Implementing Nongraded Advancement withLaboratory Activities as a Vehicle�

An Experiment in Elementary School Science

Roger Cunningham*School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomin^ton, Ind. 47401

In the past two decades changes have occurred that demand newmethods in the teaching of elementary school science. Methods areneeded that make the learning of science a more meaningful anddynamic experience for each child. Science teaching can no longerbe centered around a textbook and memorization of facts; it mustoffer a systematic mastery of the "processes of inquiryn for studentsof all ages.

Meaningful learning becomes a reality only when the individualchild can progress through a planned sequence of understandings; asequence that allows the child to advance through a series of levelsof understandings where the understandings to be developed dependon those that have come before. So often this has been the claim ofcourses of study, but usually they are nothing more than a set ofarbitrary arrangements of topics that could just as well have beenordered in any sequence.

It is common practice in today’s elementary and junior high schoolsto classify the children by grade. A year of work in certain textbooksand courses of study are seen to be roughly comparable to the yearof a child^ life. However, children don’t have automatic learning ap-paratus regulated to complete a certain amount of work in a yearnstime. Children as individuals vary as to the rate at which they canadvance. Individuals, too, logically vary in their abilities and achieve-ments in certain areas of study. ^The problem of graded versus non-graded is the conflict between long established graded structure onone hand and increasing awareness of variation in children^ abilitiesand attainments on the other. Our graded structure and parent-teacher-pupil expectations are long established; they represent acertain antique respectability. Our insight into individual differencesas a phenomenon to be accounted for is not generally shared, how-ever. The problem of effectively relating individual differences andschool structure is of such formidable dimensions that a simple ex-position of our dilemma will not dispel it. First, we must see thestartling realities of individual differences within a single child andamong pupils of a given grade level. Second, we must understand theincompatibility between school grades as applied to ordering pupilprogress and these realities of pupil individuality. Next, we must

* Formerly, Science Consultant, Fairview Schools, Skokie, Illinois.

175

176 School Science and Mathematics

gain insight into the ill effects of certain concomitants of the gradedstructure as, for example, non-promotion practice. Then we mustpropose an alternative structure and its concomitants.^1

Since the Fall of 1963, Fairview School District #72 has been or-ganized for instruction under Dr. George Stoddard^s ^Dual ProgressPlan57.2 This plan offers a semi-departmentalized organizationwhereby students are grouped on a heterogeneous, graded basis forthe language arts and social studies, and on a nongraded, homoge-neous basis for science and mathematics. Science is assigned as anongraded subject since it is felt that the self-contained classroom nolonger meets the need of science instruction.To provide a scheme for nongraded advancement in science our

first step has been to remove grade-level demands and limitations byestablishing a sequence of levels through which each child, regardlessof his ability, advances on the basis of his mastery of a set of processor inquiry skills. These skills serve as a basis for the curriculum andare developed through laboratory activities and projects.To provide for nongraded advancement, a basic framework is

needed. Of course, this serves only as a basis for removing grade levelidentifications and restrictions. The essence of the nongraded schemelies in the sequence of laboratory activities as they are organized andused in the classroom situation. Important to the sequential develop-ment is the effectiveness of the classroom teachers use of the labora-tory activity as a vehicle. The following organization is used to fa-cilitate greater flexibility than would be possible in the lock-stepprogram of a graded organization.

ORGANIZATION FOR NONGRADED INSTRUCTION

Level of Curricular Rapid Average SlowAdvancement Phase Learner Learner Learner

Mastery Level I Year 1Year 1

Sequence I Year 1 Year 2General Year 2 Year 3

Sequence II Year 2 Year 3 Year 4Science

Sequence III Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Mastery Level II LifeScience Year 4 Year 5

Mastery Level III Earth Year 5Science

1 Goodlad, John, and Anderson, Robert H. The Non-Graded Elementary School^ Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.New York, New York.

2 The plan was conceived by George D. Stoddard, Chancellor, New York University, New York, New York.The program is being directed by Glen Heathers, Coordinator, Dual Progress Plan, School of Education, NewYork University, New York, New York.

Elementary Science Laboratory Activities 177

The importance of utilizing process skills and behavioral goals inscience teaching, rather than just vague factual concepts, has beenstressed repeatedly by numerous science educators.The Process Skills, determined by the staff, are :

I. The ability of the student to make Space-Time RelationshipsA. To make careful observations in space, and with objects according to

shape, angle, and distance.B. To visualize happenings in space. (For example, to be able to visualize

an atom on a two dimensional drawing.)II. Observation

A. The student should know that things can be observed in many differentways and be able to use as many senses as possible in their observance.

B. To observe such qualities as color, shape, size, temperatures, andhardness.

III. ClassificationA. To see that many things and ideas in science are classified.B. The classification of objects is based on properties directly observed.C. To recognize similarities and differences among specimens necessary to the

classification scheme.D. Perceive that although all classification systems are arbitrary, classifying

the same set of objects may depend on the function served.IV. Measurement

A. To make comparative and descriptive measurements.B. To describe objects and events in terms of standard units of measurements.C. To describe a change with two related measurements.

