JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING *

VOL. 21, NO. 7, PP. 745-753 (1984)

THE EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND AGE ON ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT

INQUIRY STRATEGIES FOR STRUCTURED INDUCTIVE AND SEMI-DEDUCTIVE

LARRY D. YORE University of Victoria, I? 0. Box 1700,

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 2Y2

Abstract

This study explored Morine and Morine’s (Discovery: A challenge to teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973) assumptions regarding age and cognitive development of learners successfully utilizing two types of inquiry, specifically structured inductive and semideductive. Two groups of elementary school students from grades one, three and five were individually assessed on six conservation tasks and a multiplicative classification task. The two groups were instructed on two different science topics utilizing different inquiry strategies. Achievement data from topic specific tests were analyzed by an ANOVA technique. The results indicated that age made a significant difference on achievement for both inquiry strategies. The signifi- cant contributions were due to the differences between grade one and grades three and five. The differences between grade three and grade five were not significant. The effect of cognitive development was more noticeable in the less structured semideductive strategy in which four conservation tasks and the multiplicative classification tasks were significant.

Introduction

Recent studies suggest that science teaching/leaming effectiveness is likely a function of compatibility between instructional outcomes, nature of the learner, nature of the subject area and teaching strategy (Shymansky & Yore, 1980). It is obvious that the nature of the learner is a variable over which the teacher has little control. Therefore, teachers need to develop reason- able grade level expectations and insights regarding the target learners’ cognitive functioning, background, and desires. Renner and Phillips (1980) contend that teachers traditionally try to fit the learners into teaching, rather than designing teaching to fit the learner. Little has been done to explore the use of student profiles of cognitive development and age in selecting appropriate instructional outcomes, activities, and teaching strategies. Shymansky and Yore (1980) investigated the relationship between adult students’ cognitive style and cognitive devel- opment, teaching strategy, and science achievement. The study indicated that field independent and formal operational subjects were able to handle less structured and hypothetico-deductive inquiry strategies. Age has traditionally been accepted as a significant factor affecting science achievement, regardless of content area, topic of instruction, and method used. Piaget’s cognitive

@ 1984 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/84/070745-09$04.00

146 YORE

development discounts the importance attributed to simply years of age but he suggests that social interaction, physical experience, and equilibation are equally important as maturity.

The nature of science suggests that an appropriate learning experience should be an active attempt to search out, describe, and explain patterns in our universe. Consideration of the specific factors regarding the nature of science generally supports the use of inquiry teaching strategies. Morine and Morine (1973) suggested that several modes of inquiry can be identified. The specific mode selected needs to consider the learner’s age, the learner’s cognitive develop- ment, the content area to be investigated, and the desired outcomes. The structured inductive and semi-deductive strategies, explored in this study, are basically the same approach intended to be used with concrete operational learners, age 8 and older, to develop concepts and processes. The two inquiry modes differ on the source of the structure. The structured inductive approach is used in conjunction with a descriptive subject area, therefore the teacher must pro- vide the guiding structure in terms of selecting experiences to illustrate the desired concept. The semi-deductive approach is an inductive investigation used in a deductive field of knowledge, such as the physical sciences and mathematics. The structure in the semideductive strategy is supplied by the content area. Both the structured inductive and the semideductive strategies utilize inductive thought to attain the desired outcomes.

Problem and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to investigate Morine and Morine’s model regarding their assumptions of age, cognitive development, and content inquiry. The investigation explored the effects of different cognitive development and age on elementary school students’ science achievement using two different inquiry strategies, specifically structured inductive and semi- deductive modes utilizing the same student population.

The following null hypotheses were tested:

(1) There was no significant cognitive development and age main effects nor interaction

(2) There are no significant cognitive development and age main effects nor interaction effect on science achievement for the structured inductive inquiry strategy.

effect on science achievement for the semi-deductive inquiry strategy.

