promoting problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative inquiry science

This article was downloaded by: [71.183.193.242]On: 26 March 2014, At: 22:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Promoting problem-solving andreasoning during cooperative inquiryscienceRobyn M. Gillies a , Kim Nichols a & Gilbert Burgh ba School of Education , The University of Queensland , Brisbane,QLD, Australiab Faculty of Arts , The University of Queensland , Brisbane, QLD,AustraliaPublished online: 19 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Robyn M. Gillies , Kim Nichols & Gilbert Burgh (2011) Promoting problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative inquiry science, Teaching Education, 22:4, 427-443, DOI:10.1080/10476210.2011.610448

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.610448

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Promoting problem-solving and reasoning during cooperativeinquiry science

Robyn M. Gilliesa*, Kim Nicholsa and Gilbert Burghb

aSchool of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; bFaculty ofArts, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

(Received 11 December 2010; final version received 11 March 2011)

This paper reports on a study that was conducted on the effects of trainingstudents in specific strategic and meta-cognitive questioning strategies on thedevelopment of reasoning, problem-solving, and learning during cooperativeinquiry-based science activities. The study was conducted in 18 sixth gradeclassrooms and involved 35 groups of students in three conditions: the cognitivequestioning condition; the Philosophy for Children condition; and the compari-son condition. The students were videotaped as they worked on a specificinquiry-science task once each term for two consecutive school terms. Theresults show that the students in all conditions demonstrated more helping dis-courses or discourses known to mediate learning than any other of the discoursecategories. This outcome is encouraging because it is the helping discourseswhere students provide explanations, elaborations, and reasons that promote fol-low-up learning.

Keywords: teacher thinking; knowledge

Introduction

Teaching children to ask and answer questions is critically important if they are tolearn to discuss and reason effectively together, particularly during inquiry-based sci-ence activities where students are expected to work together on common problem-solving tasks. By interacting with others in reciprocal dialogues, children learn touse language differently and creatively to explain new experiences and new realities,and in so doing, construct new ways of thinking and learning (Mercer, 1996). Whenchildren engage cooperatively with others when they are required to justify orexplain their ideas, they are forced to cognitively re-examine and reorganise theirunderstanding, so that their explanations can be readily understood. In so doing, theyoften develop a better understanding of the problem than they had previously, andthis has a positive effect on their learning performance (Damon, 1984; Webb & Fari-var, 1999). Moreover, the open discussions that occur during cooperative learningprovide opportunities for students to model thinking and problem-solving strategies,which others often appropriate as their own (Gillies & Boyle, 2005; King, 1999).

Modelling how to ask and answer questions is particularly important becauseMeloth and Deering (1999) found that only 12–14% of statements that students

*Corresponding author. Email: r.gillies@uq.edu.au

Teaching EducationAquatic InsectsVol. 22, No. 4, December 2011, 427–443

ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online� 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.610448http://www.tandfonline.com

made during cooperative learning provided detailed explanations in response to theirpeers’ requests for information or assistance with a problem. This is a concernbecause the cognitive and metacognitive levels of the groups’ discussions are posi-tively correlated with students’ cognitive and metacognitive outcomes (Webb &Farivar, 1999). In effect, task-related talk about information, concepts, strategies,and thinking is very important to students’ learning, yet Meloth and Deering notedthat high-level explanatory behaviour only emerges with low frequency when left toemerge naturally or as a by-product of cooperative learning. Similarly, King (1999)observed that students generally do not elaborate on information, do not askthought-provoking questions, and do not spontaneously activate and use their rele-vant prior knowledge without some external guidance. For higher level thinking tooccur during group discussions, King (2002) argued that the interaction must bestructured so that students learn how to exchange ideas, explanations, justifications,speculations, inferences, hypotheses, conclusions, and other high-level discourseknown to promote peer learning.

Promoting student discourse

Two approaches to teaching students to engage in high-level discourse (i.e., engagein discussions where students make inferences, draw conclusions, synthesize ideas,generate hypotheses, evaluate alternatives, and monitor thinking) are the cognitivequestioning approach, known as Ask to Think-Tel Why (King, 1997), used to scaf-fold higher-level complex learning between children, and the Philosophy forChildren (Lipman, 1988) approach, centred on dialogue and collaborative activity toimprove children’s capacity to think critically and creatively and in a thoughtfuland caring manner.

In the Ask to Think-Tel Why approach, students are taught to generate andsequence specific strategic and metacognitive questions, designed to promote theircomprehension of the material studied, integrate that material, draw inferences fromit, and remember the knowledge generated. This model of dialoguing emphasisesthe importance of students engaging in reciprocal tutor–tutee roles, where the tutorbegins by asking a series of questions designed to prompt the tutee to think moredeeply and reflectively about an issue under discussion. In this sense, the tutor actsas a cognitive coach, who scaffolds the tutee’s thinking to progressively higherlevels, culminating in asking “thinking about thinking questions” (King, 1997,p. 229), or questions that promote metacognitive learning. Examples of the types ofquestions a tutor may ask include: “What does . . . mean?” (a comprehension ques-tion); “Explain how . . . and . . . are similar” (a question requiring students to con-nect information); “What do you think would happen if . . .” (a question requiringthe students to think about the implications of a particular event and integrate differ-ent sources of information to construct new understandings). Students practise thesequence of specific questions through structured, dyadic interactions with a peer.

