include predominant views of science, teaching, learning, and schooling held by different community sectors, including students. Systemic influences include school traditions and practices; choices of instructional materials; and mandated curricula, standards, and testing regimes. Those internal to the teacher include aspects of teacher knowledge and self-confidence discussed above.

Cultural Influences

Research into cultural influences on the elementary science curriculum, apart from a focus on equity and “science for all,” tends not to be published in mainstream science education journals. Nor have I found research into curriculum design for elementary science. Official curriculum documents issued by education systems tend to assume a “one size fits all” policy, regardless of the suitability of the curriculum for different cultural groups within their jurisdictions. Zubrowski (2002) argued for a different curriculum structure based on a social constructivist view of learning, situated cognition, but did not relate this specifically to cultural issues. In the special issue of Journal of Research in Science Teaching (volume 36, issue 3, 1999) on science education in developing countries, issues of curriculum and pedagogical appropriateness were raised. See also the special issues on culture and language (volume 38, issue 5, 2001) and on urban science education (volume 38, issues 8–10, 2001).

Views of “Best Practice” in Science Education

One of the few studies that considered different cultural groups was conducted by Hayes and Deyhle (2001). They suggested that notions of what science education is best for different cultural groups depend on differing views of what constitutes best practice in science education. Views of best practice are determined, in part, by cultural views of learning, teaching, and authority; available resources; and current practices.

Systemic Influences

Curriculum—scope, sequence and scheduling. Very little has been researched in this area in recent years. Tytler and Peterson (2000) suggested that some topics in science, specifically evaporation, are too complex for young students, such as first-graders, to grasp, possibly because the necessary mental models require mastery of linguistic/conceptual tools not yet accessible to the students. Significantly, their data did not support the notion of “readiness” that is still prevalent in many early childhood settings.

There is a major implication of Nuthall's (1999) work for scheduling of science lessons in the elementary school. He found that for students to commit something to long-term memory, they need a minimum of three or four experiences with it. Furthermore, he found that a part of memory is used as a staging point before some experience is committed to long-term memory. He called this short-term memory, distinguishing it from traditional definitions of short-term memory in psychology. Significantly, memories of classroom experiences remain in this short-term memory for a maximum of two days before they are lost. By implication, to maximize student learning, science lessons (and/or homework or similar tasks) dealing with the same information need to be scheduled within two days of the previous lesson. In some education systems, science is officially scheduled for one to two hours per week, and the consequent common practice of timetabling one science class a week militates against effective science learning.

Types of Instructional Materials

Instructional materials used by elementary teachers consist of three main types: textbooks, teacher guides and resources, and supplementary materials for student use. Textbooks are common in countries such as the United States and Canada and tend to lead to heavy reliance on text reading and limited hands-on, inquiry teaching (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994). Teacher guides and the like, common in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, are used as sources of activity ideas (Appleton, 2002; Appleton & Asoko, 1996). Supplementary materials such as trade books and newspapers are used generally either to supplement textbooks or activities that work, or as a basis for language-oriented science—a form of avoidance of hands-on science (Harlen, 1997).

Textbooks. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1994) compared text-based curricula with activities-oriented curricula. They highlighted the limitations of textbooks and the advantages of hands-on activities. Texts “convey science content information through reading and interpretation of the printed word. This approach also reflects an emphasis on vocabulary learning and factual recall of text-based information … Activities … are almost exclusively paper-and-pencil tasks” (p. 82). In contrast, activities-oriented curricula depict “science as an ongoing process of exploration and discovery, rather than a content domain to be memorized. Tests … tend to be performance-based measures that assess student understanding of the unit's central concepts. Activities with real materials and apparatus replace paper-and-pencil activities” (p. 83). They also commented that both types of curricula require specific support for children with disabilities, though text-based curricula present particular problems for students with disabilities that influence reading ability.

In another examination of textbook elementary science, Chinn and Malhotra (2002) devised a way to analyze text-based inquiry tasks and compare them with authentic science. They concluded that “the inquiry activities in most textbooks capture few if any of the cognitive processes of authentic science” (p. 204) and that “school tasks may actually reinforce an unscientific epistemology” (p. 213). As part of this concern, they commented that textbook inquiry activities differed little from those included in other teacher resource materials, with recent innovative materials faring somewhat better: “our analysis of recent tasks developed by researchers shows that there is still room for improvement even in these outstanding, cutting-edge inquiry tasks” (p. 205). However, creative and effective use of textbooks is possible, as reported by Candela (1997).

Teacher resources. Teacher resources can be published sets of materials or eclectic collections from a variety of sources. Published sets seem to be useful to experienced teachers, but not so useful to beginning teachers. Watters and Ginns (1997) told how a grade 4 teacher used Primary Investigations (Australian Academy of Science, 1994) as a resource and found it helpful, but Appleton and Kindt (1997) reported that, compared with more experienced teachers, beginning teachers tended to find the official teacher guides of limited use (Appleton, 2002). Note that when schools adopt Primary Investigations, they are expected to engage teachers in professional development in its use, whereas official curriculum guides are frequently distributed to teachers with limited or no professional development. Other studies have also highlighted how professional development associated with the use of teacher guides can result in effective science teaching (e.g., Appleton, 2003; Hunt & Appleton, 2003; Kruger & Summers, 2000).

Some publishers, particularly in the the United States, provide complete curriculum packages, including equipment, to accompany teacher guides. These “kit”-based materials, such as Science and Technology for Children (National Science Resources Centre, 2002), provide pedagogical ideas for teachers that are derived from research findings. Complete curriculum packages like this are seen as one way to minimize the difficulties experienced by elementary teachers trying to teach science. There is limited, current, independent research into the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of kit programs compared with other forms of curriculum and teacher support. This is a potentially fruitful area of research, particularly where policy direction may be needed for education systems. However, to influence policy, research designs would need to be carefully crafted.

Other resources. Vaughan, Sumrall, and Rose (1998) reported how pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and students all made effective use of newspapers to enhance science teaching/learning. Positive attitudes to their use were also reported, though they were found to be most effective in upper grades.

Nonfiction science books, usually called trade books, are another resource that teachers use—usually by having students do “research” into the current science topic. However, such trade books seldom focus on providing explanatory under-standings (L. D. Newton, Newton, Blake, & Brown, 2002), which suits many elementary teachers’ current practices.

Teacher Choice of Materials

Although the use of science textbooks is common practice in countries such as the United States and Canada, I found no studies about how teachers and schools make choices of texts to use. However, in countries such as Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, where teachers use a variety of resources, there have been a number of studies about resource selection (e.g., Appleton, 2002; Appleton & Asoko, 1996; Appleton & Kindt, 1997; L. D. Newton et al., 2002; Peacock & Gates, 2000), though only a few commented on how teachers made their choices. For instance, Appleton and Asoko (1996) reported that a teacher chose hands-on activities from resource materials, using criteria such as how manageable he thought activities would be in the classroom, whether they would teach the students something, and his perception of whether they would interest his students. As Appleton (2002) later elaborated, teachers chose such “activities that work,” using these and further criteria, including whether equipment was readily available, whether there was a clear outcome or result from the activity, and the extent to which they lent themselves to integration (see below). How teachers select trade books was also the subject of a study by Peacock and Gates (2000). They reported that newly qualified teachers’ selections of trade books “do not simply relate to problems of children's interaction with text, but also to teachers’ perceptions of the demands placed on themselves” (p. 165). That is, they were mindful of work demands and classroom management issues. They further commented, “neither the nature and depth of the science content nor the quality of the representations of science concepts played a part in influencing their selection and use of text” (p. 165).

To explore how elementary teachers used supplementary material to their textbooks, David P. Butts, Koballa, Anderson, and Butts (1993) surveyed 125 primary (early grades) and 150 intermediate teachers over two years. They reported that some teachers supplement their textbook with other materials for alternative and additional instructional ideas:

If teachers believe that science topics are of interest to their students and that these topics will help their students achieve goals in science that the teachers value and that are part of the expected curriculum, then teachers will find time to schedule the use of these materials with their students. The teachers’ internal beliefs about what is beneficial for their students linked with the external constraints of their students’ interests and the expected curriculum are the factors that govern a teachers use of instructional materials … teachers are not likely to use these resources if they believe that they do not fit the “gotta do's” of the expected curriculum. (p. 357)

Mandated Curricula, Standards, and Tests

Given that reform movements in elementary science education have been in progress in many countries for at least a decade, there has been limited research into how teachers are responding to these initiatives. Harlen (Harlen, 1997; Harlen & Holroyd, 1997) claimed that concerted efforts in in-service teacher education in England and Wales have resulted in some improvements in elementary science, though there is still a long way to go. In Australia, reports are beginning to emerge that show that, with extensive support, some teachers have successfully engaged with new elementary science curricula (e.g., Appleton, 2003; Hunt & Appleton, 2003; C. M. Peers & Watters, 2003). In the United States and other countries, there have been similar reports of success with helping teachers use more inquiry-based teaching (e.g., Fetters, Czerniak, Fish, & Shawberry, 2002). However, I have attended conferences such as AERA and NARST, where teachers also recount horrific stories of curriculum limitation, dispirited teachers, and jaded students constrained by so-called reform high-stakes testing regimes; but little of this has actually been published. Bianchini and Kelly (2003), in a study of the effects of the California standards, concluded that the standards were limiting curriculum and teacher flexibility. Lee and Houseal (2003) saw standards and benchmarks as an external constraint to effective science teaching. Given the limited research available, it seems that the implementation of benchmarks and testing regimes in some education systems is working against the very reform moves (National Research Council, 1996) that they are supposed to support. More research into the consequences of the reform initiatives on elementary science teaching and learning needs to be published.