Procedure

Since the source of structure differs in the two strategies, external teacher structure for the structured inductive strategy and internal content structure for the semideductive strategy, it was impossible to use an experimental design which allowed direct comparisons. Therefore, two parallel but independent studies utilizing structured inductive and semideductive science units were developed and taught to different groups of students. Cognitive development and age were used as blocking variables and science achievement was used as the dependent variable.

Types of Inquiry

Structured Inductive. The structured inductive treatment consisted of seven 40-minute lessons over four weeks dealing with seeds. Highly teacher structured lessons were directed at science content and science processes, such as what are seeds, planting seeds, parts of seeds, sources of seeds, uses of seeds, germination of seeds, plant growth, and graphing plant growth. Lessons utilized a pre-lab, lab, post-lab organization. Re-lab attempted to establish set, provide an orderly plan of attack and discussion of laboratory procedures. The lab phase allowed

EFFECI'S OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 147

students to collect data using the common procedures outlined in the pre-lab and reinforced by a guidesheet and data-tables. Data were recorded and later discussed in the post-lab phase of the lesson. The teacher-directed discussion attempted to get students to share observations and experiences, organize data, develop conclusions, evaluate proposed generalizations, and apply solutions to new situations.

The structured inductive lessons attempted to involve students in a bound exploration of seeds which limited students to a single inquiry procedure. Teacher structure attempted to establish consensus and uniformity. The pre-labs produced a single, agreed-upon experimental procedure. Since all students carried out the same procedure, the data collected were reason- ably uniform. TherefoPe, post-lab discussion stressed analysis, synthesis, and application.

Semi-Deductive. The semideductive treatment consisted of seven 40-minute lessons over four weeks dealing with magnets. These content-structured lessons focused on science content, such as magnetic substances, shapes of magnets, strength of magnets, polarity, effects of two magnets, magnetic fields, compasses, and electromagnetic events. The semideductive lessons were organized into pre-lab, lab, and post-lab. A free-flowing pre-lab was utilized, normally in- volving establishing set, discussing available materials and expected behavior. The lab phase allowed students to freely and creatively explore the problems with available materials. The post-lab encouraged students to share, organize, analyze and synthesize data, and apply con- clusions to a unique situation from the students' reality.

The, semi-deductive lessons appeared much less structured than the structured inductive lessons because of the low degree of external surface structure provided by the teacher. Pre- labs encouraged diversity by not forcing a single experimental design to be accepted. The in- creased exploration freedom produced a much wider and diverse set of data and experiences. The post-lab discussions had to focus more on sharing and organizing data as well as analysis, synthesis, and application.

Sample

One hundred seventy-four students from grades one, three, and five from an urban, middle- class school near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, comprised the sample for this study. Six intact classes (two grade ones, two grade threes, and two grade fives) were assigned to two in- quiry treatments: a structured inductive seeds unit and a semideductive magnets unit. The assignment to specific treatment was based on consultation with the regular classroom teacher and considered prior formal exposure to the topics. Grade one classes received both instruc- tional treatments. Grades three and five received only one instructional treatment.

Independent Variables

Age. Age was represented by the grade level the students were attending. Students who were not the traditional age associated with each grade level were not included in the study, specifically six- and seven-year-olds in grade one, eight- and nine-year-olds in grade three, and ten- and eleven-year-olds in grade five. The grade one sample ranged in age from 6 years 2 months to 7 years 1 month, and the average age for grade one subjects was 6 years 8 months. The grade three sample ranged in age from 8 years 2 months to 9 years 2 months with an aver- age age of 8 years 8 months. Grade five subjects ranged in age from 10 years to 11 years 4 months with an average age of 10 years 8 months.

Cognitive Development. Cognitive development was assessed using individual interviews on six conservation tasks and one multiplicative classification task. The interviews were conducted in accordance with standardized protocols by trained interviews. Performance on the tasks was

748 YORE

recorded and later scored by the interviewers. All recorded performances were checked upon the completion of the study.