V. HypothesizingA. The ability of the student to make hypothesis concerning observed

phenomena.VI. Construction of an Experiment

A. To utilize the hypothesis he has and observations to construct an experi-ment.

B. To organize ideas and material in a logical sequence.C. To accept experimental failure as part of the experimental process and

learn to use these failures to gain more knowledge.VII. Prediction

A. The ability of the student to predict results of an activity or experimenton the basis of previous experience.

VIII. CommunicationA. We feel that oral, written, and pictorial communication should be done

accurately, completely and concisely.

In our curriculum, the factual knowledge sequences corresponddirectly to the process skills. The factual concepts, in order to take onmore meaning, have been written in terms of process skills.To place students properly and to allow for their advancement

along the sequence, they must be grouped. Grouping involves twosteps. Based on estimates from measures of mental ability, tests ofspecial abilities in science, and teachers’ judgments of ability, stu-dents are placed in groups according to their ability to advance fur-ther in science. Within these groups, students are regrouped on thebasis of how far the student has progressed along the sequence ofunderstanding outlined in the curriculum. This may be determined

178 School Science and Mathematics

by achievement tests and teachers’ judgments. When this method ofgrouping is used, it is possible to find children of different ages andgrades in school at the same level of advancement in science, and oftenin the same classroom. According to Thurber and Collette, groupinghas the following benefits:

1. It allows full participation by the individual.2. It gives maximum direct experience with materials.3. It provides for a wide range of interests and talents.4. It permits a close matching of assignments to abilities.5. It takes advantage of adolescents^ desire to work together and gives retiring

pupils increased security.6. It gives practice in democratic processes and helps pupils explore leadership

potentials.7. It helps the teacher become better acquainted with individuals and allows

more time for special help.3

The teacher, in developing and using the activities, has specificprocess skills in mind. Just a single skill, or many, may be the basis ofa particular activity. Laboratory activities in science programs areone phase of science education that continues to be encouraged, pro-pounded, and cited for its value more than any other. Activities notonly result in some degree of the process skills mastery for students ofall levels of intellectual capacity, but also enable students to acquirean ability to use their own reasoning powers and to make their owndiscoveries. Our aims in providing numerous laboratory activities arethreefold. The first is to individualize instruction. With the classesinvolved in individual activities, the teacher is free to help, question,and evaluate the students^ progress, either individually or in a group.Having a multiplicity of activities carried on at the same time is

common in all levels of our program. The activities are not only in-dividualized, but also structured to allow for different rates of ad-vancements in children. If a student has a problem in comprehending,he is encouraged to work on an activity that is restructured to illus-trate more aptly the problem, or better meet his needs in terms of theinquiry skills. Therefore, even though they may be grouped together,students will investigate a single problem or experience by differentmeans or through different numbers or types of laboratory activities.Our second aim is to have students actively involved. We want

them to take part in the planning, execution, and evaluation of theirown experiences. By being involved in all aspects of the activities, thestudents learn by doing, and our third aim is fulfilled; that is, to havea process-centered curriculum rather than a factual-centered cur-riculum.

Activities are generally preceded by instructional and background

3 Thurber, Walter A., and Collette, Alfred T. Teaching Science in Today^s Secondary Schools, Allyn and Bacon,Inc. Boston. Massachusetts.

Elementary Science Laboratory Activities 179

material which is structured�but only to the extent that the indi-vidual teacher deems necessary for it to provide a logically unfoldingpattern of thought. We feel that the pattern of this material coupledwith the organization of the activities themselves gives each student,depending on his capabilities, the means to analyze, relate, and thenunderstand, his own environment more fully.We expect students to do research after being sufficiently stimu-

lated, encouraged, and made aware of available resources. We findmany of these experiments requiring research are interrelated, notonly in illustrating more than the area of investigation, but also inthat each activity is built upon the preceding ones. We further en-courage students^ original thinking by providing questions and en-larging activities so. that the student may readily relate what he isdoing to other areas of past activity.The students communicate the progress of their work in our pro-

gram mainly by the laboratory report. This will differ with abilities,levels of development, and experiences being studied. But the philos-ophy is always the same�it requires the child to organize his thinkingrelative to the problem he has just investigated.

Implementation of a nongraded program depends on the skill of theteachers in teaching according to the nongraded pattern. Teachersmust understand the nongraded sequence and be able to select labora-tory activities that direct individual student’s grasp of the outlinedskills at a rate that corresponds with their ability. A teacher in a non-graded program must be flexible enough to adjust to the entirely newapproach to classroom procedure and be able to meet the demands ofindividual attention from members of the class. ^Teaching a non-graded class calls for sub-group or individual work that makes mem-bers of the class work along at rates commensurate with their abili-ties." Whole-class teaching is impossible. Teachers can no longerdepend on the graded idea of taking a class a fixed distance along acurriculum sequence.4To break away from the graded idea of teaching, one must realize

that every student, in every class, does not have to reach a certainplace by a particular day, or by the end of a certain marking period.This isn’t necessary when one teaches to foster learning, and not justto cover a certain amount of material.