Cross-Disciplinary Teaching

Cross-disciplinary teaching in science can take two forms: general science and teaching across disciplines. In general science, the traditional science disciplines are combined into science topics or themes, such as Change. Activities within a topic or theme may include identifiable components of traditional science disciplines, but these are subservient to the topic or theme. Arguments for general science in the elementary school tend to be based on notions of learning, curriculum philosophies, or curriculum constraints rather than research evidence of learning outcomes. Many instances of so-called general science, however, are really taught as traditional discipline strands with more contemporary names, such as “Natural and Processed Materials.”

Teaching across disciplines, or, as it is more commonly called, curriculum integration, is a common feature of the elementary curriculum, particularly in some countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about what “integration” means (Hurley, 2001; Venville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, 2002), other than that some or all subjects are taught together or in association with each other in some way. In a meta-analysis of research into integration, Hurley identified five different categories (with specific reference to science and mathematics) that lie along a continuum ranging from sequential planning and teaching to the subjects being taught together in “intended equality” (p. 263). Venville et al. reported a number of similar categorizations in the literature but chose not to present their own findings as a continuum, “because of the implication that more integration is synonymous with better integration” (p. 76).

A common curriculum organization for integration has been the use of themes, like The Sea, or Our Body. Other organizers such as projects or problem solving have been suggested. However, I believe that such organizers do not readily fit the reform outcomes/standards-based science curricula that are now common. There consequently needs to be a more sustained research effort into reform-consistent integrated curricula that enhance science learning as well as learning in other subjects. This reflects the dilemma of curriculum approach conflicts noted by Venville et al. (2002), who published a recent review of research into integration from a science perspective.

Their review provides an excellent overview of research findings, so just a brief summary of their conclusions is presented here. After noting the variety of forms of integration, Venville et al. (2002) concluded that reasons for integrating subjects included epistemological, practical, and motivational arguments. Regarding the last, they raised the question of whether improved student engagement is necessarily a product of integration or some other variable such as better teaching. They also concluded that integration was “difficult to implement and maintain in school environments” because “integrated curricula challenge many aspects of established practices, rituals, beliefs and hierarchies of traditional school establishments” (pp. 76–77). In terms of student learning, integration provided benefits in motivation, interest, and development of higher order cognitive skills, at a cost of conceptual understanding of science (and other subject) content knowledge. Decisions to integrate were therefore difficult to justify from a traditional subject perspective, but could be justified from different philosophical or epistemological perspectives, such as humanism or holistic learning.

Research on integration of science with other subjects has tended to date to cluster around mathematics (Hurley, 2001; Pang & Good, 2000), language arts (Akerson & Young, 1998), and design technology (see below), with more isolated reference to science and other subjects such as art (e.g., Lach, Little, & Nazzaro, 2003), social studies (e.g., Buxton & Whatley, 2002), and physical education (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2002). A lot of published material on integration with particular subjects tends to focus on exhortations and arguments for integration, and ideas for how to do it, rather than research findings.

Integration with Mathematics

Reports of research into science and mathematics integration feature regularly in School Science and Mathematics (e.g., see the reviews by Hurley, 2001, and Pang & Good, 2000), a journal committed to encouraging such integration. In her meta-analysis, Hurley reported that, compared with traditional instruction, student achievement in science tended to be greatest when science and mathematics were more fully integrated. However, achievement in mathematics was more limited.

Integration with Language

Much has been written about the integration of science with language and, in particular, about the potential benefits for science achievement. This is such a central issue that a chapter has been devoted to the topic in this volume (see Chapter 3), so is not discussed further here.

Integration with (Design) Technology

There are three approaches to science and technology integration:

• Equal emphases on science and technology. Jane and Jobling (1995) described an integrated science/technology unit in grade 5. Benefits included high levels of engagement and metacognition, and integration of learning outcomes.
• Emphasis on technology. Ritchie and Hampson (1996) described an interlinked science and technology unit, where the main focus was technology. Some science was apparently also learned, though the report did not document what.
• Science through technology. Technology as a way of accessing science was described by Benenson (2001) and Roth (2001). That is, science was taught through technology.

Information Technology

Information technology (IT) (that is, computers and the like) has been used as a pedagogical aid in elementary science (see also Chapter 17). Research reports usually recount how IT has been used to support science teaching and include an evaluation. Sometimes a contemporary theoretical stance, such as conceptual change theory or writing to learn, is adopted; sometimes there is no clear theoretical base. Evaluations vary considerably in what is evaluated and in the degree of rigor of the evaluation. IT use in elementary science tends to fall into the categories of email (Jarvis, Hargreaves, & Comber, 1997), the world wide web (Mistler & Songer, 2000), computer tutorials (Biemans, Deel, & Simons, 2001; Shimoda, White, & Frederiksen, 2002; Williams & Linn, 2002), computer tools such as word processing and publishing (Nason, Lloyd, & Ginns, 1996), and computer simulations (Barnett & Morran, 2002; Raghavan, Sartoris, & Glaser, 1998).

ASSESSMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE

Assessment in science has come under considerable scrutiny in recent years (see Chapter 32). There were two notable research projects (Bell & Cowie, 2001a, 2001b; Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2002) and a comprehensive discussion (Fraser & Tobin, 1998) on classroom assessment in science worth mentioning, even though they did not exclusively focus on the elementary school. A major study of formative assessment in grades 7–10 science was reported by Bell and Cowie (1997, 2001a, 2001b). The other, by Black and associates (Black et al., 2002), looked at assessment more generally. Both studies included the effect of teacher professional development in assessment.

Formative Assessment

Teachers use formative assessment to gauge students’ initial conceptions prior to teaching, their developing understandings, and progress toward learning goals, and to obtain feedback about their teaching to inform future teaching decisions (Bell & Cowie, 1997, 2001a). Others have highlighted that identifying elementary students’ pre-instructional conceptions is an important part of formative assessment and is essential for deciding on subsequent pedagogy (e.g., Summers et al., 1998; Turner, 1997). Specific techniques, often adapted from research, have been used to elicit students’ conceptions prior to and during a pedagogical sequence. These include concept maps (Stoddart, Abrams, Gasper, & Canaday, 2000), interviews (Turner, 1997), and drawings (Edens & Potter, 2003). Another technique for eliciting preconceptions involved showing students a cartoon illustrating a science phenomenon, in which several students commented on what they thought would happen, or why it was happening (Keogh & Naylor, 1999). Students were asked to discuss the ideas presented and decide which idea might be better. These concept cartoons, as they were called, were found to be useful for identifying student conceptions and initiating subsequent student investigation sequences.

Others have advocated identifying students’ conceptions as part of the normal pedagogical sequence rather than using a specific technique prior to commencing teaching. Pedagogical approaches discussed below that do this include the 5Es (Blank, 2000), KWHL (Iwasyk, 1997), and the interactive approach (Chin & Kayalvizhi, 2002; van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild, 2001; Watts, Barber, & Alsop, 1997). A more general inquiry approach incorporating several investigative techniques embedded in pedagogical sequences was outlined by van Zee et al. (2001). Another strategy reported by Palmer (1995) was POE (Predict, Observe, Explain). Students’ predictions about what would happen in a particular scenario and their explanations for why they made the prediction provided insights into their initial conceptions.

A caution was sounded by McGinn and Roth (1998), which was also reflected in the study by Jones, Carter, and Rua (2000), that strategies used to elicit students’ conceptions influence what is revealed of students’ ideas. That is, different strategies/ techniques reveal different aspects of students’ ideas. It is therefore unwise to over-rely on one specific technique for eliciting students’ ideas, especially in research.

Self-Assessment

Self-assessment has not been a major focus of elementary science research. Stow (1997) described grade 4/5 students using concept maps as a self-assessment tool. Benefits included motivation (on seeing learning growth, but dependent on successful completion of concept maps) and metacognition, in that “children … analyse[d] their own thinking, enabling them to identify their strengths and weaknesses and set themselves future learning targets” (p. 15).

Summative Assessment

Traditionally, summative assessment has not been strongly emphasized in elementary science. When it has been conducted, teachers have often used end-on written tests that focus on recall, or students’ recordings in science notebooks. There has been, however, a trend toward conceptual learning and therefore assessment of students’ science understanding (Harlen, 1998). External, benchmarked testing has been a relatively recent occurrence that has stimulated some teachers into examining their own assessment practices. Many elementary teachers need considerable help in moving toward more effective assessment practices, particularly those that focus on conceptual learning.

An important principle recently advocated in assessment has been that assessment tasks must be authentic—that is, they should relate to the real world of the student in a meaningful way (Gitomer & Duschl, 1998; Kamen, 1996). With the notion of authenticity, there is the idea that assessment should be embedded as part of the pedagogy rather than tacked on at the end of a unit of work (Kamen, 1996). That is, some formative assessment can be used effectively for summative purposes (Bell & Cowie, 1997, 2001a) and documented with the use of a system such as portfolios (Gitomer & Duschl, 1998). However, change in assessment practices cannot occur in isolation from other aspects of pedagogy and teachers’ views of teaching and learning. As Kamen noted, “real reform for a teacher's practice comes from a deep understanding of conceptually based science learning” (p. 875).