Conservation. Students’ conservation of quantity ability was assessed for liquid amount, solid amount, number, area, weight, and length. Each of the conservation tasks was assessed with a similar standard protocol (Phdlips, 1981a). The student was presented an identity element or asked to establish equivalence between two elements. Upon successful completion of the first step, the student was presented with a physical distortion of the quantity. The student was then asked if there was more, less, or the same quantity as compared to the initial standard. If the student selected the “same” response, a justification was requested. In the cases of number, length, area, and weight, a second distortion was presented with corresponding questions and justification required. Student performance on each task was scored according to the following criteria:

0 1 2 3

Did not attempt task or could not establish equivalence. Established equivalence but could not select correct response(s). Selected correct response(s) but did not supply an acceptable justification. Selected correct response(s) and supplied acceptable logical necessity, compensation or reversibility justification.

The measure of conservation of quantities was determined by summing the individual conserva- tion of specific quantity scores.

Multiplicative Classification. The logical grouping of multiplicative classification was assessed using a 4 X 4 posterboard matrix (Phillips, 1981b). Fourteen of the 16 cells contained a consis- tent arrangement of paper leaves utilizing color, shape, size and orientation. The two remaining cells (column l-row 4, column 4-row 2) were empty. The student was asked to determine which leaves from a standard assortment of loose leaves would logically go into each empty cell. A verbal listing of the attributes used to make the decision was required. All four attributes re- quired must be specifically mentioned. Upon successful completion of the matrix, a 2 X 4 extension was attached to rows 2 and 3, adding four more columns to each row. The inter- viewer placed a predetermined leaf in column ?-row 2 and asked the student to select and describe the leaf that would logically go into column &row 3. Success was determined by proper selection and listing of all four attributes of the leaf. Scoring for this task was:

0 1 2 3 4

Did not understand or attempt task. Did not select correct leaf within matrix and could not list all four attributes. Selected correct leaf for the matrix and listed all four attributes. Selected correct leaf in the extension but did not list all four attributes. Selected correct leaf in the extension and listed all four attributes.

Dependent Variable

Science achievement was measured by two teacher-made tests. The seeds test consisted of 33 objective items; the magnets test consisted of 38 objective items. Each test was designed from the set of knowledge and process objectives which guided the development of the teaching units.

Face validity of the two tests were judged by a panel of authorities as measuring appropriate science content and science process for an elementary school unit dealing with seeds and magnets. The vocabulary and verbal presentation of the items appeared to be appropriate for the elementary school students involved in the study. Kuder-Richardson’s KR-20 method

EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 749

(Tuckman, 1978) was used to determine the reliability of the tests. The KR-20 determines the extent to which the tests measured science achievement by examining individual items. 'The analysis of 1 13 seeds examinations yielded a KR-20 reliability coefficient of 0.80. The analysis of 118 magnets examinations yielded a KR-20 coefficient of 0.91.

Analysis of Data and Results

A series of two-way analyses of variance was conducted separately on the data for each type of inquiry. Total conservation scores were clustered in three groups, e.g., 0-10,11-14, and 15-18. These groupings represented students who could not do most of the tasks, students who were transitional on most of the tasks and students who could conserve at least one-half the quantities. The multiplicative classification scores were grouped into three categories, eg., 0-1 , 2-3, and 4. These categories represented students who did not understand, did not attempt, or did not select correct leaves in the matrix; students who completed the matrix and selected the correct leaf on the extension but could not state the selected attributes; and students who com- pleted the task successfully. Summaries indicating grade level descriptive data for each inquiry strategy are provided in Tables I and 11. The ANOVA results are summarized in Tables 111, IVY V, and VI.

