perspective: other issues
Various issues emerged as a consequence of this focus on inquiry processes and skills. These are:
Limited ‘testing’, fair testing and/or field testing (as in MMat) does not mean that the unit was not successful for some classes, for example:
61
This is probably a conservative estimation, but it is taking many inquiry characteristics into consideration.
‘Children loved the mystery objects game. Children REALLY loved hands- on investigation, allowed children to explore properties’. (T11: MMat L3, emphasis in original)
Sometimes student focus and excitement was on the phenomenon (e.g., wanting plants to live; becoming competitive in testing catapults; excitement with physical and chemical changes), and this detracted from ongoing and ensuing productive discussions. This happened in some units across all stages (T6: PA Elab; T6: SM Elab; T2: CD Eng). It suggests that teachers need to be patient and persistent in helping students become proficient in fair testing; considerable pragmatic advice is available (e.g., see Harlen, 2003; Feasey, 2012), including moving from a guided to a less guided approach (as described in Hackling, 2005). Pervasive management strategies may assist (Harris & Rooks, 2010).
Fair testing needs to be introduced in a structured manner; if a step (e.g.,
identification of the question) is overlooked then other steps may be meaningless as reported by one teacher. (T13: PA S2)
In a unit with minimal fair testing (MMat) at least two teachers requested more testing opportunities be inserted. This suggests that some Primary Connections teachers now expect fair testing to be integral to their science classes
In some classes students found aspects of fair testing difficult: à writing investigation questions (T6: PA S2);
à graphing (e.g., T6: PA S2); à predicting (e.g., T3G MMat S1); à drawing (Ts 1, 23 SZ S1); and à testing (e.g., T3G MMat S1).
There is practical advice about each of these areas that can help teachers. The Primary Connections units do address some of these skills. Additional help may be found for particular skills, namely for graphing (Feasey, 2012); drawing (Tytler, Haslam & Peterson, 2012); and testing (Harlen & Jelly 1998; Hackling, 2005). Fair testing or simply ‘testing’ or ‘problem-solving’ (i.e., the latter two without
reference to controlling variables) in some ES1 classes was considered too complex by some teachers (e.g., ‘designing’ a wind meter [T4: WW]), yet other ES1 teachers reported success with guided fair testing. There are many examples of successful fair testing with young learners in the literature (e.g., Goldsworthy & Feasey, 1997)
In the unit SM S2, three teachers (4,6,11) reported that fair testing progressed well in their classes (although there were student difficulties with recording and/ or graphing), while three others raised issues they believed hindered the fair testing. Overall, whether the classes completed the fair testing or not, the issues raised were equipment (Ts 10, 3, 6) students’ inability to keep variables the same (T7); teachers believed concept too difficult for students (Ts 3, 5); students had difficulty recording (T4) and graphing (Ts 6,11); teacher had difficulty with variables grid (T7), and students did not understand variables (T5) and fair testing (Ts 5, 10). One of these said the ‘achievement of investigating outcomes was almost nonexistent’ (3SM). Although there are several teachers’ comments that indicate that students can sometimes appear to appreciate fair testing on its first use and students can improve in their approaches to fair testing with experience, it cannot be assumed that this will be similar for all teachers and their classes, and across all content areas.
121
The inquiry focus in Primary Connections Unit Strength of inquiry perspective Comments Weather in my world ES1W–M Teacher comments focused on vicarious tasks
Water works S1a M–S Frequent predicting and observing, occasional
testing but fair testing (FT) not apparent. Water cycle, sources of water etc. tended to predominate
Spinning in space S2
M–S Many observations, measurements and
recording; few mentions of predicting and testing Earth’s place in
space S3
M Contrast between a few classes that used models for making and testing predictions and several that did not report that models were used in this manner
What’s it made of? ES1
M–S Most emphasis on predicting and observing; limited reference to testing (sculptures) Material matters
S1
M Key focus appeared to be recognising and sorting solids, liquids and gases; very limited mention of testing; FT not mentioned
All sorts of stuff S2
S Numerous indications of ‘testing’ materials, even though mention of FT not as obvious; predicting present
Change detectives S3b
S Many investigations cited (even if FT not mentioned); scenario encouraged many observations and inferences
On the move ES1 S Impressive investigations (including measurements) for S1 students
Push-pull S1 M–S FT rarely mentioned and limited mentions of SIS; relatively small teacher response rate
Smooth moves S2
M FT very successful for some; too many difficulties for others
Electric circuits S3
S Focus was more of a ‘problem-solving’ approach than FT (although one teacher raised FT)
Staying alive ES1 S Key focus on senses; also pets and their features. Some references to a descriptive investigation Schoolyard zoo
S1
S Major focus on observing/drawing animals and their movement; rare reference to investigations per se
Plants in action S2c
M–S Tendency to focus on plant growth per se; fewer distinct FT descriptions
Marvellous micro-organisms S3
VS Less guided FT obvious; numerous SIS skills employed
Table 7.2: Strength of inquiry perspective in units based upon content and frequency of teacher comments*
*
VS = very strong (less guided fair testing (FT); wide variety of SIS; many teacher (T) comments); S = strong (FT; variety of SIS; considerable T comments); M = moderate (limited FT; some SIS; few T comments); W = weak (No FT; limited SIS; minimal T comments). A judgement is made with ES1 units in which FT was rarely suggested; ‘investigating was interpreted more broadly’.
a
The Explain lesson in the trial version (L6) became an Elaborate lesson in the final version. It is L6 (Investigating water use at home) and L7 (Water in other places) that is reported here.
b
The Elaborate lesson (L5) in the draft became the Explain lesson in the final version of CD S3. Lesson 6 in the draft version is the basis for the data reported here.
c
It appeared that the ‘Investigation planner’ may have been used for the first time in many of these classes.