In the program of the Fairview Schools, instruction is carried outby science specialists. These are teachers who have completed a sci-ence degree or have done extensive work in science education. Theuse of science specialists is especially important in the implementation

4 Zafforoni, Joseph. New Developments in Elementary School Science. National Science Teachers Association,1963. Washington, D. C.

180 School Science and Mathematics

of a curriculum, when we consider the fact that self-contained class-room teachers want and need more assistance in the use of scienceteaching materials, and that teachers at all levels need more trainingin general and specific areas of science. Teachers will be able to devotemore time to existing problems when they are able to concern them-selves with only one phase of the total curriculum.

Children at all levels of ability and achievement are spending aminimum of 200 minutes a week with this kind of teacher in a labora-tory situation. The slow learner usually meets with two of theseteachers for more individual attention. Low-ability students canlearn the same basic understandings as more capable students. Ittakes more teacher-preparation to do a satisfactory job with slowlearners. It is a far more difficult task, but these students do learnbest through a multi-sensory activity program.

Correct placement and evaluation of the child’s progress in the non-graded sequence are important responsibilities of the teacher. Thismeans recognizing individual differences and being flexible enough toadjust to, but still remaining in control of, the independent atmos-sphere of the classroom. The teacher must be able to design andutilize activities that will best suit the needs of different members ofeach class, helping them to advance at their own rate.

Therefore, teaching in a nongraded pattern requires a plan andorganization for providing for individual needs. Developed laboratoryactivities prove to be a tremendous aid. For the slow learner, thismeans much more time, many more illustrations, more concrete ex-periences, and the application of numerous student-centered activitiesdirected toward more thorough understanding of a limited number ofconcepts. Developing the inquiry skills through activity is most im-portant in working with these students.

For the more capable learners, this means not only providing op-portunities in the curriculum sequences for horizontal enrichment,but also for vertical enrichment, where the student advances throughthe curriculum sequences as far and as fast as he can go.

Following Thurber and Collettes’ lead, a program for the superiorstudent should be an opportunity to explore their abilities and inter-ests, should make extensive use of research type laboratory experi-ences, should provide for a variety of valuable field trips, should placebefore them only visual aids that awaken their interest, should pro-vide time for special research projects, and should include the stu-dents in program planning.The logical growth of each child through his sequence of related

laboratory activities is the essence of the nongraded science programand individualized instruction. This sequence of activities may be

Elementary Science Laboratory Activities 181

different for different members of the class as suggested by theirindividual needs for conceptual development. It is with this approachthat individual needs can be realized more adequately. This, too,provides a scheme for children to advance at a rate commensuratewith their ability. Organizing laboratory activities in the classroommakes this a reality. Usually, activities are organized in a sequence inorder to develop certain inquiry skills essential to the basic experi-ence.

Teachers’ judgments and practical examinations have been thebasic criteria for evaluation. In our nongraded program, the studentis evaluated individually after completing each experience or sequenceof activities on the basis of his mastery of the process skills. If thestudent demonstrates adequate mastery of these skills, he moves onto the next experience. If, however, a lack of understanding is evident,he is directed to go back and re-do parts that were not understood,this time with greater amount of teacher direction to carry out similaractivities designed to develop the same skills.

Evaluation remains our most crucial problem. Evaluation must bemore on an individual basis and directed toward assuring develop-ment of the inquiry or process skills. Through the use of practicalexams or evaluation devices based on experimental activity, somestrides are being made toward developing more effective evaluation.Of course, the typical classroom situation, with the teacher movingabout working individually with children, provides an atmosphere forcontinuous evaluation. It is in this kind of situation that the teachercan observe, question, and discuss with the child on a more personalbasis. If enthusiasm were the sole criterion, this approach would be asuccess. Obviously, written and standardized tests prove inadequatewhen the emphasis is on the processes of science, as is illustrated bythe process skills, rather than on content. What does the teacher lookfor in his evaluation? He notes how a pupil organizes materials, howhe approaches a given problem, how he carries out the experiment,how practical he is in using the apparatus, how he relates one part ofan experiment to another and also to other activities, how he recordsand interprets results, and his ability to use reference material to gaininformation.

Several experiments with evaluation devices or approaches haveproven valuable and will serve as a basis for the evaluation study thatwill be the object of a summer program.

In a program of this type, the problems are evident, but not withoutsolution. Scheduling to allow for the most effective approach to group-ing and nongradedness is an example, but progress is being made inthis direction. As new problems arise, new solutions must be sought.