In Philosophy for Children, emphasis is on engaging students in philosophicalcommunities of inquiry, where discussion is organised around students’ questions,which are prompted by reading a text or discussing an issue. Students explore theunderlying logic and structure of their own philosophical thinking to attain anunderstanding of the topic. They learn to ask questions that question truth, reality,knowledge, evidence, freedom, justice, and rights. Questions may also probe andinterrogate topics on the human condition, issues of social justice, the meaning of

428 R.M. Gillies et al.

life, and so on. In doing so, students develop their capacity to think reflectively byusing good reasoning abilities, exploring concepts productively, and thinking aboutthings in-depth in order to make their own reasoned judgments, based on evidence,and to develop the social and intellectual dispositions and capacities required foractive citizenship (Burgh, 2003; Cam, 2006). In the community of inquiry, studentswork together to generate and then answer their own questions about these philo-sophical issues, contained either in specific materials or a wide range of otherresources. Thinking in the community of inquiry is critical, creative, collaborative,and caring, and students engage with each other through cooperative dialogic inter-actions.

While King’s (1997) cognitive questioning approach (i.e., Ask to Think-TelWhy) and the Philosophy for Children approach (Lipman, 1988) both teach studentsto ask strategic and metacognitive questions which have demonstrated positiveeffects for either learning (e.g., Ask to Think-Tel Why approach) or reasoning (e.g.,Philosophy for Children approach; Garcia-Moriyon, Rebollo, & Colom, 2004), nei-ther has been compared to determine if one approach is more successful than theother in enhancing students’ explanatory behaviour, reasoning, problem-solving,and learning; key behavioural objectives of inquiry-based learning in science.

This study is built on earlier research by Gillies (2003) and Gillies and Ashman(1998), on the effects of cooperative learning on students’ behaviours, interactions,and achievements, and research by Cam (1995, 2006) and Burgh, Field, and Freakley(2006), on the application of philosophical inquiry in the classroom to enhance stu-dents’ thinking and reasoning. It did this by drawing together two lines of research toinvestigate the effects of training students in specific, strategic, and metacognitivequestioning approaches during inquiry-based science on students’ discourse, problem-solving, and learning, aspects of learning that had not been previously investigated.The specific purpose of the study was to determine whether training students to useeither the cognitive questioning approach (King, 1997) or the Philosophy for Childrenapproach (Lipman, 1988) to ask strategic and metacognitive questions contributed toenhanced explanatory responses, reasoning, problem-solving, and learning in studentsduring cooperative inquiry-based science.

Context for the study

The study was embedded in the context of inquiry-based science. Inquiry sciencedescribes the approach scientists within disciplines use to question the natural worldand to find solutions and develop better understandings (Hackling, 2008). Throughinquiry-based learning in science, inquiry skills are developed that include thecapacity to identify questions and concepts and use them effectively within theinquiry process, the awareness of the design and conduct of scientific investigations,the ability to formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logicand evidence, the capability to recognise and analyse alternative explanations andmodels, and the capacity to communicate and defend scientific arguments. In addi-tion to scientific skill development, inquiry learning also fosters attitudes andconceptual understandings that approach how science is carried out in the realworld. Through scientific inquiry and investigations, students realise that answers toproblems do not readily appear, nor can they be found via quick reference toauthority, but rather are solved through hard work and thinking (Trowbridge,Bybee, & Powell, 2004).

Teaching Education 429

Design of the study

Background to the study

The study involved 35 groups of sixth grade children in 18 classrooms from nineelementary schools, who worked on inquiry-based science activities in three differ-ent conditions: the cognitive questioning condition (King, 1997); the Philosophy forChildren condition (Lipman, 1988); and the regular class condition (comparisoncondition). (NB. All schools were located in a similar socio-demographic area in alarge metropolitan city.) Teachers from all three conditions participated in four pro-fessional development days, designed to provide them with background informationon the inquiry-science activities and the cooperative learning strategies they were toimplement.

The inquiry-science activities included two units of work where students hadopportunities to investigate living versus non-living things, and issues pertaining tothe use of genetically modified food. Each inquiry unit ran for 6–10 weeks andrequired the students to investigate topics, generate their own research questions,learn the foundational content of the unit under investigation, develop their ownworking theories, test out their ideas, evaluate their conceptions, search for new sci-entific information, and build new working theories or understandings in a continu-ous cycle of inquiry (Veermans, Lallimo, & Hakkaraienen, 2005). As part of theinquiry process, teachers were given examples of the types of questions they couldask to help children think about the phenomena under investigation, challenge theirunderstandings, and scaffold their learning, and, in so doing, help them to becomescientifically literate (Berger, 2002; Rennie, 2005). Hackling (2008) argues that sci-entific literacy is critically important because it helps citizens to be interested in andappreciate their world; to engage in discourses about science; to question and cri-tique scientific issues; to use evidence to inform decisions; and to make informedchoices about their own environment and personal situation.