Assessment Techniques/Strategies

Traditional pen-and-paper tests, especially multiple-choice tests, are not necessarily the best way of ascertaining students’ understanding in science. For instance, Nuthall and Alton-Lee (1995) found that students used a variety of strategies to answer test questions in science and social studies, including recall and deducing answers from related knowledge and experience. Totaled scores from such tests were not necessarily considered a measure of the students’ learning. Regarding multiple-choice tests, Kamen (1996) concluded that, “[i]n many cases it is asking too much of a fourth-grade student to read a question about a difficult concept, read several answers written by someone else, and choose another person's best answer” (p. 869).

McGinn and Roth (1998) compared different assessment strategies with grade 6/7 students’ understandings about levers, showing that students’ responses varied according to the strategy and context. That is, the students’ learning was context-dependent in a situated cognition sense. They noted that the students relied heavily on available resources in giving explanations for novel situations. Generalizations, they suggested, come after “individuals have great familiarity with a large number of contexts” (p. 829). They too were critical of standard pen-and-paper tests and suggested varied assessment techniques that contribute to the compilation of portfolios. Tytler (1998) also commented about situation-specific conceptions developed by students. This was further supported by Raghavan et al. (1998), who commented on how the assessment question used in their study showed the context-specific nature of learning. Students understood buoyancy in liquids, but some had not transferred this to fluids (balloons in air).

Jones, Carter, et al. (2000) also reported how different assessment techniques elicited different types of knowledge. Concept maps elicited pre-instructional schemas, multidimensional scaling and card sorting elicited conceptual organization for clusters of concepts, and interviews and class dyad discourse elicited processes and prior knowledge used in interpreting experiences. Choosing the most appropriate assessment techniques for the teaching/learning context is therefore critical.

Other summative assessment techniques and strategies reported include concept cartoons used by teachers for summative assessment (Keogh & Naylor, 1999) and concept maps. Stoddart et al. (2000) developed a system of analyzing concept maps for assessment purposes, using a rubric to quantify the quality of understanding demonstrated by the student in a concept map.

A Final Caution

Summative assessment is frequently in a written form, but there are some reports of gendered differences in using this medium. For example, Warwick et al. (2003) noted that boys, especially those in grade 7, had difficulty expressing their understanding in written form compared with the understanding evidenced in their speech. Boys therefore may under-perform in written assessment tasks, compared with girls, even though their understanding may be similar.

PEDAGOGY FOR LEARNING IN SCIENCE

Pedagogy that leads to conceptual learning has been a dominant focus in research into elementary science teaching. This has arisen from the misconceptions research of the previous decade, the pre-eminence of constructivist views of learning, and reform movements such as the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). There has been limited research into affective learning, despite theoretical views and research that recognize that affect and cognition are closely intertwined (e.g., Varelas et al., 2002).

Inquiry

I have included inquiry because it is a key component of the U.S. standards (National Research Council, 1996) and because the term is used widely in the literature. However, there is considerable overlap with other sections in this chapter and other chapters in this Handbook (see Chapter 27), especially those dealing with specific strategies like the learning cycle (Parker, 2000). A difficulty is that there is no consensus on what constitutes inquiry, apart from attempts to define it in the standards— perhaps because it is a term that has been used extensively for many years. I personally find the notion of working scientifically, described in most Australian curricula (Curriculum Corporation, 1994), to be preferable. There is a close link between inquiry and the nature of science (see Chapter 28).

Butts and associates (D. P. Butts, Hofman, & Anderson, 1993, 1994), in their studies, demonstrated that hands-on experiences, of themselves, are insufficient to develop understandings in 5/6-year-olds. Specific pedagogical sequences involving exploration and discussion of ideas, “instructional conversations,” are also needed. Nor does mere engagement in inquiry ensure that students will learn about the nature of science (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). An explicit, reflective focus on the nature of science needs to be included as part of the inquiry pedagogy for this to occur. However, this may be a cultural phenomenon, as Liu and Lederman (2002) found that gifted grade 7 Taiwanese students “appeared to have basic understandings on several aspects of NOS … [Even though] science is largely taught by delivering scientific facts written in textbooks as absolute knowledge” (p. 120).

Meyer and Woodruff (Meyer & Woodruff, 1997; Woodruff & Meyer, 1997) reported that students aged 8–13 engaged in generating explanations with a form of inquiry called “consensually driven explanations.” Students conducted activities and then discussed ideas/explanations in small groups; then these groups shared and justified their explanations (undergoing several cycles). Meyer and Woodruff saw this as a process of socially constructed knowledge-building.

An important part of inquiry is that the teacher is clear about the conceptual learning goals. Flick (1995) commented on how a grade 4 teacher taught inquiry with a conceptual focus, starting with students’ ideas and building on these. This included her clear identification of what she wanted the students to learn. This is consistent with the research reported by Nuthall (2001).

Inquiry in the form of research-based projects is a common strategy (Nason et al., 1996), but there are uncertainties about its effectiveness (Nuthall, 1999, 2001). The learning tends to be superficial (Moje, Collazo, Carrillo, & Marx, 2001) and, according to Nason and associates, not conducive to conceptual learning, because the students focus on completing the project and therefore use superficial processing strategies. Furthermore, where students divide aspects of the task, Nuthall reports that the students only learn about the part of the task that they concentrated on, even though there may be in-group and whole-class sharing of findings.

The recent trends toward inquiry, conceptual learning, and standards have tended to cause teachers to scaffold or carefully structure lessons to maximize learning of target concepts. A cautionary note about highly structured pedagogy, however, was sounded by Tomkins and Tunnicliffe (2001), who found that, at least in some topics, sustained periods of undirected observation may later help students when formal instruction commences. This is consistent with constructivist views of learning.

Conceptual Change

The notion of conceptual change had its origins in the misconceptions research that reached its heyday during the 1980s. It emerged initially as a cognitive conflict-based teaching strategy specifically designed to address the perceived problem of students developing misconceptions (e.g., Hewson, 1981). Subsequent research led to doubts about the efficacy of such strategies, leading to reconsiderations of the notion of conceptual change. Limón (2001) provided a comprehensive review of conceptual change research, and Chapter 2 in this Handbook also review the area. Georghiades (2000), among others, has taken the argument beyond cognitive conflict, suggesting that a more appropriate focus would be the transfer and durability of scientific concepts, through metacognition (also see Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998). Limón outlined three ways of initiating conceptual change that have been reported: cognitive conflict, sharing and justifying ideas, and using models and analogies. I would add a fourth: scaffolding a series of learning experiences that may include a mix of these and other activities (Appleton, 1997). A discussion of these four categories is used to structure the remainder of this section.

Cognitive Conflict

Cognitive conflict originated in the Piagetian idea of disequilibrium (Piaget, 1978). Although comparative studies of teaching strategies based largely on cognitive conflict still occasionally surface, researchers over the last decade have realized the inadequacy of the strategy and have tended to include other teaching and learning experiences as well. Summarizing the situation in the special issue of Learning and Instruction, Caravita (2001) said that “cognitive conflict, although not disproved as the main condition producing reorganization of knowledge, is no longer seen as the result of crucial experience. It is considered as dependent on many psychological and personal factors that the instructional intervention can only partially address and control in the classroom” (p. 428).

There has also been discussion about whether misconceptions are consistent theories held by students, or are context-dependent, and therefore whether conceptual change entails major restructuring of schema. Tytler (1998) concluded that conceptual change is not necessarily a change of consistent theories, but that conceptions tend to be context-dependent and can sit alongside each other. He suggested that, because “the extension of a generalizable conception to new phenomena can involve significant difficulties related to the way situation-specific factors cue particular concepts … conceptual change should be viewed as a case-by-case phenomenon rather than an adjustment in mental structure” (p. 922), but this would depend on what is meant by “mental structure.” For instance, the neo-Piagetian idea of minitheories suggested by Claxton (1990) would be consistent with Tytler's conclusion. Tytler also noted that older children are better at extending generalizations.

Small-Group Interaction—Sharing Ideas

In contrast to the notion that cognitive conflict is necessary for conceptual change, researchers following a more social constructivist theoretical position suggest that students sharing ideas in science is a critical part of conceptual change, or, as most of these researchers would prefer, conceptual development. For instance, Carter, Jones, and Rua (2003) suggested that giving explanations to a group partner may affect students’ cognitive growth. Weaver (1996) concluded that hands-on activities combined with discussion and reflection can promote conceptual change and that learning is enhanced if students find the topics interesting and relevant to their daily lives or experience. Most reports about students sharing ideas have it as one component in a sequence of other experiences (see scaffolded instruction below). For instance, Meyer and Woodruff (Meyer & Woodruff, 1997; Woodruff & Meyer, 1997) incorporated into their pedagogical scaffold small-group work directed toward students’ deriving a consistent explanation of experiences. Mutual co-construction of explanations was a key component that they claimed mirrored discourse by scientists. Barnett and Morran (2002) also described a curriculum that scaffolded grade 5 students’ learning about the Earth-Moon system, using a structured sequence of activities that included opportunities for students to present their understandings to peers during class discussions and students reflecting on their own learning progress. They believed that “conceptual understanding is an evolutionary process that emerges from a complex interplay between prior understanding and the context in which learning occurs” (p. 860; see also diSessa & Minstrell, 1998). Similar approaches have been suggested by others (e.g., Beeth, 1998b; Carter et al., 2003; Fellows, 1994; Mason, 2001; Meyer & Woodruff, 1997; Woodruff & Meyer, 1997).

