You are here:

“Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students' learning of energy-related science concepts
ARTICLE

Learning and Instruction Volume 60, Number 1, ISSN 0959-4752 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

A recent discussion on science teaching has been focusing on questions of whether it is necessary to withhold answers from learners until inquiry activities are completed and whether learners develop high-level science learning when they are physically involved in scientific investigations. To contribute to this topic, the present study examined the effects of withholding answers from learners coupled with involving them in physical manipulations on their learning of energy transfer in three domains, knowing, reasoning, and applying. The study compared students' learning outcomes in the hands-on inquiry condition that incorporated the two instructional elements, with learning in the explicit investigation condition that only involved learners in manipulations, and in direct instruction condition that excluded the two instructional elements. The results showed that the instructional conditions affected students' learning of energy transfer in knowing and reasoning, but not in applying. After controlling for students' prior knowledge, participants in the hands-on inquiry condition gained less class content and demonstrated a lower ability of reasoning than those in the direct instruction condition. Students did not differ in their ability to apply the learned content to real-life situations across conditions.

Citation

Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students' learning of energy-related science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60(1), 199-205. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

This record was imported from Learning and Instruction on March 15, 2019. Learning and Instruction is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.001

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), pp. 293-332.
  2. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), pp. 347-362.
  3. Debate (2007). Debate: Constructivism, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching: Success or failure?. The world of educational quality (program for the AERA 2007 annual meeting, pp. 218–219) Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  4. Geary, D.C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), pp. 179-195.
  5. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), pp. 922-939.
  6. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., & Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), pp. 99-107.
  7. Hsu, C.-Y., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015). When should guidance be presented during physics instruction?. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3(1), pp. 37-53.
  8. Crippen, K.J., & Earl, B.L. (2007). The impact of web-based worked examples and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 49(3), pp. 809-821.
  9. Kind, P.M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory - exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), pp. 2527-2558.
  10. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp. 75-86.
  11. Klahr, D., Fay, A.L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), pp. 111-146.
  12. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), pp. 661-667.
  13. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question?. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), pp. 109-113.
  14. Kyun, S., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2013). The effect of worked examples when learning to write essays in English literature. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), pp. 385-408.
  15. Lee, H.S., & Anderson, J.R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction got to do with it?. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, pp. 445-469.
  16. Likourezos, V., & Kalyuga, S. (2017). Instruction-first and problem-solving-first approaches: Alternative pathways to learning complex tasks. Instructional Science, 45(2), pp. 195-219.
  17. Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4).
  18. Matlen, B.J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children's acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing?. Instructional Science, 41(3), pp. 621-634.
  19. Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction - what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), pp. 474-496.
  20. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.
  21. National Research Council (2013). Next generation science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  22. Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., & Duncan, R.G. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), pp. 337-386.
  23. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 7(1), pp. 1-15.
  24. Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A.E., & Sweller, J. (2017). Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction, 52, pp. 69-79.
  25. Hilbert, T.S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: Self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), pp. 267-274.
  26. Schmidt, H.G., Loyens, S.M.M., Gog, T.V., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), pp. 91-97.
  27. Songer, N.B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), pp. 128-150.
  28. Songer, N.B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), pp. 490-516.
  29. Stull, A.T., & Mayer, R.E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), pp. 808-820.
  30. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), pp. 295-312.
  31. Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, pp. 165-169.
  32. Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?, pp. 127-143. New York, NY: Routledge.
  33. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), pp. 59-89.
  34. Sweller, J., Kirschner, P.A., & Clark, R.E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), pp. 115-121.
  35. Sweller, J., & Paas, F. (2017). Should self-regulated learning be integrated with cognitive load theory? A commentary. Learning and Instruction, 51, pp. 85-89.
  36. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T.M. (2009). The success or failure of constructivist instruction. The success or failure of constructivist instruction New York, NY: Routledge.
  37. Williams, M., & Linn, M.C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32, pp. 415-436.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References