The professional development days also provided teachers with the backgroundknowledge and skills required to embed cooperative learning in the inquiry-basedscience activities. This included information on the key elements of successfulcooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1990):

� positive interdependence, where students work together to contribute to thegroup’s goal;

� individual accountability, requiring students to accept personal responsibilityfor contributing to the group’s goal;

� interpersonal and small group skills needed to promote group cooperation andresolve conflict;

� promotive interaction, designed to promote each other’s productivity andachievement; and

� group processing, where students reflect together on the group’s progresstowards achieving its goal.

Cognitive questioning condition

Teachers in this group were given specific information on how to use the Ask toThink-Tel Why (King, 1997) approach to asking questions that help to scaffoldhigher level complex thinking. Students work in pairs or small groups to progres-sively ask more complex questions of their peers, with each response requiring a

more thought provoking response or explanation than the previous one. For exam-ple, students begin by asking basic review questions such as: “Tell me what youknow about . . .”, followed by thinking questions such as: “How are . . . alike andhow are they different”, until they ask more thought-provoking questions such as:“How is . . . related to . . . Explain your answer”. Teachers in this condition wereencouraged to discuss the different types of thinking questions students could ask,and to share them with the wider-class. The discussions that followed ofteninvolved teachers asking the wider-class what they thought of a specific questionthat one group shared: “Was it a thinking-question and if so why?”

Philosophy for Children condition

Teachers in this condition were provided with specific information on how to estab-lish communities of inquiry in their classroom in order to enable children to dialoguetogether, share and build on each other’s ideas, consider others’ perspectives andopinions, and explore disagreements in the context of collaborative and caring com-munities of inquiry. Both teachers and students were encouraged to use questions toprompt discussions and explore ideas, including questions that sought clarification,probed assumptions, sought reasons and evidence, and probed implication and con-sequences, until, finally, they asked questions about the question or questions thatencouraged metacognitive thinking; for example, “Have we asked the right question?What type of knowledge is that? What do we still need to consider?”

Comparison condition

While the teachers in this condition had participated in the professional developmentdays, during which they were introduced to the same inquiry-science activities andthe cooperative learning strategies they were asked to implement, they did not receivetraining in either the cognitive question approach (King, 1997) or the Philosophy forChildren approach (Lipman, 1988) to asking strategic and metacognitive questions.However, they were provided with the information on Collaborative Strategic Read-ing (CSR) (Vaughn, Klingner, & Bryant, 2001), which is a structured dialoguingapproach to helping low-achieving children improve their comprehension of text.

Measures

Students’ discourse

Students were videotaped as they worked in their small groups on the inquiry-basedscience activities. An observation schedule, based on one adapted from Gillies andKhan (2008), was used to code the students’ discourse. Four categories of studentdiscourse were identified as typical of the types of discourse students demonstrateduring cooperative small-group activities: interactive discourse (i.e., directs others,validates another student’s response, acknowledges others’ efforts, engages in sus-tained interactions with another student, and interrupts another student either posi-tively or negatively); helping discourse (i.e., gives prompted and unpromptedexplanations or detailed help, elaborations, makes a statement on the topic to provideclarity); questioning (i.e., asks questions to stimulate, clarify, or recall discussion, orpromote thinking); and problem-solving discourse (i.e., suggests how to solve a

problem, suggests ideas, experiment to explore a concept, or provide an analogy toamplify a concept). Discourse categories were coded for frequency and relevance tothe inquiry science units across the recorded group sessions. That is, the focus wasnot only on coding children’s scientific explanations but also on coding their concep-tual and procedural understanding, which Gott and Duggan (2002) refer to as con-cepts of evidence.

Reasoning and problem-solving task

At the completion of each inquiry-science unit, students were asked to respond indi-vidually to a reasoning and problem-solving task that was designed to assess theextent to which they were able to make connections and build understandingsbetween what they had discussed and a novel inquiry-based problem. Criteria forassessing this task were based on Anderson et al. (2001) revised taxonomy of educa-tional objectives, which illustrates the relationship between complex kinds of knowl-edge and cognitive processes, and King’s (1997) approach to asking higher-levelcomplex thinking questions. (NB. The revised taxonomy in Anderson et al. is a two-dimensional framework that includes a knowledge dimension [factual, conceptual,procedural, and metacognitive], and a cognitive processes dimension [remembering,understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating]. The advantage of thistaxonomy is that it provides a visual representation of students’ performances on spe-cific curriculum problems, enabling teachers to identify how to improve instruction.)