In mechanics, a quasi-experimental design with grade 5 students was used to explore the role of small-group interaction in conceptual change (Vosniadou, Ioannides, Dimitrakopoulou, & Papademetriou, 2001). They attributed the significant conceptual gains that they observed in the experimental group to “complex changes in … class dialogue … when the students are explaining their point of view, or when the teacher is obliged to explain what he means because these [sic] is no established common language between him and the children … [and] when the teacher uses empirical observations to lead children to induce theoretical abstractions” (p. 417). They referred to these processes as “negotiation of meaning” (p. 417) between teacher and students,, and between students. Whether this is possible with younger students, such as first-graders, is not so clear. Shepardson (1996) reported how a grade 1 teacher appeared to hold views that her students could not engage in this type of activity, preferring to have them engage in activities that encouraged individual work, even though they were seated in small groups. Her interactions with the students also tended to be with individuals, rather than with groups. Her discourse with students focused on observations, thinking, science ideas, and terminology, rather than developing understanding. Whether the teacher's view reflected her own perceptions of her students’ capability or what they were actually capable of is consequently unclear. Other studies (see below) suggest that young students are capable of developing understanding of science ideas.

Students giving explanations to peers in small groups needs careful consideration, as this may lead to rote learning by less able pupils who defer to those they see as more capable (Nuthall, 1999) or result in disrupted learning from some students’ inability to negotiate their way through peer interactions during group work (Nuthall, 2001; see below).

Models and Analogies

There is convincing evidence that, when used appropriately, analogies can enhance learning (e.g., Yanowitz, 2001). In another example, Heywood and Parker (1997) concluded that “combining, building on, moving between analogies and rigorous examination of ideas through practical activity enhances learning” (p. 882). However, they warned that the purposes of analogies may be perceived differently, depending on participants’ views of learning in science, and that to be useful, the limitations of analogies must be recognized by participants.

Analogies and models can be teacher generated or student generated. Examples of effective teacher analogies used in elementary science include the following:

• Thorley and Woods (1997) described a specialist grade 5 teacher's conceptual change unit on electricity. A key component was student construction and evaluation of mental models. They concluded that analogies were valuable in helping students articulate “diffuse” theories about electricity.
• Barnett and Morran (2002) used computer models for the Earth-Moon system.
• Summers et al. (1998) reported how grade 7 students found a bicycle chain analogy for electric circuits helpful.
• Glynn and Takahashi (1998) used a text and graphic-based analogy of a cell (factory) to help grade 8 and 6 students successfully learn the functions of a cell.

Examples of encouraging the generation of student analogies include the following:

• Raghavan et al. (1998) had grade 6 students construct and test their own models of floating and sinking, using computer software.
• Penner, Giles, Lehrer, and Schauble (1997) described how grade 1–2 children constructed models of elbows. A design pedagogy was used so students could see for themselves the limitations of modeling. Penner et al. also discussed the application of the pedagogy to learning about the nature of science (specifically, modeling in science).
• Students’ model building can take several other forms. Students in grades 4 and 5 who constructed their own drawings of ideas extracted from an explanatory text showed better conceptual understanding than those who copied an illustration and those who wrote a summary (Edens & Potter, 2003). Similarly, Gobert and Clement (1999) found that grade 5 students generating diagrams while reading expository text about plate tectonics reached a better understanding than those who merely read the text or who wrote summaries, even though the summaries contained more references to domain-specific information than the diagrams. Tomkins and Tunnicliffe (2001) highlighted the usefulness of students generating their own “mental models” from investigations, discussions, and reflective diaries when making predictions.

The effective use of analogies requires particular care in the development of appropriate pedagogy. For instance, Heywood and Parker (1997), who explored students’ understanding of analogies of electricity, concluded that the base of the analogy must be within the students’ experience for them to understand the target idea. Shepardson, Moje, and Kennard-McClelland (1994) highlighted how fifth-grade students had difficulty relating an experimental analogy on air pressure (a boiled egg being pushed into a milk bottle by air pressure) to their study of the weather. Boulter, Prain, and Armitage (1998), who reported a study of a Moon eclipse by 9–11-year-olds, commented on how students need to understand the characteristics of a model for its use to be effective:

[A]n individual would need an understanding of what a model is, an understanding of how analogies are formed and evaluated, and a knowledge of existing conceptual models in the same or other field. The evidence is that an understanding of these notions of model is slow to develop (Grosslight et al. 1991), that many people have little idea either of what the process of drawing an analogy involves or of what other models are already available (Duit 1991). (pp. 493–494)

Furthermore, Abell and Roth (1995), in a study of grade 5 students’ learning about trophic relations in a terrarium community, emphasized that it is important for students to construct their own representations, such as diagrams and analogies, before the scientific model is presented.

Scaffolded Instruction (cf. Inquiry)

Scaffolded instruction is based on the idea of cognitive development rather than cognitive change. All scaffolds begin with establishment of the students’ pre-instructional conceptions and use a sequence of learning experiences that build on these ideas, usually helping students specifically consider how their ideas stand up to the evidence from investigations, the ideas of others, and scientific thinking (e.g., Abell & Roth, 1995). There also should be a focus on helping students clarify their learning goals and take ownership of their learning. For instance, Summers et al. (1998) told how a grade 7 teacher who had received intensive professional development used an effective scaffolding strategy by drawing on most of these principles. Fellows (1994, p. 999) concluded that the activities chosen must “directly relate to [the students’] initial conceptions and goal conceptions.” However, scaffolded learning experiences that build on students’ initial conceptions do not necessarily ensure success. For instance, Brickhouse (1994) reported limited learning of shadow phenomena with a grade 3 class, in a study of light and shadows. The pedagogical sequence was devised collaboratively by the classroom teacher and a Curriculum Development Lab researcher and was taught by both. Given the expertise that went into the planning and delivery of the unit, the issue of what might be the most effective scaffolds for particular target understandings and initial conceptions, and how teachers can make appropriate choices between competing pedagogical ideas, is a major one. This is related to the teacher's science pedagogical content knowledge, and it highlights questions of how elementary teachers with limited science PCK can teach most effectively, how science PCK is communicated to other teachers, and the extent to which teacher guides and professional development can help teachers extend their science PCK (Appleton, 2006).

Making appropriate pedagogical choices is important. For instance, Shepard-son (1997) highlighted how the pedagogy and experiences provided to students determine what they learn. He suggested that planning with the “bigger conceptual picture” in mind was necessary, and specific attention needs to be drawn to aspects of the object of study on which conceptual understandings can be built. This is problematic when many elementary teachers do not have a clear idea of what the bigger picture looks like and may not have a clear idea of what the students need to attend to.

An important consideration is that the scaffold must both link several lessons and structure the detail of each lesson. Appleton (1997, 2002) emphasized that “units that work” are necessary to adequately employ constructivist strategies. This is supported by Nuthall's (1999) work on student learning. Using carefully structured learning experiences to encourage active engagement by students in thinking about activities was also advocated by D. P. Butts et al. (1993, 1994).

Different types of scaffold, discussed below, are required to sequence lessons in a unit, sequence detail within a lesson, and make decisions about moment-by-moment lesson transactions.

Scaffolding units of work by sequencing experiences and lessons. Appleton (2002) suggested that there needs to be a focus on units that work that include a scaffolded lesson sequence (see, for example, Appleton, 1993; Huber & Moore, 2001). Examples such as the interactive approach are discussed below. Although cognitive conflict per se is no longer considered adequate to generate conceptual change, discrepant events that generate this have been a suggested component of a scaffolded sequence of lessons, usually as the initial lesson (e.g., Appleton, 1995; Meyer & Woodruff, 1997).

Scaffolding strategies and experiences within lessons. Scaffolded sequences may include experiences such as students

• expressing and supporting their ideas,
• making and testing hypotheses and predictions,
• investigating in small groups,
• comparing ideas, giving scientific explanations and suggesting models, and
• presenting and debating ideas and conclusions in the whole class (Vosniadou et al., 2001).

Teacher demonstrations and explanations can also be used effectively (Shepardson et al., 1994).

Scaffolding lesson transactions. Moment-by-moment interactions with students involve questioning, probing ideas, giving explanations, and the like (Appleton, 1997). This is a direct application of a teacher's science PCK (Appleton, 2006).

Other components of a scaffold. Student writing can be another important component of a scaffold (see also the section on writing). In a grade 5 conceptual change unit on electricity taught by a specialist teacher, students constructed and evaluated mental models (Thorley & Woods, 1997). Students first wrote explanations and then discussed them. Thorley and Woods commented, “it was not uncommon for [the students] to change their ideas in mid-discussion. Talking allowed them the opportunity to reassess what they had written and often produced a change in their perception of the problem, concept, or definition” (p. 241).

Teacher questioning can also play a critical role (Harlen, 1998). Beeth (1998b; Beeth & Hewson, 1999) reported how a highly effective teacher used a scaffold of questions to help students think about their activity work and relate it to their existing and developing ideas. The questions, which have a metacognitive emphasis, were

1. Can you state your own ideas?
2. Can you talk about why you are attracted to your ideas?
3. Are your ideas consistent?
4. Do you realise the limitations of your ideas and the possibility they might need to change?
5. Can you try to explain your ideas using physical models?
6. Can you explain the difference between understanding an idea and believing in an idea?
7. Can you apply intelligible and plausible to your own ideas? (Beeth, 1998b, p. 1093).

Three assertions about using teacher questions were made by van Zee et al. (2001):

• “We elicited student thinking by asking questions that develop conceptual understanding” (p. 176), in order to elicit students’ experiences (e.g., “What can you tell me about the moon?” [p. 177]), and diagnose and further refine students’ ideas (e.g., “What is your evidence for that idea?” [p. 177]).
• #x201C;We elicited student thinking by asking students to make their meanings clear, to explore various points of view in a neutral and respectful manner, and to monitor the discussion and their own thinking” (p. 178).
• “We elicited student thinking by practicing quietness as well as reflective questioning” (p. 181), that is, by using wait time, listening to students, providing information only as needed, and encouraging students to think things out for themselves.

Scaffolded student material. Scaffolds have been constructed with the use of written materials and/or information technology. Sneider and Ohadi (1998) reported on teachers’ use of an astronomy unit (Great Explorations in Math and Science) in grades 4–5 and 7–8, with a scaffolded pedagogy embedded in the written materials used by students. Teachers were provided professional development to support their teaching. There was evidence of considerable conceptual learning in students. In another study, a curriculum designed to scaffold (my term) grade 5 students’ learning about the Earth-Moon system by a carefully structured sequence of activities incorporated “class discussions, whole and small group activities, individual activities, and three-dimensional (3-D) dynamic computer models” (Barnett & Morran, 2002, p. 859). The computer models were designed to develop understandings and build on what students already knew so they could relate new ideas to existing ones and experiences. Biemans et al. (2001) also reported the use of a computer-based scaffold for activating students’ prior knowledge and supporting conceptual change as they processed expository text.

A Final Caveat on Scaffolding

Scaffolding has become a popular notion in elementary science education, for many good reasons. For instance, it emerges from social constructivist views of learning that are almost universally supported, and there is research evidence that a scaffold used appropriately can enhance student achievement. However, when a scaffold is so directive that it inhibits learning for some students, there may be a problem. Warwick et al. (2003) raised this issue with respect to scaffolded writing in science used to enhance procedural understanding: “the question of ‘scaffold or straightjacket’ is an important one, particularly for higher ability pupils” (p. 184). Tomkins and Tunnicliffe (2001) also cautioned against the teacher being so intent and goal directed, that he/ she does not listen to students and give them intellectual space: “If teachers take a less instrumental attitude to what is learned and allow a longer gestation time for considered pupil observation and familiarization, it may be conducive to allowing hypotheses to emerge more naturally. We assert that much of this ‘pupil talk’ or ‘diary reflection’, which is seemingly inconsequential, is in fact of considerable learning value” (p. 811). More research is needed on the nature and effectiveness of scaffolds for all students for units of work, lessons, and lesson interactions.

Metacognition

A different emphasis on conceptual change not included in Caravita's (2001) categorization has been made by a number of others, who have drawn on the notion of metacognition as an aid to conceptual change. Beeth (1998a) reported how a meta-cognitive emphasis on the perceived status of ideas, using the notions of intelligibility and plausibility (Hewson & Thorley, 1989), can aid learning (see also Beeth, 1998b; Beeth & Hewson, 1999). Others (such as Blank, 2000; Hewson et al., 1998) have also supported a metacognitive emphasis in pedagogy. A relevant series of studies on metacognition in the junior high school, the Project to Enhance Effective Learning (PEEL) (e.g., Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997), has been omitted from this review.

Writing

Writing is usually considered a complementary component to other pedagogies in elementary science and is frequently implemented in conjunction with students sharing ideas. This area has been extensively reported in the literature and is discussed in Chapter 3 of this volume. Writing, however, is an important part of the elementary school curriculum; so selected aspects of this research are touched on in this chapter. It is taken as a given that writing, used appropriately, may enhance students’ conceptual learning in science. The reader may also wish to consult a comprehensive review of writing in science compiled by Rowell (1997) and the special issue of Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Writing Is Difficult for Pupils

Warwick, Linfield, and Stephenson (1999) reported that elementary school students find it easier to express science understandings verbally than in writing, partially because they and teachers have different purposes in speaking and writing. Providing more structure for students’ writing tasks in science can help (see also Warwick et al., 2003, below). Patterson (2001) described ways to scaffold students’ science writing during different aspects of writing and added to the claims that writing enhances understanding:

[f]or pupils at the early stages of literacy development, this research has demonstrated that support at the sentence level, through the provision of appropriate sentence connectives, can transform writing from descriptions and statements of facts to that which includes explanation… . Support at the text level is beneficial to pupils who are proficient at structuring sentences, but have difficulties organising their ideas into extended pieces of scientific writing. Context mapping has been shown to be an effective scaffold during the drafting stage of writing. (pp. 15–16)

In an attempt to help African American students engage more meaningfully with writing in science, Varelas et al. (2002) described a strategy that encouraged students to use genres familiar to them, such as rap songs and plays, instead of the more formal school science genres. They concluded that the strategy provided such students with an effective discourse genre that helped them construct meaning for the phenomena under study, but did not provide them with facility in scientific discourse.

Science Notebooks

Science notebooks are used extensively in elementary schools in my state, Queensland, Australia. In my numerous discussions with elementary students, many have told me that they dislike science because of the large amount of writing that they have to do. This often constitutes copying notes (frequently using headings like “Aim, Equipment, Procedure, Results, Conclusions”) from the chalkboard into their science notebooks. No wonder they are bored! If this entrenched tradition of science notebooks must continue, they need to be used more effectively for student learning. Even where notebooks are constructed by students themselves, they do not necessarily enhance learning. For instance, Baxter, Bass, and Glaser (2001) examined students’ notebook recording of work on electric circuits in three grade 5 classes in two schools. Videotapes of lessons were also taken. No written feedback was given to students about their writing. They found that recording in notebooks “gave little indication of the quality of student thinking or understanding” (p. 138). Not surprisingly, what the students recorded in their notebooks was dependent on the classroom context: specifically, the teachers’ directions and what the teacher attended to. Their conclusion was that

[w]e found that aspects of science instruction that teachers attend to (procedures, results) appear in some detail in students’ notebooks, but the use of data recording as a platform for thoughtful reflection, hypothesis generating, and the synthesis of ideas was generally absent. Teachers use notebooks to monitor what students are doing, and students, when prompted by their teachers, use the notebooks to remind them of what they have done. (p. 138)

Similarly, other aspects of the classroom context that influence writing were reported in a study where students accessed a variety of written sources (Shepardson & Britsch, 2001). The students’ journal writing was influenced by the available science texts.

Student-centered notebooks, also reported by others (Caswell & Lamon, 1998; Shepardson & Britsch, 2001; Tomkins & Tunnicliffe, 2001), can be effective if used by students as research journals to record their thinking and ideas. Usually, text is accompanied by students’ drawings, diagrams (Edens & Potter, 2003), or concept maps. Computers may also be used to aid writing. In such writing tasks, consideration needs to be given to the age of the students, both in terms of their writing capability and in the ways that they interact with the world. For instance, Shepardson and Britsch (2001) described how young students contextualized their science experiences by relating to three different “worlds” or mental contexts: a) imagination, b) previous experience, and c) the science investigation itself. Although imaginative play is considered a legitimate component of informal early childhood classes, it is not usually endorsed in formal schooling, where the teacher's focus tends to be on the science investigation. Older students seem to be better attuned to the expectations of the teacher. For example, when older students were left to their own devices during a science investigation, they recorded observations including anatomical and behavioral features of animals (Tomkins & Tunnicliffe, 2001). That is, if students are familiar with a teacher-classroom culture, it is unnecessary to provide a “tight” scaffold for writing, especially in the early phases of a unit. Building on work by Gott and Duggan (1995), Warwick et al. (2003) used writing frames embedded in worksheets as prompts for grade 4, 6, and 7 students when planning investigations and recording results. They took a particular focus on teaching students about the use of evidence in drawing conclusions. The frames were varied to suit the age group. Examples of frames are (pp. 176–177):

• We are trying to find out… (gr. 4)
• We made the test fair by… (gr. 4)
• These results tell me that… (gr. 4)
• By carrying out these measurements we are able to find the connection between … and … (gr. 6)
• My results are accurate and reliable because… (gr. 7)

Warwick and associates (2003) concluded that discussion and collaboration focusing on the prompts in the frames were necessary for them to be effective—the worksheets could not just be handed to students. Furthermore, they concluded that,

[i]t is therefore essential for the teacher to:

• have a clear understanding of the objectives of the lesson;
• share both the learning objectives and the assessment criteria for the session with the pupils;
• be clear, in the structure of any writing frame, about which concepts of evidence are to be focused upon;
• understand his/her role in scaffolding the pupils’ experience through use of the writing frame; and
• understand the central importance of social interaction to learning, and therefore to encourage pupil-pupil and pupil-teacher collaboration. (p. 182)

Even though the studies by Warwick et al. (2003) and Tomkins and Tunnicliffe (2001) differed in the degree of scaffold/support provided to students, a common component was the use of writing as a reflective tool, in which discussion played a major part.

Teacher Feedback

It is commonly accepted that the teacher should provide written feedback on elementary students’ writing in science, but this presents potential difficulties for both teachers and students. Owens (2001) studied the written feedback that four grade 4/5 teachers gave to three pieces of grade 5 student writing in science. One teacher was a science specialist. Owens reported that:

• No two teachers defined or used science writing in the same ways.
• Most teachers found responding to science writing to be a frustrating process.
• All of the teachers assumed the students could read and write non-fiction science paragraphs and were uncomfortable with evidence that this might not be the case.

She further concluded, “The teachers’ individual definitions of science predisposed them to either accept or reject the processes of science writing as supportive of science learning” (p. 33).

Writing to Learn

A key purpose for writing in elementary science is as an aid to arriving at conceptual understanding in science (e.g., Fellows, 1994; Mason, 2001; Tomkins & Tunnicliffe, 2001). Writing for understanding is usually part of a scaffolded sequence of experiences. Writing, however, can have multiple purposes. Mason (2001) described how students wrote on several occasions for different purposes, such as writing for prediction, expressing intuitive ideas on a topic, communicating what is temporarily understood or what puzzles, recording changes of ideas, and giving final explanations of a phenomenon. The students were told not to worry about spelling, grammar, or even how good the idea was, as this writing was for a different purpose: learning science.

A key component of writing is to clearly identify the audience, which is usually the teacher. A different audience for some grade 6 students’ writing reported by Fellows (1994) was themselves: they wrote notes to themselves, in order to explain their ideas. These notes were used as a basis for discussions with others. Fellows concluded, “writing ideas to themselves to explore and share informally with peers, reflecting on the ideas to reproduce new writing, and talk about the ideas with other students appeared to be important mechanisms for conceptual change” (pp. 998–999).

Specific Strategies

A number of specific pedagogical approaches and strategies for elementary science have been reported in the literature. Some are related to conceptual change, and all have a conceptual learning focus. In this section I outline research on the use of some of these strategies.

Drama/simulations (often a specific type of model/analogy). Bailey and Watson (1998) used a simulation game to develop ecological concepts in 11-year-olds. Affective development was an important component. A comparison of the experimental group's post-test scores on understandings with a control group suggests that the strategy was also highly successful in developing understanding. In a South African context, grade 5 students used both videotapes and comics portraying puppets working on problems and confronting common misconceptions (Roll-nick, Jones, Perold, & Bahr, 1998). It was considered important to have both formats available to suit the variable resources available in South African elementary schools. The initiative was deemed successful in helping students learn science concepts. There are some parallels in this idea with Concept Cartoons (see Keogh & Naylor, 1999, below).

Small-group work. Small-group work, preferably in a hands-on activity context, is an accepted practice in reform elementary science, partly because it is seen as analogous to high school laboratory work. However, small-group work, particularly where equipment is involved, can be difficult for some teachers because of management issues (e.g., Appleton & Kindt, 1997). Management problems can be reduced with the use of cooperative learning principles. For instance, Watters and Ginns (1997) told how a grade 4 teacher learned to use the Primary Investigations (Australian Academy of Science, 1994) cooperative learning strategy, involving defined roles for group members (manager, director, speaker). A confident but traditional teacher, she made the transition to small-group work in science and was enthusiastic about it. However, even though she successfully had the students working in small groups, she did not necessarily use strategies to develop understanding.

Small-group work can also be problematic for students in two ways: 1) where social interactions and/or cultural expectations subvert or interfere with learning (e.g., Gray, 1999; Kurth et al., 2002; Nuthall, 1999, 2001; Ritchie, 2002), and 2) where the students construct their own purpose, different from the teacher's, for the activity —such as to complete the worksheet or finish the activity first (Nuthall, 2001). Tasker and Freyberg (1985) first highlighted this problem, but there has been limited subsequent research into how to resolve the issue. Both of these issues were also highlighted by Anderson, Holland, and Palincsar (1997), who noted that “interpersonal relationships among students and their interpretations of the task requirements led to the scientific activity being appropriated largely by the most academically successful member of the group” (p. 359). This raises the issue of status within groups, discussed below.

How students are grouped, and students’ status within the group, are important considerations. In studies of ability-paired dyads (by reading scores), Carter and Jones (Carter et al., 2003; Carter & Jones, 1994; Jones & Carter, 1994) concluded that grade 5 students achieved best when high-ability students were paired with low-ability students. There was no difference in the science achievement of high-ability students, whether they were paired with another high-ability student or a low-ability student, but the nature of their interactions differed considerably. In both cases, they had greater opportunity for speaking and working with equipment. However, low-ability students paired with a high-ability student achieved better than when paired with another low-ability student. Low-ability dyads tended to be off-task and inattentive when the teacher gave instructions, and spent considerable time negotiating group roles.

Rath and Brown (1996) identified six ways that students engage with materials during hands-on group work. Termed “modes of engagement” (p. 1087), they are:

• Exploration—Finding out about the phenomenon and studying its basic properties.
• Engineering—Using properties of the phenomenon to make something happen.
• Pet care—A personal connection to the object of study focused on nurturing.
• Procedural—Using the phenomenon as a support for imitation and step-following.
• Performance—Soliciting attention, using the phenomenon or object of study as a prop.
• Fantasy—An imaginative play activity that builds on some aspect of the phenomenon or object of study.

They cautioned that not all modes promote conceptual learning, and there may be cross-purposes between students in a small group. Some modes of engagement used by grade 2 and 5 students are gendered (Jones, Brader-Araje, et al., 2000). In the Jones, Brader-Araje et al. study, males tended to explore/tinker, whereas females tended to follow the teacher's instructions. Social interactions within the group were related to these gendered modes of engagement, competition for materials, and competition for power and status (see also Nuthall, 2001; Ritchie, 2002).

In the elementary school, status of students can be attributed on the basis of perceived academic prowess or cultural factors. Consequently, students in the same group do not necessarily do the same thing, partially because of differences in social interactions and differences in whether and how they engage with the materials. Bianchini (1997) highlighted this in a study of a grade 6 life sciences class. Even with an experienced teacher using an accepted small-group model, access and achievement of all students was limited. She concluded that, “despite a curriculum and instructional strategy designed explicitly to meet the needs of those traditionally positioned on the periphery of science, student differences in participation and in academic achievement remained” (p. 1062). Higher-status students in a small group, despite specific steps taken by the teacher, continually excluded low-status students. In a later report, she made three recommendations for refining group work to address status issues: “the consistent implementation of interventions designed to ameliorate status differences; the strategic assignment of procedural roles to ensure student access to group materials, discourse, and decisions; and the overturning of students’ conventional notions of intelligence—what they think it means to be smart” (p. 577).

Problem solving and discrepant events. Students working on genuine, puzzling problems (not the application of algorithms) can be an important component of a scaffold, especially as an initiating activity, though they have also been used at other critical times throughout a sequence of lessons (Meyer & Woodruff, 1997). One highly effective way of generating such problems within a classroom environment is to use discrepant or counterintuitive events. Discrepant events had their origins in Piagetian (Piaget, 1978) ideas of disequilibrium. Highly refined by Suchman (1966), they have been a consistent component of science pedagogy since (e.g., Friedl, 1995; Huber & Moore, 2001). Use of discrepant events has been recommended because they can be highly motivating (Friedl, 1995; Suchman, 1966), though the pedagogy in which they are used can have different effects on students’ learning (Appleton, 1995). Appleton reported that a common behavior by students experiencing a discrepant event is to try to find a solution to the perceived problem(s) by relating the event to memories and seeking information. However, the information sources and strategies that they can use are constrained by the classroom context, in particular, the teaching strategies used. For instance, although the puzzling effect of a discrepant event that is conducted as a teacher demonstration may be high, students may have limited means of gaining further information about the problem because of the constraining effect of a highly teacher-controlled strategy. If the teacher provides an explanation immediately after demonstrating the discrepant event, learning is limited. By comparison, students working in small groups with the discrepant event have the opportunity to obtain information by discussing ideas and exploring the materials directly (see, for example, Huber & Moore, 2001).

The Learning Cycle and Its Variations

The main pedagogical approach suggested in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) materials was called the learning cycle (Karplus & Thier, 1967). Over the years, this approach has remained both a valued pedagogy for inquiry and a subject of research. It has also been modified as a consequence of further consideration of constructivist ideas of learning (see below). Some argue that the approach or its variations should be used to structure a lesson (e.g., Koch, 2002); others argue that it should be used to structure a unit of work (e.g., Appleton, 1997).

The SCIS learning cycle had three main phases: exploration, concept introduction, and concept application. In revising the Learning Cycle, Barman (1997) suggested four phases: investigative, dialogue, application, and assessment, with constant evaluation and discussion being a central component. Another revision (Blank, 2000) had a metacognitive emphasis, resulting in four phases: concept exploration, concept introduction/status check, concept application/status check, and concept assessment/status check. The notion of status introduced here reflects the idea that different concepts are ascribed different levels of status by learners, with intelligibility and plausibility influencing this (see also Beeth, 1998a). A key component of Blank's first phase was students making explicit their prior knowledge of the topic, which sets the scene for later consideration of the status of their developing ideas. In a comparison study with students using the SCIS strategy, Blank concluded that, although students using the revised strategy did not show greater content knowledge, they did experience more permanent restructuring of their understandings.

Another version of the SCIS approach, called the 5Es model, has become popular for scaffolding units of work in science (Appleton, 1997) and has been used in curriculum projects like Science for Life and Living (BSCS, 1992) and the Australian adaptation, Primary Investigations (Australian Academy of Science, 1994). Derived from constructivist considerations, it has been described in detail by Bybee (1997) and has been the subject of some studies (e.g., Boddy, Watson, & Aubusson, 2003). The 5Es approach derives its name from the five phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. Boddy et al. (2003) reported that “[s]tudents found the unit of work fun and interesting and were motivated to learn while others said they were interested and motivated because they were learning … [and that] the unit of work … promoted higher-order thinking” (p. 40).

Students’ Questions

Using students’ questions as a basis for science investigations in the elementary school is a form of curriculum negotiation and is an attempt, in part, to address the confusion over the purpose of investigations discussed earlier. This work builds on earlier studies of the interactive approach (also called question raising) in the Learning in Science (Primary) Project (Biddulph & Osborne, 1984) and has been advocated by a number of authors since (e.g., Appleton, 1997; Fleer & Hardy, 2002; Gallas, 1995).