TABLE I Descriptive Data for Conservation of Quantities by Grade Level

Cell Means, Standard Deviation, and Sizes for Science Achievement Utilizing a Structure Inductive Inquiry Seeds and

Semi-Deductive Magnets TeachinglLearning Strategies

CONSERVATION OF QUANTITIES

Grade Level (0-10) (11-14) (15-18) Row Values

12.21 13.56 11 .oo 12.50 1 5.87 7.96 0.0 6.26

(28) ( 9 ) (1 1 (38)

19.00 20.14 24.83 21.22 Structured 3 4.36 5.28 3.60 5.11 Induc t i ve (3 ) (14) (6 ) (23)

17.17 20.50 6.49 7.22

Column 12*91 Values 5.51

(29) (24) (33)

23.07 27.89 31 .OO 24.46 1 5.46 4.42 0.0 5.61

(27) (9 ) ( 1 ) (37)

28.33 30.18 31.17 30.20 Semi - 3 3.22 5.17 4.92 4.73 Deductive ( 3 ) (11 1 ( 6 ) (20)

23.60 29.38 31.59 4.27 3.48

(29) (29) Column 5.24 Values (30)

750 YORE

TABLE I1 Descriptive Data for Multiplicative Classification by Grade Level

Cell Means, Standard Deviation, and Sizes for Science Achievement Utilizing a Structure Inductive Inquiry Seeds and

Semi-Deductive Magnets Teaching/Learning Strategies

MULTIPLICATIVE CLASSIFICATION

Grade Level (0-1) (2-3) (4-5) Row Values

11.19 1 6.31

(26)

17.20 Structured 3 4.39 Induc t i ve (10) Seeds Strategy 17.73

5 9.20 (11)

15.27 16.00 5.59 0.00

(11 1 (1 1 24.08 27.00

3.12 0.00 ( 1 2 ) (1 1 18.08 20.50 8.38 12.02

(12) (2)

20.42 21 .oo 5.70 3.01

Column 16*45 Values 6.58

(35) (4) (47)

12.50 6.26

(38)

21.22 5.11

(23)

18.12 8.60

(25)

23.12 26.73 33.00 24.46 1 5.70 4.22 0.0 5.61

(25) (11) (1 ) (37)

27.56 32.00 36.00 30.20 Semi - 3 5.18 3.02 0.0 4.73 Deductive (9 ) (10) ( 1 ) (20) Magnets St rategy 29.33 31.60 32.71 31.19

5 3.67 3.18 1.60 3.24 ( 9 ) (15) ( 7 ) (31 1

30.22 33.11 3.45 1.24 Column ‘2:::

Values (43) (36) ( 9 )

TABLE 111 Analysis of Variance of Science Achievement by Grade Level

and Conservation of Quantities Ability for a Structure Inductive Inquiry Seeds Teaching/Learning Strategy

SOURCE OF VARIATION OF M S F p-Value

GRADE 2 277.97 6.00 0.00

CONSERVATION 2 96.56 2.09 0.13

GRADE X CONSERVATION 4 10.84 0.234 0.92

RESIDUAL 77 46.28

EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 751

TABLE IV Analysis of Variance of Science Achievement by Grade Level and Conservation of Quantities Ability for a Semi-Deductive

Inquiry Magnets TeachinglLearning Strategy - ~ - ~

SOURCE OF VARIATION OF MS F p-Va 1 ue

GRADE 2 40.57 1.98 0.14

CONSERVATION 2 106.65 5.22 0.00

GRADE X CONSERVATION 3 8.26 0.41 0.75

RESIDUAL 80 20.41

TABLE V Analysis of Variance of Science Achievement by Grade Level

and Multiplicative Classification Ability for a Structure Inductive Seeds TeachinglLearning Strategy

COURSE OF VARIATION DF MS F p-Value

GRADE 2 431.57 9.91 0.00

MULTIPLICATIVE CLASS I FICATION 2 159.25 3.66 0.03

MULTIPLICATIVE 32.30 0.74 0.57 CLASSIFICATION

RESIDUAL 77 43.54

TABLE VI Analysis of Variance of Science Achievement by Grade Level and Multiplicative Classification Ability for a Semi-Deductive

Magnets Inquiry TeachinglLearning Strategy

SOURCE OF VARIATION OF MS F p-Value

GRADE 2 234.02 12.18 0.00

MULTIPLICATIVE CLASSIFICATION 2 153.22 7.97 0.00

GRADE MULTIPLICATIVE 11.68 0.61 0.66 CLASS I FICAT ION

RESIDUAL 79 19.22

1 5 2 YORE

Discussion

Age, as represented by grade level, appeared to be of lesser importance after grade three for the structured inductive and semi-deductive units used in this study. Performance was not sig- nificantly increased between grade three and grade five. In fact, achievement on the seeds unit decreased between grade three and grade five. The significant variability was contributed by the variation in achievement of grade one students in comparison to grade three and grade five. Two group t-test analyses of grades one, three, and five results on the two approaches yielded significant differences between grades one and three and grades one and five, but not for grades three and five.

These results appear to indicate that elementary school students develop the necessary attributes to profitably learn from structured inductive and semideductive approaches by grade three. Since the dependent variable was achievement, specifically science knowledge and science processes, it seemed reasonable to assume that the attributes are cognitive in nature. Informal observations of class conduct suggested that psychomotor development, behavior, and attention were not critical factors in these results. An analysis of measured outcomes and learning activities indicated that they appear to be within the physical capacities of the subjects. Investi- gator notes on classroom behavior and student attention patterns did not appear to account for the observed differences in achievement. The decreased achievement or leveling off effect be- tween grades three and five does not appear to be caused by any ceiling effect of the teacher- made tests. No totally correct examinations were recorded and every item was answered correctly by some students, suggesting that the test still had sensitivity at the high achievement range.

Conservation ability appeared to be a critical learner attribute with the semideductive in- quiry strategies used. A consistent pattern of increased achievement was noted for increased cognitive development. Students who could not understand, did not attempt, or could only establish equivalence scored lower than students who completed the task successfully on measures of science achievement. Analysis of the individual conservation data yielded no apparent general pattern of contribution for conservation abilities for both inquiry strategies. However, four of the six individual conservation tasks were significant for the semideductive strategy, while only two tasks were significant for the structured inductive approach. An in- spection of the inquiry mode, measured outcomes, and learning activities did not indicate any direct connection between specific conservation abilities and expected behavior, except the degree of structure. The semi-deductive strategy required learners to structure much of their own learning. The unstructured nature of the semi-deductive strategy appeared to require more highly developed logical abilities.

The significant multiplicative classification effects reflect the similar cognitive demands of the inquiry strategies used. Both strategies required concept formation which necessitated students to group ideas and events according to common critical attributes. The slight differ- ence in significance (semi-deductive p < 0.00 and structured indictive p < 0.03) interestingly reflects the degree of structure. It may be that the highly teacher structured approach places less classification demands on the student than does the low structure semideductive approach.

The lack of significant age by cognitive development interactions appears to support Piaget’s developmental model, which implies that maturation is one of the factors influencing cognitive development. Inspection of Tables I and I1 supports the nonrigid positive relationship between maturity and cognitive development found in other studies.

Generally the results support the use of structured inductive and semideductive inquiry strategies with concrete operational learners. The less significant results for the structured in-

EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 75 3

ductive approach appear to suggest that teacher structure can reduce the logical demands of inquiry. One must be cautious since the inquiry modes are directly linked to substantiaPy different science content.

References

Morine, H., & Morine, G. (1973). Discovery: A challenge to teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: F’rentice-Hall.

Phillips, D. (1981a). The development of logical thought Part 111: Conservation. Iowa City, IA: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.

Phillips, D. (1981b). The development of logical thought PartI: Classes and relations. Iowa City, IA: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.

Renner, J., & Phillips, D. (1980). Raget’s developmental mode: A basis for research in science education. School Science and Mathematics. 80,193-198.

Shymansky, J., & Yore, L. (1980). A study of teaching strategies, student cognitive devel- opment, and cognitive style as they relate to student achievement in science. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17,369-382.

Tuckman, B. (1978). Conducting educational research. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovano- vich, Inc.

Manuscript accepted February 23,1984