Students’ responses to these reasoning and problem-solving tasks were evaluatedon the basis of the highest level knowledge response they were able to generateand the processes demonstrated (Krathwohl, 2002). For example, on the compareand contrast question, students received a score of one if they were able to giveexamples of the specific information sought, while questions that required studentsto coalesce their knowledge and understanding and think metacognitively about atopic received a score of five. This type of assessment is authentic, as it is based onthe work the children have been studying; enabling teachers to see how theyrespond to the intellectual challenge posed and identify the level of support neededby specific students to respond to the task (Gillies, 2009). As a formative assess-ment tool it provides teachers with detailed and rich information on students’performances without formal testing (Herrington & Oliver, 2000).

Procedure

Two groups of children from each classroom were videotaped once each term (i.e.,10-week terms) for a full hour while they worked on an inquiry-based science activ-ity in their classrooms. The children were instructed to work together as a groupand use each other as a resource before they approached the teacher for assistance.

Results

The results of this study are presented in two parts. In the first part, we present theresults of the analysis of the students’ discourse at Time One (during the firstinquiry-science unit on living and non-living things) and at Time Two (during thesecond inquiry-science unit on genetically modified food). Data on the children’sdiscourse were collected as they worked cooperatively in their small groups on

specific inquiry-based, problem-solving tasks. The analyses of these data focused onidentifying the frequency of different discourse categories for the children in thethree conditions at Time One and Time Two. A follow-up vignette of the discourserecorded by one of the student groups is presented, as a way of illustrating thetypes of discourse the children used as they worked on their problem-solving task.In the second part, we present the results of the students’ responses to the reasoningand problem solving tasks. These results are followed by examples of the responsesgenerated individually by two children.

Student discourse

In order to determine if there were differences in the discourse categories betweenthe conditions at Time One, four Kruskall Wallis Tests were conducted on the fre-quency of recorded discourse categories for the children in the different conditions.The purpose of this type of statistical analyses was to see if the students in differentconditions used different discourse strategies more frequently than students in otherconditions. Given previous research that has shown that students’ discourse can beenhanced when they are taught to use different approaches to dialoguing togetherand asking questions, we thought it was reasonable to see if there were differencesbetween the conditions in the different categories of discourse (i.e., interactive,helping, questioning, and problem-solving) that the students used.

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the condi-tions in questioning behaviour, X 2 (2, N = 35) = 8.88, p= 0.01, but not in the otherdiscourse categories. Follow-up Mann-Whitney U Tests revealed there were signifi-cant differences in questioning behaviour (i.e., more frequent use of questions)between the cognitive questioning condition (Md= 14, n = 10) and the Philosophyfor Children condition (Md= 4.50, n = 12), U = 17.00, z =�2.85, p = 0.004, and thecognitive questioning condition (Md= 14, n = 10) and the comparison condition(Md= 8.00, n = 13), U = 32.50, z =�2.03, p = 0.04, but not between the Philosophyfor Children Condition (Md= 4.50, n = 12) and the comparison condition(Md= 8.00, n = 13), U = 56.50, z =�1.17, p = 0.24. In order to determine if therewere differences in the frequency of recorded discourse categories between the con-ditions at Time Two, four Kruskall Wallis Tests were conducted, and the resultsshowed that there was a significant difference between the conditions in helpingbehaviour, X 2 (2, N = 35) = 6.42, p= 0.04, but not in the other discourse categories.Follow-up Mann-Whitney U Tests revealed that there were significant differences inhelping behaviour between the cognitive questioning condition (Md= 28, n = 10)and the Philosophy for Children condition (Md= 0.00, n = 12), U = 22.50, z =�2.56,p = 0.01, but not for the cognitive questioning condition (Md= 28, n = 10) and thecomparison condition (Md= 31.00, n = 13), U = 60.50, z =�0.31, p = 0.75, and thePhilosophy for Children Condition (Md= 0.00, n = 12) and the comparison condi-tion (Md= 31.00, n = 13), U = 46.00, z =�1.84, p = 0.06. In both instances the chil-dren in the Philosophy for Children condition asked fewer questions at Time Oneand provided less help to their peers at Time Two than children in the other condi-tions. These results are interesting, but probably reflect the nature of the training thechildren received in the Philosophy for Children condition, where they were taughtto discuss issues, share ideas, consider others’ points of view and opinions, andexplore disagreements in a collaborative and caring community. In this respect, thechildren at Time One may have been more inclined to build group harmony rather

than focus on interrogating issues where potential conflict could occur; however byTime Two there was no significant differences in asking questions between the con-ditions, X 2 (2, N = 35) = 2.08, p= 0.35, indicating that the children had settled intotheir “community” and were willing to ask questions and to deal with potential con-flict in a constructive way. This acceptance of the community and their willingnessto ask questions to provide insight into dilemmas or resolve issues may also help toexplain why they did not provide as much help to their peers as children in theother conditions at Time Two. The Philosophy for Children condition placed a greatdeal of emphasis on asking questions that sought and explored disagreements todevelop understandings in a caring community of inquiries, rather than provide helpto their peers to solve problems they were confronting.