Keys (1998) explored the reasoning strategies of grade 6 students as they created their own questions and plans for investigations. Ideas for questions came from varying the initiating activity or from the students’ own imaginations. Some questions led to experimental investigations (variables), and some to descriptive investigations (describing characteristics of events). Reasoning included translating ideas embedded in the questions into physical objects/events. Keys reported that the students’ ability to control variables varied, so teachers had to change their practice to encourage social interaction and encourage students to evaluate their choice of variables. Management of different groups pursuing different questions was problematic for the teachers. Another issue for the teachers was that they had to accept the fact that not all students would learn the same thing.

Others (Chin & Kayalvizhi, 2002; Gibson, 1998; Iwasyk, 1997; van Zee et al., 2001; Watts et al., 1997) have explored eliciting students’ questions to initiate investigations. Grade 6 (Chin & Kayalvizhi) and grade 1 (Watts et al.) students asked questions better suited to investigations after their teachers provided examples. Group discussion also helped. The teacher providing an introductory focus was also useful (Watts et al.), though not necessary (Chin & Kayalvizhi). Iwasyk (1997) added a variation to question-raising by having kindergarten and grade 1 students also discussing answers to their questions as they investigated them. In groups, a student acted as “teacher” or “leader,” and the others asked questions as part of a discussion to clarify ideas. She used a strategy, KWHL, to structure the unit—K (What do I Know about), W (What do I Want to know about), H (How can I find out about), L (What did I Learn about). KWHL was also used to elicit students’ questions and encourage discussion of their answers in another study (van Zee et al., 2001). They identified four conditions that encouraged students to raise questions:

• setting “up discourse structures [KWHL, brainstorming] that explicitly elicit questions” (p. 166),
• engaging “students in conversations about familiar contexts in which they had made many observations over a long time period” (p. 168),
• creating “comfortable discourse environments in which students could try to understand one another's thinking” (p. 171), and
• establishing “small groups where students were collaborating with one another” (p. 174).

Gibson (1998) described another variation of the approach by having students suggest and discuss answers to other students’ questions.

Identifying Students’ Initial Ideas

This is a common theme in many teaching approaches emergent from constructivist thinking and from the 1980s misconceptions research. It is a basic plank of many approaches, such as the conceptual change approaches, as well as the 5Es, KWHL, and interactive approaches. A variety of techniques have been suggested that can be used to identify students’ pre-instructional ideas for guiding subsequent teaching. Summers et al. (1998), for instance, reported how a grade 7 teacher actively sought students’ ideas and used these as a basis for her teaching. There was evidence of effective learning. Other possible strategies for eliciting students’ ideas include the following:

• Open-ended teacher questions can be effective (Harlen, 1998), particularly if the teacher probes students’ answers for deeper explanations.
• Students raising questions provides a window into their existing ideas (Iwasyk, 1997; Watts et al., 1997). Asking them to also suggest answers/explanations provides even better windows (Gibson, 1998). See also the original work by Biddulph and Osborne (1984).
• Turner (1997) reported how teachers used interviews and observations of students’ explorations to research students’ ideas about food and health during professional development sessions. The teachers saw this as a useful pedagogical tool to find out what the students knew and used it to shape subsequent pedagogy.
• Keogh and Naylor (1999) reported on the use of concept cartoons to identify student conceptions, generate student discussion of ideas, and subsequent investigations exploring alternative ideas.
• Concept maps were used to identify student understandings (Stoddart et al., 2000).
• Students’ drawings were used to access their ideas (Edens & Potter, 2003). Having students explain their drawings is even more effective.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The research reviewed in this chapter has demonstrated that considerable gains in our understanding about the teaching/learning nexus in elementary science have been revealed over the last decade. Given the impetus in this research, it will doubtless continue over the coming decade, with further potential to inform elementary science curriculum and pedagogy.

Over the last few years, research into the benefits or otherwise of standards reforms have begun to appear in the literature. Further work is needed, including research that has a focus on:

• curriculum design—especially integration,
• conceptual learning,
• identifying clear learning goals,
• determining appropriate scaffolds for pedagogy in different contexts,
• assessment in authentic contexts,
• reporting student progress to carers and parents,
• the validity and appropriateness of large-scale testing and possible alternatives,
• helping teachers make pedagogical shifts arising from the above, and
• ways of introducing large-scale change in elementary science teaching in education systems that are cost-effective.

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, there has been little research in elementary science that has been conducted to inform and shape policy. This is not to say that the research being conducted is not valuable, and cannot be used to inform policy. Perhaps one way forward is to engage in research in partnership with policy-makers so there is a greater likelihood that research questions that they feel are valuable are addressed, and they are more likely to be aware of the research findings and recognise their validity.

In preparing this review, I noticed that much of the research was conducted in upper elementary science classes, that is, was situated in the middle school. The number of studies of grades 1 to 3 was relatively small in comparison, either because fewer studies are being conducted at these grade levels, or because they are being reported in early childhood journals that I missed. If there are fewer studies, this could be because elementary science researchers:

• have a greater interest in middle school science compared with science in the early grades;
• do not feel that they have expertise in the early grades;
• find it more difficult to collect reliable data in early grades, compared with middle school grades;
• have difficulty framing worthwhile questions for research into science in early grades; or
• do not consider science learning and teaching in early grades so important and worth studying.

There clearly needs to be more research into science in the early grades (Fleer, 2006), especially to explore aspects such as curriculum integration, theoretical frameworks for research, learning in the early grades, and pedagogy to enhance learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Valerie Akerson and Keith Skamp, who reviewed this chapter.

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: Making sense of children's understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 59–74.

Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of primary children's ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 363–385.

Akerson, V. L., & Young, T. A. (1998). Elementary science and language arts: Should we blur the boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 334–339.

Anderson, C. W., Holland, J. D., & Palincsar, A. S. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group. The Elementary School Journal, 7(4), 359–379.

Appleton, K. (1993). Using theory to guide practice: Teaching science from a constructivist perspective. School Science and Mathematics, 5, 269–274.

Appleton, K. (1995). Problem solving in science lessons: How students explore the problem space. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 383–393.

Appleton, K. (1997). Teaching science: Exploring the issues. Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University Press.

Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393–410.

Appleton, K. (2003, July). Pathways in professional development in primary science: Extending science PCK. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Melbourne, Australia.

Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE).

Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996). A case study of a teacher's progress toward using a constructivist view of learning to inform teaching in elementary science. Science Education, 80(5), 165–180.

Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1997). Beginning teachers’ practices in primary science in rural areas Research monograph. Rockhampton, Australia: Faculty of Education, Central Queensland University.

Australian Academy of Science. (1994). Primary investigations. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Bailey, S., & Watson, R. (1998). Establishing basic ecological understanding in younger pupils: A pilot evaluation of a strategy based on drama/role play. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 139–152.

Barman, C. (1997). The learning cycle revisited: A modification of an effective teaching model. Monograph 6. Washington, DC: Council for Elementary Science International.

Barnett, M., & Morran, J. (2002). Addressing children's alternative frameworks of the Moon's phases and eclipses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 859–879.

Baxter, G. P., Bass, K. M., & Glaser, R. (2001). Notebook writing in three fifth-grade science classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 123–140.

Beeth, M. (1998a). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82, 343–356.

Beeth, M. (1998b). Teaching science in fifth grade: Instructional goals that support conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1091–1101.

Beeth, M., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher's practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83, 738–760.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science education. Research report of the Learning in Science Project (Assessment). Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001a). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001b). Formative assessment and science education (Vol. 12). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730–745.

Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039–1065.

Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Challenges of standards-based reform: The example of California's science content standards and textbook adoption process. Science Education, 87, 378–389.

Biddulph, F., & Osborne, R. (1984). Making sense of our world: An interactive teaching approach. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.

Biemans, H. J. A., Deel, O. R., & Simons, P. R. (2001). Differences between successful and less successful students while working with the CONTACT–2 strategy. Learning and Instruction, 11, 265–282.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study [BSCS]. (1992). Science for life and living: Integrating science, technology, and health. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: King's College.

Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486–506.

Boddy, N., Watson, K., & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27–42.

Boulter, C., Prain, V., & Armitage, M. (1998). “What's going to happen in the eclipse tonight?”: Rethinking perspectives on primary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 487–500.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Children's observations, ideas, and the development of classroom theories about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 639–656.

Buchanan, A. M., Howard, C., Martin, E., Williams, L., Childress, R., Bedsole, B., et al. (2002). Integrating elementary physical education and science: A cooperative problem-solving approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(2), 31–36.

Butts, D. P., Hofman, H. M., & Anderson, M. (1993). Is hands-on experience enough? A study of young children's views of sinking and floating objects. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(1), 50–64.

Butts, D. P., Hofman, H. M., & Anderson, M. (1994). Is direct experience enough? A study of young children's views of sounds. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 6(1), 1–16.

Butts, D. P., Koballa, T., Anderson, M., & Butts, D. P. (1993). Relationship between teacher intentions and their classroom use of Superscience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 349–357.

Buxton, C. A., & Whatley, A. (2002, April). Authentic environmental inquiry model: An approach to integrating science and social studies in under-resourced urban elementary schools in southeastern Louisiana. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans (ERIC document reproduction services, ED464841).

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann.

Candela, A. (1997). Demonstrations and problem-solving exercises in school science: Their transformation within the Mexican elementary school classroom. Science Education, 81, 497–513.