This is not to say that the children did not provide help; they did, as is shownby the percentage of students’ discourse categories that were recorded for the threeconditions in Table 1. In fact, providing help ranged from 36% to 56% of the totaldiscourse recorded, and represented the greatest percentage of the total discourserecorded. Providing help during small group work is critically important becauseWebb (1992) and Webb and colleagues (Webb & Farivar, 1999; Webb & Master-george, 2003) have clearly shown that it is the explanations or elaborative help thatstudents provide to each other that positively mediates the learning that occurs.

Vignette of student discourse

In order to elucidate the types of help students gave during their group discussions,a vignette is provided of the discourse one group in the cognitive questioning con-dition used as they discussed the difference between living and non-living things; inthis case, whether a car is a living thing. The vignette presented is typical of thediscourse used by a number of the groups as they discussed this topic.

The activity represents the culmination of a number of lessons that involved thechildren in learning how living things move, respirate, respond to stimuli, repro-duce, and grow. In this vignette, the children are engaged in a discussion onwhether a “car” is a living or non-living thing, and the types of arguments that mayneed to be advanced in a court to satisfy a prosecution on its status. The followingcaptures a few minutes of the students’ interaction, after they had been working onthis activity for about 10 minutes:

(1) S4. Do we have anything for cells or DNA?(2) S2. It’s because it (the car) doesn’t have a heart. [reason](3) S1. It’s got no blood so it can’t have any cells. [reason](4) S2. It’s got an engine, that’s why. [reason](5) S5. So no heart . . . you could write(6) S1. No heart or lungs. I guess we could put heart under this one but the

lungs and internal organs . . .(7) S4. But what’s the heart got to do with that? [challenge](8) S2. You need a heart(9) S1. Yeah. Basically the heart’s pumping the cells(10) S4. Yes. But we’re talking about it having no cells or DNA [justification](11) S1. Yes. So if it doesn’t have a heart, it must have no cells. [reason](12) S3. Yes. But wait, wait, wait. You know how those new cars that obtain

energy from the sun. What about that? [challenge]

1.Percentageof

students’discoursecategories

forthethreeconditionsat

andTim

Conditio

Cognitiv

equestio

condition

Philosophyfor

Children

condition

parison

condition

Cognitiv

equestio

condition

Philosophyfor

Childrencondition

parison

condition

13Variables

Interact

Questions

Problem

-solve

mberof

(13) S5. Well, we’re just talking about a normal car.(14) S3. Oh. Ok.(15) S1. So this has no heart.(16) S5. No heart or blood to pump the cells.

It is evident from the vignette above that despite the discussion including someirrelevant points from a scientific standpoint, the children are busy trying to identifysome reasons why the car is a living or non-living thing. Turns 2, 3 4, 10 and 11are examples of the reasons they provide, while Turns 7 and 10 challenge the groupto consider different information. It is interesting to note that approximately 30% ofthe total interaction is represented by explanations (reasons, justifications, and chal-lenges), typically exhibited by groups that are actively involved in productive dis-cussions (Gillies & Kahn, 2008; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003).

The vignette below represents the final few minutes of the group’s discussion,where the children are reviewing if they have any additional information that theywish to include on whether a car is a living or non-living thing. The vignette beginswith Student 4 asking the group members if they have anything else that they wantto add:

(1) S4. So anything else to add?(2) S1. What about . . . ?(3) S4. . . . but on this sheet we have . . . it says . . .(4) S3. It doesn’t respond to stimuli. [reason](5) S2. Yeah but . . .(6) S4. Oh, yeah.(7) S5. One could be . . . because the prosecutor . . .(8) S3. I guess they’re both against each other so . . . there are different reasons

why . . .(9) S4. Do we have anything else? Just one more?(10) S1. They make noises. It says, ‘They would make honking noises’. [reason](11) S4. What’s that got to do with anything? [challenge](12) S1. They make noises like a human so [the Martian prosecuting the case]

probably thinks [the car is] real – because they make noises. [reason](13) S5. That would probably go under stimuli.(14) S4. Yes, stimuli.(15) S1. Well done.(16) S3. Has anyone any more ideas?(17) S4. One more idea?(18) S1. He might think he has DNA because of the liquid substance. [reason](19) S4. What about it obtains energy? We’re saying that it’s alive. [reason](20) S1. Wouldn’t that come under nutrition? [challenge]

Again, although there is one scientifically inaccurate inference that a thing thatcontains liquid would have DNA, approximately 30% of the total interactioninvolves explanation giving (Turns 4, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20), and indicates thecommitment the group members had to the task they were trying to complete.Again, all members participate in the discussion, which indicates that the groupmembers are working cooperatively together, listening to what others have to say,acknowledging other’s efforts (Turn 15), and challenging different ideas (Turns 11)

in a constructive way (Turn 20). These are behaviours that are demonstrated by suc-cessful cooperative groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1990) and are important if learningis to occur (Gillies & Ashman, 1996, 1998).