Caravita, S. (2001). A re-framed conceptual change theory? Learning and Instruction, 11, 421–429.

Carter, G., & Jones, M. G. (1994). Relationship between ability-paired interactions and the development of fifth graders’ concepts of balance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 847–856.

Carter, G., Jones, G., & Rua, M. (2003). Effects of partner's ability on the achievement and conceptual organization of high-achieving fifth-grade students. Science Education, 87, 94–111.

Caswell, B., & Lamon, M. (1998, April). Development of scientific literacy: The evolution of ideas in a grade four knowledge-building classroom. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 269–287.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

Claxton, G. (1990). Teaching to learn: A direction for education. London: Cassell.

Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2002). Investigation of preservice elementary teachers’ thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016–1031.

Curriculum Corporation. (1994). A statement on science for Australian schools. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

diSessa, A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 155– 187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135–144.

Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1997). What children bring to the classroom: Learning science from experience. School Science and Mathematics, 97(5), 248–252.

Fellows, N. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985–1001.

Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging and changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101–130.

Fleer, M. (2006). “Meaning-making science”: Exploring the sociocultural dimensions of early childhood teacher education. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 107–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE).

Fleer, M., & Hardy, T. (2002). Science for children: Developing a personal approach to teaching (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Flick, L. B. (1995). Navigating a sea of ideas: Teacher and students negotiate a course toward mutual relevance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1065–1082.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Friedl, A. E. (1995). Teaching science to children: Integrated approach (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gabel, D. L. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.

Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.

Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139.

Gibson, J. (1998). Any questions any answers? Primary Science Review, 51, 20–21.

Gitomer, D. H., & Duschl, R. A. (1998). Emerging issues and practices in science assessment. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 791–810). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1129–1149.

Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53.

Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791–806.

Gray, B. V. (1999). Science education in the developing world: Issues and considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 261–268.

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.

Harlen, W. (1998). Teaching for understanding in pre-secondary science. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 183–198). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105.

Hayes, M. T., & Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85, 239–262.

Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383–396.

Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553.

Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 869–885.

Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32–41.

Hunt, J., & Appleton, K. (2003). Professional development in primary science: Teacher mentoring. In B. Knight & A. Harrison (Eds.), Research perspectives on education for the future (pp. 165–187). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed.

Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 259–268.

Iwasyk, M. (1997). Kids questioning kids: “Experts” sharing. Science and Children, 35(1), 42–46, 80.

Jane, B., & Jobling, W. M. (1995). Children linking science and technology in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 191–201.

Jarvis, T., Hargreaves, L., & Comber, C. (1997). An evaluation of the role of email in promoting science investigative skills in primary rural schools in England. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 223–236.

Johnson, S. L. (1999). Discovering the potential of gifted girls: The biological and physical science interests of gifted kindergarten girls. School Science and Mathematics, 99(6), 302–310.

Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L. W., Carter, G., Rua, M., Banilower, E., et al. (2000). Tool time: Gender and students’ use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 760–783.

Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (1994). Verbal and nonverbal behavior of ability-grouped dyads. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 603–619.

Jones, M. G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. (2000). Exploring the development of conceptual ecologies: Communities of concepts related to convection and heat. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 139–159.

Jones, M. G., & Edmunds, J. (2006). Models of elementary science instruction: Roles of science specialists. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 317–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE).

Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher's implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 859–877.

Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84, 624–657.

Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446.

Keys, C. (1998). A study of grade six pupils generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301–316.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89–110.

Koch, J. (2002). Science stories: A science methods book for elementary school teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kruger, C., & Summers, M. (2000). Developing primary school children's understanding of energy waste. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 5–21.

Kurth, L. A., Anderson, C. W., & Palincsar, A. S. (2002). The case of Carla: Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Education, 86, 287–313.

Lach, C., Little, E., & Nazzaro, D. (2003). From all sides now: Weaving technology and multiple intelligences into science and art. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(6), 32–35, 59.

Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis further. Science Education, 81, 277–294.

Lee, C. A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 37–55.

Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86, 1–22.

Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.

Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–122.

Martinez, K. (1994). Postcards from the edge. In K. Smith (Ed.), Knowledge and competence for beginning teachers (pp. 121–140). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Board of Teacher Registration.

Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305–329.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 72–85.

McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W. M. (1998). Assessing students’ understanding about levers: Better test instruments are not enough. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 813–832.

Meyer, K., & Woodruff, E. (1997). Concensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 80, 173–192.

Mistler, M. M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–479.

Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (1997). Stories of reflective teaching: A book of PEEL cases. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.

Moje, E. B., Collazo, C., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.

Morell, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 103(5), 246–251.

Nason, R., Lloyd, P., & Ginns, I. S. (1996). Format-free databases and the construction of knowledge in primary school science projects. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 353–373.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Resources Center. (2002). Science and technology for children. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.

Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 599–613.

Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 227–240.

Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring knowledge from an integrated science and social studies unit. The Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 303–341.

Nuthall, G. (2001). Understanding how classroom experience shapes students’ minds. Unterrichts Wissenschaft, 29(3), 224–267.

Nuthall, G., & Alton-Lee, A. (1995). Assessing classroom learning: How students use their knowledge and experience to answer classroom achievement test questions in science and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 185–223.

Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (1996). Primary science: Past and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 26, 99–147.

Owens, C. V. (2001). Teachers’ responses to science writing. Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry, 15(1), 22–35.

Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323–332.

Pang, J. S., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.

Parker, V. (2000). Effects of a science intervention program on middle-grade student achievement and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 100(5), 236–242.

Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 1–16.

Peacock, A., & Gates, S. (2000). Newly qualified primary teachers’ perceptions of the role of text material in teaching science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(2), 155–171.

Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89–110.

Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.

Piaget, J. (1978). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M. L., & Glaser, R. (1998). Why does it go up? The impact of the MARS curriculum as revealed through changes in student explanations of a helium balloon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547–567.

Ramos, E. (1999). Teaching science constructively: Examining teacher's issues when teaching science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED436391).

Rath, A., & Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry: A microanalysis of elementary students’ orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1083–1097.

Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32, 35–54.

Ritchie, S. M., & Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: A case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391–407.

Rollnick, M., Jones, B., Perold, H., & Bahr, M. A. (1998). Puppets and comics in primary science: The development and evaluation of a pilot multimedia package. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 533–550.

Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709–736.

Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.

Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19–56.

Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.

Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Achieving the reforms vision: The effectiveness of a specialists-led elementary science program. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 181–193.

Shepardson, D. P. (1996). Social interactions and the mediation of science learning in two small groups of first-graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 159–178.

Shepardson, D. P. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: First graders’ ways of seeing and talking about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 873–88.

Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children's journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43–69.

Shepardson, D. P., Moje, E. B., & Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children's understandings of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243–258.

Shimoda, T. A., White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2002). Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86, 244–263.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

Skamp, K. (1993). Research themes, styles, purposes and future directions. In D. Goodrum (Ed.), Science in the early years of schooling: An Australasian perspective (pp. 43–63). Perth, Western Australia: Key Centre for Teaching and Research in School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). A longitudinal study of the influences of primary and secondary school, university and practicum on student teachers’ images of effective primary science practice. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 227–245.

Sneider, C. I., & Ohadi, M. M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the earth's shape and gravity. Science Education, 82, 265–284.

Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918–940.

Stark, R., & Gray, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 633–643.

Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning—a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221–1246.

Stow, W. (1997). Concept mapping: A tool for self-assessment? Primary Science Review, 49, 12–15.

Suchman, J. (1966). Inquiry development program in physical science: Teacher's guide. Chicago: SRA.

Summers, M., Kruger, C., & Mant, J. (1998). Teaching electricity effectively in the primary school: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 153–172.

Tasker, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Facing the mismatches in the classroom. In R. Osborne & P. Frey-berg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children's science (pp. 66–80). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Thorley, N. R., & Woods, R. K. (1997). Case studies of students’ learning as action research on conceptual change teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 229–245.

Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421–431.

Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12-year-old pupils undertaking science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791–813.

Turner, S. A. (1997). Children's understanding of food and health in primary classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 491–508.

Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 901–927.

Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2000). Deconstructing learning in science—Young children's responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 339–355.

van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.

Varelas, M., Becker, J., Luster, B., & Wenzel, S. (2002). When genres meet: Inquiry into a sixth-grade urban science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 579–605.

Vaughan, M. N., Sumrall, J., & Rose, L. H. (1998). Preservice teachers use the newspaper to teach science and social studies literacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10(2), 1–9.

Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–83.

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

Warwick, P., Linfield, R. S., & Stephenson, P. (1999). A comparison of primary school pupils’ ability to express procedural understanding in science through speech and writing. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 823–838.

Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173–192.

Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1997). An in-depth study of a teacher engaged in an innovative primary science trial professional development project. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 51–69.

Watts, M., Barber, B., & Alsop, S. (1997). Children's questions in the classroom. Primary Science Review, 49, 6–8.

Weaver, G. C. (1996). Strategies in K–12 science instruction to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 82, 455–472.

Williams, M., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade Biology. Research in Science Education, 32, 415–436.

Woodbury, J. M. (1995, November). Methods and strategies of exemplary fifth grade teachers: Science as preferred and non-preferred subject. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.

Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and inter-group discourse: Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25–39.

Yanowitz, K. L. (2001). Using analogies to improve elementary school students’ inferential reasoning about scientific concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 101(3), 133–142.

Zubrowski, B. (2002). A curriculum framework based on archetypical phenomena and technologies. Science Education, 86, 481–501.