Reasoning and problem-solving (R-PS)

In order to determine if there were differences between the students’ responses inthe three conditions to the reasoning and problem-solving task, a multi-level regres-sion model analysis was undertaken. This was necessary because students werenested in classes in schools, and so this type of analysis enabled us to test theeffects of the students’ reasoning and problem-solving scores at Time Two, usingthe Time One scores as the independent variable in the model, while allowing fordifferences across schools. On examining the effect of the intervention on studentsRP-S scores, we found there were significant differences between students’responses in the cognitive questioning condition and the Philosophy for Childrencondition (p < 0.001) and between the cognitive questioning condition and the com-parison condition (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference between thePhilosophy for Children condition and the comparison condition (z =�3.91,p < 0.001). The effect of the intervention was lower for the Philosophy for Childrenwhen compared to the cognitive questioning condition, and lower for the compari-son condition when compared to the Philosophy for Children condition. In short,the children in the Philosophy for Children condition and the comparison conditionobtained scores that were 0.45 and 1.23 lower than their peers in the cognitivequestioning condition on a five-point marking scale, representing the five levels onthe revised taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson et al., 2001).

Examples of student responses to the reasoning and problem-solving tasks

In order to illustrate the types of responses students generated with this task, thefollowing example is provided of one student’s responses in the cognitive question-ing condition to the living and non-living reasoning and problem-solving task (NB.student responses are in italics):

(1) Give three examples of each

Living Non-Living Dead

Tree Fire LogDog Ruler CorpseHuman Car Feather

(2) What characteristics can living and non-living things share? Think of at leastthree, but more if you can.

Living Non-Living Shared Characteristics

e.g, Human e.g., Robot They both move (locomotion)Tree Car They both have an energy source, car –

petrol, tree – nutrition from the ground

(continued)

Butterfly Ice Both reproduce in a way. Butterflies layeggs that turn into caterpillars. Ice meltsinto water that evaporates into a cloudwhich brings water from rain

Fish Fire Both breathe. Fish breathe the oxygen inthe water through gills. Fire needs air tobreathe otherwise it goes out.

(3) Make an important statement about the relationship between living and dead.Give an example.

Something that is dead was once living for example, a feather was once attached to abird. It had a bloodstream but when it fell off the bird it lost the blood therefore it isdead.

(4) A new species is discovered. What questions would you ask to determinewhether this species is living, non-living or dead?

Is it sexual or asexual and does it reproduce at all?Does it excrete?Has it got homeostasis (an organised system)?Has it got phototaxis?Does it have an energy supply?Does it respire (breathe)?

As can be seen from the above questions, the student clearly demonstrated thatshe was able to compare and contrast different types of living, non-living and deadthings (recall and comprehend differences – question 1); connect information andidentify commonalities (question 2); apply known information to a specific situation(question 3); and connect information and generate questions to seek new informa-tion (question 4). As the student had demonstrated that she had met the highestlevel of thinking on Anderson et al.’s (2001) revised taxonomy of educationalobjectives, she obtained a score of 5 for this task.

The second reasoning and problem-solving task was based on the genetically mod-ified foods unit of work. The following is an example of a student’s response in thecognitive questioning condition to this task (again, student responses are in italics):

(1) How would you define biotechnology? Provide some examples to illustrate.

Definition: Biotechnology is a form of science which you modified something.Examples: cloning, stem cell research

(2) Explain genetic modification. Provide some examples to make your explanationclearer.

Genetic modification is when you change something to make it better by changing thegene.Examples: bananas to have vitamins in them; strawberries to make them frost resis-tant; make plants drought resistant

(3) Your job is to create a frost-resistant tomato. The tomato needs a gene thatmakes it resistant to frost damage and this gene can be found in bacteria that livein sub-zero temperatures. Use the diagram outline to record how you would do it.Use some of these words to help you: DNA electrophoresis, cut gene out, extractDNA, molecular scissors, gene gum, separate DNA, new gene, make copies.

Step 1: Select the gene you want to changeStep 2: Have to do a DNA extractionStep 3: To cut out the DNA using molecular scissorsStep 4: Making copies of itStep 5: Check if it is the right gene using a gel-electrophoresisStep 6: We shoot the frost resistant gene into the tomato using a gene gunStep 7: You see if it has worked by using a gel

(4) You are part of a group of concerned citizens interested in checking on govern-ment funding to develop a GM crop of wheat that is pest and weed resistant, fastgrowing, and produces more grain than the non-GM crop. You have come to aforum where a group of scientists are ready to answer your questions. Think ofsome questions to ask them to clarify your understanding of the pluses and minusesof growing the crop. Hint: Think of the social, environmental and health issues.

What would happen to the organic wheat farm if they get contaminated?Is there any health risks for the wheat?Will this stop people from buying organic wheat?Will people buy this wheat?

(5) Write your recommendation to the government relating to the use of this tech-nology.

GM wheat should be grown because it can make them grow faster and theyspend less time.GM wheat should be grown because you can make them pest resistant.GM wheat should be grown because you can make them drought resistant sothey will survive in a drought.GM wheat should be grown because we can increase the economy’s money.GM wheat should be grown because you can make them frost resistant so theywon’t die.

This student also demonstrated that he was able to develop satisfactory responsesto all five questions, culminating in the last question, which required him to connectinformation that he had been learning about and use it to construct new knowledgeor generate questions to seek more information (i.e., the above questions).

Discussion

The present study sought to investigate whether training students to use either thecognitive questioning approach (King, 1997) or the Philosophy for Children(Lipman, 1988) approach to asking strategic and metacognitive questions contrib-uted to enhanced explanatory responses, reasoning, problem-solving, and learning

in students during cooperative inquiry-based science. The study was conductedacross two school terms and required teachers to implement two units of inquiry-science, where students investigated living versus non-living things and the use ofgenetically modified food. Each inquiry unit ran for 6–10 weeks and students werevideotaped once during each term as they worked on an inquiry-based science task.

The results showed that a greater percentage of the discourse of the children inall conditions involved helping discourses such as providing prompted andunprompted explanations or detailed help, elaborations, or making a statement onthe topic to provide clarity and assist understanding; discourses that promotelearning. While there was a significant difference between the Philosophy for Chil-dren condition in questioning at Time One, this was not evident at Time Two,although there was a significant difference in helping at Time Two for this condi-tion. However, this difference was probably indicative of the emphasis on question-ing and interrogating information, rather than providing help, that was the focus ofthe Philosophy for Children approach, an approach that has been found to promotereasoning and problem-solving (Garcia-Moriyon et al., 2004).

As all the children in the three conditions had been taught how to cooperate andwork together as a group, this may, in part, have contributed to the way the groupsoperated by listening to what others say, asking questions to clarify misunderstand-ings, and promoting opportunities for group members to learn (Gillies, 2006;Johnson & Johnson, 2003). These dispositions, coupled with the inquiry-basedscience units that the children participated in, where they were taught to look at theinformation presented and ask How, What, Where, When, and Why questions tohelp sequence their thoughts, and then present arguments for and against issues,undoubtedly sensitized the children to the need to use each other as a resource todevelop and consolidate their ideas. Mercer and Sams (2006) and Mercer, Dawes,Wegerif, and Sams (2004) found that children can be taught to talk and reasontogether during inquiry-science through the use of specific guidelines, designed toencourage children to share information, respect the opinions of others, challengeideas and explanations, and seek group consensus before arriving at a decision; dis-courses that Osborne (2007) argues are central to teaching and learning science.

Key goals in learning science are to know how to use and interpret scientificexplanations, generate and evaluate scientific information, and participate produc-tively in scientific practices and discourse (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse,2007). In the study reported in this paper, the children were introduced to scientificinquiry through the use of narratives as a way of making science meaningful, rele-vant, and accessible (Avraamidou & Osborne, 2009; Rennie, 2005). The children’sdiscussions on the topic of living and non-living things galvanised their interest, asevident from the discourse they used in the vignette, described above, and the levelof engagement they maintained with the task.

Given that the children in all conditions demonstrated more helping discourses,such as providing explanations, reasons, and elaborations, it was somewhat surpris-ing that the children in the cognitive questioning condition obtained higher reason-ing and problem-solving scores than their peers in the Philosophy for Childrencondition, who, in turn, obtained higher scores than the children in the comparisoncondition. This difference may, in part, be explained by the emphasis in thePhilosophy for Children approach on encouraging children to ask questions andinterrogate issues rather than provide help. In contrast, the children in the compari-son condition, while aware of the importance of asking questions and seeking

explanations, did not have the additive benefit of being made aware of the impor-tance of asking questions that the children in the cognitive questioning conditionand the Philosophy for Children condition had. Consequently, they may not have asreadily transferred these skills to the follow-up reasoning and problem-solving tasks,thus accounting for their lower scores.

Limitation

One of the limitations of this study was that the children were only videotaped onceeach term for two terms as they worked on specific inquiry-based science activities,and changes over time were not able to be documented. More frequent videotapingof the students as they work in their groups may provide a richer data set, allowingresearchers to monitor changes to students’ discourse and learning.

Summary and conclusion

This paper reports on a study that was conducted by the authors on the effects oftraining students in specific strategic and metacognitive questioning strategies onthe development of reasoning, problem-solving, and learning during cooperativeinquiry-based science activities. The results show that the children in all conditionsdemonstrated more helping discourses or discourses known to mediate learning thanany other discourse. This outcome is encouraging, because it is the helping dis-courses where students provide explanations, elaborations, and reasons that promotefollow-up learning.

Implications for science teaching

The study has implications for science teaching because it highlights the importanceof teaching students how to dialogue together so they learn to challenge eachother’s understandings, justify and explain their ideas, develop alternative proposi-tions, and construct new knowledge (Gillies & Kahn, 2008; Mercer et al., 2004). Italso highlights the importance of providing students with the linguistic tools toenable this to happen. In this study, these tools included the Ask to Think-Tel Whyapproach to scaffolding higher-level complex learning (King, 1997), the Philosophyfor Children approach (Lipman, 1988), where students engage in dialogic interac-tions to inquire into, critique, and create new understandings, and the CollaborativeStrategic Reading approach (Vaughn et al., 2001) to assist students to obtain thehelp and assistance they need. Furthermore, these tools, coupled with learning howto ask How, What, Where, When, and Why questions during their inquiry scienceactivities, undoubtedly helped to make students aware of the importance of engag-ing in reciprocal helping discourses, known to promote learning.

References

Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruickshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., . . ., &Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision ofBloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science.International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1683–1707.

Berger, D. (2002). What is “scientific literacy”? Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 82, 6–7.Burgh, G. (2003). Democratic education: Aligning curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and

school governance. In P. Cam (Ed.), Philosophy, democracy and education (pp. 102–120).Seoul: Korean National Commission for UNESCO.

Burgh, G., Field, T., & Freakley, M. (2006). Ethics and the community of inquiry: Educationfor deliberative democracy. Melbourne: Thomson Social Science Press.

Cam, P. (1995). Thinking together: Philosophical inquiry for the classroom. Sydney: Hale &Iremonger.

Cam, P. (2006). 20 thinking tools: Collaborative inquiry for the classroom. Camberwell:ACER.

Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmen-tal Psychology, 5, 331–343.

Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, A., & Shouse, A.W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learn-ing and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

Garcia-Moriyon, F., Rebollo, I., & Colom, R. (2004). Evaluating philosophy for children: Ameta-analysis. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17, 14–22.

Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school stu-dents during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137–147.

Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.

Gillies, R. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: Strategies that promote learning. Rotterdam:Sense.

Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school childrenin classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.

Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperativegroups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,746–757.

Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2005). Teachers’ scaffolding behaviours during cooperative learn-ing. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 243–259.

Gillies, R., & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse, prob-lem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educa-tional Research, 47, 323–340.

Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2002). Problems with the assessment of performance in practicalscience: Which way now? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 183–201.

Hackling, M. (2008). An overview of primary connections: Stage 3 research outcomes2006–2008. Canberra: Australian Academy of Sciences.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learningenvironments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48, 23–48.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23–37). New York, NY: Praeger.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social interde-pendence theory. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative learning: The social andintellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136–176). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffoldinghigher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32, 221–235.

King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King(Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing.Theory into Practice, 41, 33–40.

Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,41, 212–218.

Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Meloth, M., & Deering, P. (1999). The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing

during collaborative learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectiveson peer learning (pp. 235–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom.Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways ofhelping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal,30, 359–377.

Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve mathsproblems. Language and Education, 20, 507–528.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development ofreasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.

Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathe-matics, Science & Technology, 3, 173–184.

Rennie, L. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51, 10–14.Trowbridge, L.W., Bybee, R.W., & Powell, J.C. (2004). Inquiry and conceptual change. In

R. Bybee, J. Powell, & L. Trowbridge (Eds.), Teaching secondary school science: Strate-gies for developing scientific literacy (pp. 150–155). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonEducation.

Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., & Bryant, D. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means toenhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning.Remedial and Special Education, 22, 66–74.

Veermans, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkaraienen, K. (2005). Patterns of guidance in inquiry learn-ing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 179–194.

Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in smallgroups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups(pp. 102–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle schoolmathematics. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learn-ing (pp. 117–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Webb, N., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping in peer-directed groups.International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.

promoting problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative inquiry science

Documents

studio physics i activity book - mypages.unh.edu...reasoning...

teacher led inquiry into fostering reasoning and motivation

formal models of scientiﬁc inquiry - ruhr university...

family & consumer sciences - · pdf file2.6 explains how...

default and cooperative reasoning in multi-agent systems...

psychometric test pdf 2019/20 | free questions & answers ·...

sample - region 4 education service center scientific...

on types of scientiﬁc inquiry: the role of qualitative...

assessing namibian students’ abilities in scientific...

adaptive reasoning for cooperative agents luís moniz...

combining plan recognition, goal reasoning, and...

a quantitative reasoning approach to algebra using inquiry

wall township school district science program evaluation...

epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a …part 1...

final report of the task force on general education...

psychometric test pdf 2019/20 | free questions & answers ·...

pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference · content,...

reasoning - adimen...

the nuts and bolts of an inquiry based cooperative learning...

recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientiﬁc...