Identifying Strategies to Support Junior Secondary Students to Engage in Scientific Investigation Tasks

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS,AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION, 8(2), 99–120, 2008Copyright C© OISEISSN: 1492-6156 print / 1942-4051 onlineDOI: 10.1080/14926150802169222

Identifying Strategies to Support Junior Secondary Studentsto Engage in Scientific Investigation Tasks

May May-hung ChengThe Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong

Abstract: This article describes the outcome of a collaborative project between the Hong KongInstitute of Education and four secondary schools that aims to promote the development of scientificinvestigation skills. The project team designed scientific investigation tasks collaboratively with theteachers and provided school-based support when the tasks were implemented. A total of six teachersand 575 students were involved. Data were collected through questionnaires completed by the studentsand individual interviews with science teachers about their classroom practice after the completion ofthe project. The findings suggest that the students did not meet many difficulties and that there werepositive influences on students’ interest in learning science. The teachers perceived that there werechallenges related to raising students’ self-regulated learning abilities, structuring tasks that wereat appropriate levels of difficulty, and promoting group cooperation among the students. Finally,the article argues that the strategies implemented in this study were effective, though it takes muchtime and effort to help students develop self-regulated learning abilities. The conclusion suggeststhat teachers consider these challenges collectively and proposes a two-staged model for planningscientific investigation tasks.

Resume: Cet article presente les resultats d’un projet realise par le Hong Kong Institute of Education,en collaboration avec quatre ecoles secondaires, dont le but etait de promouvoir l’acquisitiond’habiletes dans le domaine de l’investigation scientifique L’equipe responsable du projet, de concertavec les enseignants, a elabore une serie de taches d’investigation scientifique et a egalement fourniun soutien a l’ecole lors de la mise en application de ces differentes taches. En tout, six professeurset 575 eleves ont participe au projet. Au terme du projet, les donnees ont ete recueillies d’une part aumoyen de questionnaires distribues aux etudiants et, d’autre part, au moyen d’entrevues individuellesavec les enseignants de sciences au sujet de leurs pratiques d’enseignement. Les resultats indiquentque les eleves n’ont eprouve aucune difficulte particuliere et que le projet a eu des effets positifs surleur interet pour l’apprentissage des sciences en general. Quant aux enseignants, ils ont pu cerner lesdefis qu’il leur fallait relever pour ameliorer les habiletes d’apprentissage autonome de leurs eleves,pour structurer des taches d’investigation dont le niveau de difficulte est adequat et pour promouvoirla cooperation et le travail en groupe. Enfin, l’article montre que les strategies adoptees dans le cadrede cette etude sont efficaces, mais qu’elles impliquent des efforts et un temps considerables si l’onveut favoriser le developpement d’habiletes d’apprentissage autonome chez les eleves. En conclusion,l’article, qui propose que les enseignants se penchent collectivement sur ces questions, presente unmodele a deux etapes pour la planification generale des taches d’investigation scientifique.

This article was accepted by Dr. Derek Hodson.Address correspondence to May May-hung Cheng, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po,

N.T., Hong Kong, China. Email: [email protected]

100 CHENG

BACKGROUND

This study addresses local concerns about the direction of the 2001 education reform (in HongKong) as well as concerns raised in recent discussions of science education research. The policyand directions for primary 1 (age 6) to secondary 3 (age 15) in science education in Hong Kongwas laid down in 2002 (Curriculum Development Council, 2002). There are six strands in thescience curriculum content at junior secondary level, in which the Scientific Investigation strandis designed to run through the other five,1 and the specific learning objectives are (CurriculumDevelopment Council, 2002, p. 25) as follows:

1. to propose hypotheses and devise methods for testing them;2. to plan and conduct scientific investigations;3. to evaluate the fairness of tests and draw conclusions based on findings.

The curriculum document has also provided a timetable for implementation that shows theurgency of the task and the determination of the curriculum developers. In light of this emphasison scientific investigation, there is a need to develop a better understanding of ways to supportstudents’ engagement in such tasks.

Defining Scientific Investigation

Although the science curriculum in Hong Kong emphasizes scientific investigation as one ofthe six major strands instead of promoting inquiry-based learning in general, it is worthwhilemaking some distinction between scientific inquiry and scientific investigation in this discussion.In Canada, scientific inquiry is one of the foundation statements for scientific literacy (Councilof Ministers of Education, Canada, 1997). In the United States, inquiry is seen as a method forlearning science concepts (National Research Council [NRC], 1996); i.e., students understandthe subject matter (e.g., motions and forces) using inquiry as a learning method.

Science inquiry itself is also both a learning outcome and a learning process (NRC, 1996). Indescribing science inquiry as a learning outcome, students are expected to gain “abilities to doscientific inquiry” and “understanding about scientific inquiry” (NRC, 1996, p. 105). Lewis (2006)suggested that inquiry can be approached simultaneously as both process and content of science.Similarly, Bybee (2000) interpreted inquiry as content, meaning what students should understandabout scientific inquiry as well as the need to acquire the investigation abilities developed fromscientific inquiry experiences. Developing students’ understanding about scientific inquiry mayinvolve having them reflect on their own or historical cases of scientific investigation activities.Developing students’ abilities to conduct scientific inquiry has to involve students in structuredlaboratory activities or engage them in open-ended scientific investigations. For example, Bachta(2001). described a scientific investigation in which students were arranged into teams trying todesign a concrete sample that could resist the strongest compressive force. Students generatedquestions, set variables, manufactured the concrete sample, tested the specimens, recordedqualitative and quantitative data, and discussed findings.

Along this continuum of using inquiry as a method to learn science, learning about scienceinquiry, and developing abilities to conduct scientific investigations, the science curriculumin Hong Kong is positioned on the point where science investigation skills and methods areemphasized as a learning outcome. This emphasis is also common in other countries. In

STRATEGIES FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION 101

Australia, curriculum documents (ACT Department of Education and Community Services,2000) in different states reflect the importance of developing skills for scientific investigations;for example, in New South Wales it is specified that practical experiences must account for at least50% of time allocated to science, and that students must experience at least one research projectin each of Stage 4 and 5 (Dawson & Venville, 2006). In the National Curriculum for England andWales (Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office (DES/WO), 1989), scienceinvestigative work is one of the four statutory attainment targets for all pupils from ages 5 to 16.

Scientific investigation is defined as a method of inquiry that systematically inquires aboutand finds evidence for a particular topic in science. Though there are different strategies forconducting scientific investigations, a number of common points can be identified (Crossland,1998; Goldsworthy & Feasey, 1997; Hackling & Fairbrother, 1996), as follows:

1. planning an investigation, making predictions and expectations of the results, andformulating hypotheses;

2. designing feasible tests or investigation plans;3. conducting fair tests, controlling variables, and defining variables;4. developing students’ abilities in observing, drawing, or making records of the data

collected;5. recording data, carrying out analyses and comparing findings; and6. redesigning the investigation based on the findings, suggesting modifications and

identifying limitations.

Based on the above descriptions, scientific investigations emphasize the application andinteraction of many complex skills, applying science knowledge to a particular context or “realworld” situation, the process of the investigation, and the activity carried out by the students(Haigh & Hubbard, 1997).

This definition of scientific investigation is consistent with the description in the localcurriculum document that states that,

Scientific investigations and experiments allow students to gain personal experiences of sciencethrough hands-on activities and to develop the skills associated with the practice of science. Studentshave to ask relevant questions, to pose and define problems, to formulate hypotheses, to plan whatto do and how to research, to predict outcomes, to conduct experiments, to interpret results, to drawconclusions and suggest ideas for improvement. (Curriculum Development Council, 2002, p. 28)

Science educators have pointed out problems in relation to the teaching of scientificinvestigation. Scientific investigation is seen by many science educators as offering a valuableand authentic experience of science (Minstrell & van Zee, 2000), and much research has beenconducted related to the role of practical work in science teaching (Gott & Duggan, 1995; Hodson,1996; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). However, there are relatively few systematic studies of teachers’understanding of the nature of scientific investigation and its purpose. The NRC (2000) in theUnited States summarized that inquiry-oriented instruction can fall along a continuum of moreto less student-directed methods. While Donelly (1998) reported on how teachers understandthe place of the laboratory and laboratory work in their practice, the study did not look into thepedagogical methods. There is little consideration of teachers’ views of scientific investigationas related to how it can be implemented and its pedagogical concerns.

102 CHENG

Learning in Groups

As the scientific investigations implemented by the teachers in the present study were all carriedout as group work, the practice of which is consistent with the direction of the education reform,the discussion of the pedagogy related to group work is therefore relevant. Preparation of effectivecommunication skills, high-level elaboration and discussion of ideas, questioning of each other’sideas, and active participation in groups may help students to make the best use of the learningresources during group work (Webb & Palincsar, 1996).

The teacher’s role as a facilitator in group work has been suggested by a number ofresearchers (Kreke, Fields, & Towns, 1998). The teacher acts as a consultant and activitycoordinator (Watson, 1991). According to Johnson and Johnson (2002), teachers need to make anumber of decisions while planning for group work, including setting academic and social skillsobjectives, determining group size and group composition, and monitoring students’ behaviorwhen cooperative groups start learning.

Researchers have suggested how the instructions for group work among students can bestructured. The instructions may include specific prompts (Palincsar, Anderson, & David, 1993),guidelines on what the tasks need to include, or assigning students specific roles in the group(Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). However, Sawyer (2004) pointed out that collaborative tasksfor students need to allow some improvisation in which clear-cut procedures or answers areabsent and students can develop effective interactions, and share their hypotheses, strategies andspeculations. Open-ended group tasks are also found to provide more opportunities for groupinteraction and can better facilitate group learning (Lotan, Cohen, & Holthusi, 1994). Moreover,Cohen (1994) stated that an overly structured task prevents student interaction, while a totallyunstructured task makes students anxious.

Webb, Troper, and Fall (1995) identified a number of factors that may influence students’learning in groups that include students’ perceptions of the goals of the task, how they carryout the activities, how well group members know each other, experience of working in groups,competence in communication skills, and the dynamics developed in the group over time. Thetype of group interaction is an important factor determining the quality of learning that studentsmay experience during group work.

While the above descriptions of group work are consistent with the requirements for structuringcooperative learning, some of the characteristics for cooperative learning may not be emphasizedamong the participating schools in this study. The following characteristics for cooperativelearning are not met or are not strongly emphasized: intentional selection of group members onthe basis of predetermined criteria or to maximize heterogeneity; the introduction of team buildingactivities designed to promote group identity and social cohesiveness; individual performanceevaluation and provision of individual rewards; personal accountability; and explicit instruction oneffective communication skills (Cuseo, 1992). With an emphasis on scientific investigation in thecurriculum, the importance of group work is implied rather than explicitly stated in the document.The curriculum document only touches on group discussions and group work by saying, “Groupdiscussion, role-play and debate provide opportunities for students to interact with others, toexpress their opinions and exchange viewpoints. . . . They have to organize themselves and othersto participate actively in group work.” (Curriculum Development Council, 2002, p. 28). With this,the discussion is limited to how some aspects of group work may be conducive to the learningprocess, instead of looking into how the notion of cooperative learning can be fully implemented.


Self-Regulated Learning

The scientific investigation tasks implemented by the teachers demand that students be self-regulated learners, which is quite a different experience when compared to their prior sciencelearning experiences. Although self-regulated learning is not mandated in the curriculum, studentsneed to learn how to monitor their learning process and strategies in conducting the scientificinvestigation projects. This is similar to Zimmerman’s (2000) proposal about self-regulatedlearning (SRL), an idea that also emphasizes self-monitoring of learning, referred to as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainmentof personal goals” (p. 14). Moreover, a recent international study (the Hong Kong Programmefor International Student Assessment, PISA) on student achievement (The Chinese Universityof Hong Kong, 2003) reported that the use of self-regulated learning is one of the strongestpredictors of scientific and mathematical literacy performance. This suggests that the developmentof self-regulated learning strategies may facilitate students’ science learning, meaning that thedevelopment of SRL has its advantages. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997) suggested a three-phased cycle to explain students’ participation in an SRL task; namely, forethought, performancecontrol, and self-reflection. In studies on self-efficacy theory, Bandura (1997) proposed thatself-efficacy is the most important factor influencing SRL. Schunk (1994) and Zimmermanand Bandura (1994) also pointed out that students with high self-efficacy set more challengingtargets when compared with students with low self-efficacy and are able to choose more effectivelearning strategies. Ames (1992) also found that students with clear learning targets are moreconcerned about the learning process than with comparing their learning results with their peers.These studies pointed out the importance of self-efficacy and internal motivation in influencingstudent learning. Taking these recommendations together, students need to maintain their level ofinterest and develop self-confidence as they conduct scientific investigations in order to succeed inSRL.

Providing Support to Students in Conducting Long-Term Scientific Investigations

It is hard for teachers to determine how much support they should provide to students whenconducting long-term scientific investigations. Teachers may find the learning objectives ofhelping students develop active learning defeated if too much support and instruction are provided.However, students may not be able to demonstrate satisfactory performance if too little support isprovided. Costa (1991) suggested that teachers need to provide instructions that are tailor-madeto the needs of their students and help them to develop gradually into independent learners.Laase and Clemmons (1998) defined the teachers’ role as stimulating thinking, encouragingself-management of learning, and increasing learning motivation and learning responsibility.They pointed out that the teachers’ support needs to be focused on learning by giving adviceand hints, instead of providing instructions or teaching. Teachers are guides who help studentsexperience learning, or supporters who help them in problem-solving. Conner (2004) analyzedthe teacher’s role in helping students to become independent learners, by being a moderatorduring group or class discussions, as a facilitator pointing out the expectations on the students,and encouraging students to reflect on some problems and record their thinking.

Teachers need to consider whether students possess the essential learning skills prior tothe implementation of the scientific investigation task. Colvill and Pattie (2002) pointed out the

104 CHENG

importance of helping students to master basic science process skills such as measuring, observing,and handling scientific instruments. This can stimulate students’ interest in conducting scientificinvestigation tasks. In a similar vein, Arisawa and Tsukimoto (1998) suggested that the basicskills and knowledge related to conducting scientific investigation tasks include setting the themeof the study, developing plans, and analyzing and presenting results. These are essential skillsthat teachers need to help students develop, so that they can become independent learners as theyconduct long-term scientific investigation tasks.

While a number of directions to support students’ learning in conducting scientific investigationtasks are identified in the literature, the next question is to identify difficulties and problems metby students and how teachers can support them during the learning process.

This study analyzes science teachers’ experiences after they have implemented long-termscientific investigation projects with their junior secondary students. Moreover, students’perceptions of their learning experiences were also reflected through a questionnaire. The analysiswas conducted with an aim to identify ways that can support the development of scientificinvestigation skills among junior secondary students.

DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

The project was a collaborative endeavour between the Hong Kong Institute of Education andsix teachers teaching science in four different coeducational local secondary schools. Invitationletters were sent to schools to call for voluntary participation. There were one or two participatingteachers in each school, with one of them taking the role of coordinator. Each school identifieda science topic for the design of a scientific investigation project at secondary one to two;i.e., grade 7 to 8 (ages 12 to 14), and was provided with school-based support in order todevelop scientific investigation projects based on selected science topics. The investigation taskslasted for about 4 to 6 weeks. A total of 575 students from 15 classes in four schools wereinvolved.

The project was divided into three phases: planning, implementation, and evaluation. In theplanning phase, schools participating in the project determined the topic for the long-term oropen-ended scientific investigation. The purpose of the study and the method for conductingscientific inquiry were explained to the teachers. The project team also worked with the teachersto gain a greater understanding of the school’s existing science curriculum design, the needsof the students, and the teachers’ existing practices. The product of the planning stage was theformulation of an action plan.

In the implementation phase, the project team provided various forms of support for theteachers, including helping teachers to formulate their teaching plans, providing teachingmaterials and information, and facilitating the exchange of ideas among teachers. The teachingresources were jointly designed and developed by the project team and the teachers in theschools. When the teachers implemented the suggested teaching strategies in their lessons,classroom observations were made and the process of implementation was videotaped. Theseobservations and video recordings were made to help the researcher reflect on the implementationof teaching strategies and to ensure that comparable strategies were implemented across schools.The teachers could also have access to the videotaped lessons and make use of them to reflect onthe effectiveness of the implemented activities.


The project team collected feedback from the participating teachers in the evaluation phase.When there was more than one teacher involved in the project, an evaluation meeting was heldto collect their opinions.

An interview was seen as the best choice for data collection, as this would offer the opportunityto gain an in-depth understanding of teachers’ ideas (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Drever, 1995;Mertens, 1998). The aim of the study was to find out from actual experiences of implementingscientific investigation tasks the difficulties that students encountered and how teachers maysupport their learning. During the evaluation phase, interviews were conducted with the teachersto identify their perceptions. The interview questions were as follows:

1. Can you describe the learning outcomes achieved by your students?2. What were the difficulties that your students encountered?3. What support did you provide to your students?4. What are your suggestions for further support that teachers may provide to students in

conducting scientific investigations?

The interviews were conducted in the teachers’ respective schools, audio recorded, andtranscribed for analysis. All six of the teachers from the four schools were interviewed(Table 1). The teachers also submitted students’ work samples to enable analysis of pupils’learning during the implementation phase. Comments expressed by the teachers at the meetingsduring the evaluation phase were also included in the analysis. Qualitative analysis methods, suchas the constant comparative, were used in the data analysis.

The qualities mentioned in the responses were coded with regard to the school the teacherbelongs to (e.g., B denotes a teacher from School B). The interview results were analyzedaccording to the method for analyzing qualitative data suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994).The interviews were transcribed and categorized into different coded themes. The coding wasconducted without a priori categories, and categories were allowed to emerge as data wereanalyzed. Each interview question was analyzed across the group of respondents to create clustersof responses. These clusters were reduced to tighter themes.

Data on students’ perceptions of the experience of conducting scientific investigations werecollected through the administration of a questionnaire (Appendix 1) after the completion of thescience investigation activities. The questionnaire included questions on:

1. the influence of the science investigations on the students’ interest in learning science,including their level of interest in working on different stages of a science investigation;

2. their experience in the science investigation activities, including the difficulties theyencountered, how they handled the difficulties, and their suggestions about ways tosupport their investigations.

Students were asked to rank the items on a Likert scale of 5 points from strongly disagree,disagree, no opinion, agree, to strongly agree.

A draft of the questionnaire was sent to the science teachers involved in the project for theircomments, and some of the items were modified accordingly. The questionnaire was then pilotedwith a group of secondary 1 students from classes outside the project. This pilot was used tocheck on the wording of the items and the layout of the questionnaire. The students were asked ifthey had any difficulty in understanding the items in the questionnaire; e.g., in referring to theirexperiences in conducting self-planned investigations. As most of the students have experiencewith project learning, they regarded these investigations as a kind of project.

TAB

LE1

The

Bac

kgro

und

ofth

eF

our

Par

ticip

atin

gS

econ

dary

Sch

ools

Scho

olA

Scho

olB

Scho

olC

Scho

olD

Pro

ject

Mak

ing

am

odel

boat

Wat

erro

cket

Para

chut

eW

ater

rock

etTe

stfo

rpa

per

tow

els

The

effe

ctof

acid

san

dba

ses

onbo

nes

Lea

rnin

gob

ject

ive

Tofin

dou

tthe

mos

tef

fect

ive

way

tom

ake

abo

atm

ove

Tofin

dou

tthe

effe

ctof

the

wat

erca

paci

tyof

aro

cket

onits

laun

chin

ghe

ight

Tote

stth

efa

ctor

saf

fect

ing

the

land

ing

time

ofa

para

chut

e

Tofin

dou

tthe

effe

ctof

the

wat

erca

paci

tyof

aro

cket

onits

laun

chin

ghe

ight

Toin

vest

igat

eth

ere

latio

nshi

pbe

twee

nth

epr

ice

and

qual

ityof

pape

rto

wel

s

Tote

stw

hich

solu

tion

acid

ityca

ndi

ssol

vebo

nes

Topi

cE

nerg

ySp

ace

trav

el—

Spac

etr

avel

—C

omm

onac

ids

and

alka

lisG

rade

78

78

88

Scho

olte

rmin

whi

chth

epr

ojec

twas

cond

ucte

d

Seco

ndte

rmSe

cond

term

Seco

ndte

rmSe

cond

term

Firs

tter

mSe

cond

term

Dur

atio

n7

to8

clas

spe

riod

s7

to8

clas

spe

riod

s7

to8

clas

spe

riod

s;3–

4tu

tori

alle

sson

s7

to8

clas

spe

riod

s;3–

4tu

tori

alle

sson

s5

to6

clas

spe

riod

s

Teac

hers

part

icip

atin

g2

12

1

Stud

ents

part

icip

atin

g28

962

102

122

106


TABLE 2Students’ Prior Experience of Conducting Science Investigations

No. of times students have conducted science investigationactivities (N = 575) Number of responses (%)

Never 7 (1.2)Once 142 (25)Twice 97 (17.1)Three times 89 (15.7)Four or more times 233 (41)

The Background of the Students

The gender distribution of the 575 students was even, with females and males making up 50.9and 49.1%, respectively. As illustrated in Table 2, the students had varying degrees of priorexperience in conducting scientific investigation activities, with less than half (41.0%) havingconducted such activities four times or more in the past. The majority, about 60%, stated that theyhad been previously involved in scientific investigation two or three times, while about 26% ofthe students can be considered as having very little experience, as they remembered only havingtried this kind of activity once or never before.

The Schools and the Science Topics

The four schools participating in the project each conducted scientific investigation projects ina topic relevant to the teaching schedule of the school. The four participating schools attempteda total of five topics for their scientific investigation activities, with two schools both using thetopic “water rocket” (Table 1). Three of the topics were related to the junior secondary sciencecurriculum, while the other two (parachute and test for paper towels) provided students withopportunities to apply the concepts they have learned in daily life situations. All five problemsused a similar approach. The investigations followed the method of inquiry as described above;i.e., planning, designing the investigation, conducting fair tests, developing students’ abilitiesin data collection, recording data, and suggesting modifications. This procedure was derivedbased on a review of the literature as described in the section above and is consistent with therecommendations in the science education curriculum document.

The curriculum explicitly encourages teachers to conduct projects with an investigative natureand also those that aim at solving everyday problems (Curriculum Development Council, 2002).The curriculum also states that science projects enrich students’ science knowledge and strengthentheir science process skills, helping them to make connections between their learning experiencesin science and technology (Curriculum Development Council, 2002). Though the topic of theseinvestigations may be understood with a technological focus, the projects introduced in this studywere all conducted with an emphasis on the development of students’ scientific investigationabilities. In fact, technology education teaching and pedagogies associated with scientificinvestigation do share some commonalities; for example, students may employ divergent-thinkingtechniques to identify possible solutions and decide on one they eventually explore or students

108 CHENG

are engaged with problem-solving and applying scientific understanding (Bame & Booth, 2000;Burghardt & Hacker, 2004; Warner, 2003).

Three of the schools involved the students in the scientific investigation projects for over amonth, and one provided the students with a series of scientific investigation activities over aperiod of two semesters. Each teacher was involved in the teaching of two to four classes, eachwith about 40 students.

The Scientific Investigation Projects

In order to support teachers in designing the scientific investigation projects, teaching resourceswere designed to lessen the burden of teaching in terms of time and resource constraints. Teachingpackages for the five topics, namely, “making a model boat,” “water rocket,” “parachute,” “testfor paper towels,” and “the effect of acid and bases on bones,” were developed based on thefollowing principles as described in the literature:

1. scientific investigation tasks can be structured with basic or integrated process skills(Colvill & Pattie, 2002);

2. scientific investigation tasks may involve comparative investigations (Solano-Flores &Shavelson, 1997);

3. there are high- or low-level inquiry tasks (Solano-Flores & Shavelson, 1997) and thetasks can be staged (Chin, 2003);

4. scientific investigation tasks can be short inquiry activities or longer-term science projects(Colvill & Pattie, 2002);

5. scientific investigation tasks can develop students’ habits of mind (Fitzgerald & Byers,2002); and

6. scientific investigations are opportunities for students to apply science concepts or torelate science concepts to real-life situations (Brown & Clement, 1989; Brown, 1992;Stavy & Berkovitz, 1980).

All of the teachers were provided with a common set of teaching materials with suggestions onshorter investigation activities to equip students with the basic investigation skills and guidelineson how the open-ended investigation topics may be developed. The guidelines on each of theopen-ended investigation topics follow the same method of inquiry.

FINDINGS

Findings are categorized into two major areas, namely the learning outcomes of the studentsand challenges, difficulties, and teacher support during the scientific investigations. The lattersection is further categorized into four areas: students’ reliance on the teachers in conductingthe scientific investigation projects, the development of interest and self-regulatory learningabilities, addressing students’ prior knowledge and skills, and helping students to work in groups.As teachers discussed these difficulties and challenges, they reported how they supported theirstudents’ learning, and they gave recommendations for future attempts.


The Learning Outcomes of the Scientific Investigation Tasks

Students’ abilities to conduct scientific investigations

Students’ ability to conduct scientific investigations is regarded as the learning outcome forthis study. This includes abilities to plan an investigation, design feasible tests, conduct fair tests,make observations or records of the data, analyze the data, and identify limitations. From theteacher interviews, it was found that the teachers in school B perceived that the students alsolearned to compare their hypotheses with their findings. They also started to explain their findingsin a reasonable manner:

In writing the report, the students performed much better than I expected. Most of them could meetmy expectations. I am most satisfied with the last part of the discussion. During the discussion, eachgroup drew on the blackboard and described how their rocket performed during the trial flight. Manygroups actually hypothesized that the larger the volume of water, the higher the rocket would go. Theyhad this impression or hypothesis, until after the trial flight, when many students discovered that theirhypothesis was not correct. . . . During the discussion, they could provide reasonable explanations,that is, they thought about all the different possibilities. This was more than what I expected at thebeginning. (B)2

Teachers reported how their students learned about the meaning of a variable and were able toapply what they had learned about variables from a previous investigation to another on a differenttopic:

They are starting to get what is meant by a variable. I would discuss it with them before the activity,asking them how many variables there were. Some of the students did not know what a variable was,but by the end of the discussion they had gained some understanding about variables, how they caninfluence the result, what they need to change, and what conditions should be kept the same. Afterrepeating these questions, they developed the concept. I think that they can carry out the work tomeet my requirements this time (water rocket). This achievement is related to the previous activityon parachutes. (B)

The teachers in school B reflected how the students developed the concept of a fair test:

I saw that the students were learning continuously during the process. For example, they were tryingto launch the rocket, conducting an investigation. . . . Parts of the rocket came off after the test. Theywould try to put back all the parts onto the rocket to maintain a fair test. Though it might not beexactly the same, I could see that they tried very hard to create the same situation. This shows thatthey had the concept of a fair test. (B)

Teachers found that the students developed the ability to record results, and to apply daily lifeexperiences in explaining the results of the investigations. They were able to consider the variousfactors and come up with an overall understanding:

They would record all their results. They remembered that the rocket turned round and round. WhenI asked them the reason why, some of them could explain that it was because of the unbalancedwings or the air current. This may come from their daily life experience (e.g., playing with model airplanes), so they can thus explain the phenomenon. When they have similar opportunities to work ondesigns, these are the factors they need to consider. If they do not consider these factors, the product

110 CHENG

they make will not be able to provide the results expected. I think that these experiences are veryuseful for the students. (B)

The teachers define the learning outcomes to include skills in conducting scientific investigations.They reported that students learnt about setting hypotheses, defining variables, the concept of afair test, writing up reports, recording data, drawing conclusions, and applying previous learningto explain their results or observations.

Students’ interest in completing the scientific investigations

To succeed in self-regulated learning, students need to maintain their interest in the subject.Research by Baldwin, Peleg-Bruckner, and McClintock (1985), Chambers and Andre (1997),and Schiefele (1996, as cited in Alao & Guthrie, 1999) found that once pupils are moreinterested in the topic to be learned, they tend to apply higher order strategies to learn andperform better in answering complicated or in-depth questions. It is therefore important thatstudents develop a strong interest in the science subject such that their thinking and performancecan also be enhanced. Student-directed experimentation and explorations and relating scienceconcepts to everyday life would help students to like science (Ebenezer & Zoller, 1993). Apartfrom developing science process skills, the experience of conducting science investigations mayenhance students’ interest in learning science.

The students’ questionnaires looked into their interest in participating in different parts of thescience investigation projects. Students were asked to rank how they found the various tasks ina science investigation project on a Likert scale of 5 points from strongly dislike, dislike, noopinion, like, to strongly like. As shown in Table 3, all the items received a median of 4 or3, indicating that students were interested in the tasks. The tasks of observing, measuring, andorganizing the project; drawing diagrams and using apparatus; and planning investigations andpredicting the answers or results were rated more highly by the students. Relatively speaking,students found exploring science issues on their own, evaluating each other’s performance andcomparing results and concluding less interesting.

Challenges, Difficulties, and Teacher Support During Scientific Investigations

Students’ perceptions of difficulties and need for teacher support

In order to find out better ways to support student learning in the science investigation projects,students were asked to rank how they found the various tasks in a science investigation projecton a Likert scale of 5 points from very difficult, difficult, no opinion, easy, to very easy. A

TABLE 3Students’ Preference for Sources of Support in Times of Difficulty

Never Sometimes Always

Solve the problem on my own 97 (17.1%) 408 (72.1%) 61 (10.8%)Discuss with group members 33 (5.8%) 287 (50.5%) 248 (43.7%)Ask the teacher 79 (13.9%) 386 (68.1%) 102 (18.0%)Ignore the problem 328 (58.2%) 206 (36.5%) 30 (5.3%)


TABLE 4Reasons Why Students Found the Tasks Difficult

% Of students indicating the item as a reason

Insufficient knowledge or skills 59.4Insufficient time 55.4Insufficient resources 32.2Insufficient instructions 27.4

higher median value suggests an easier task. Students found it least difficult to measure andrecord data (median = 4.0). Students were neutral toward the level of difficulty of other tasks(median = 3.0), including identifying problems for investigation, writing hypotheses, planningan investigation, predicting results, comparing results and drawing conclusions, reflecting ontheir own performance, and acquiring the skills of measuring, drawing diagrams, and handlingapparatus. This finding suggests that the students faced a lower level of difficulty comparedwith those in other countries. Hackling and Garnett (1995) found that in conducting scienceinvestigations, students often lack the necessary problem analysis and planning skills required.Identifying variables and setting up controls are basic considerations in planning a scienceinvestigation. Other researchers (Donnelly, 1987; Duggan, Johnson, & Gott, 1996) have foundthat identifying, controlling, and manipulating appropriate variables to make an investigation afair test are common difficulties faced by students.

The students were asked to choose why they found the tasks difficult or challenging, if in factthey did have any difficulties. They could choose more than one item from four choices, includinginsufficient knowledge or skill, insufficient resources, insufficient instructions, and insufficienttime (Table 4). More than half of the students suggested that they had insufficient knowledge orskills (59.4%) and insufficient time (55.4%). While some teachers may think that open-endedinvestigations are conducive to students’ science learning, they may need to consider equippingstudents with the essential knowledge and/or skills before they let students work on their own.Teachers may also need to be more realistic in their estimation of the time needed for students tocomplete their science investigation projects.

In order to find out the degree of students’ reliance on teachers’ instructions and support,the students’ questionnaires looked into the teaching strategies that the students preferred andhow they solved the problems they encountered during the process of investigation. The studentswere also asked to indicate whether they found the four teaching strategies commonly adoptedby the science teachers to be helpful in supporting their science investigation projects. Studentswere asked to rank items on a Likert scale of 5 points from strongly disagree, disagree, noopinion, agree, to strongly agree, where a higher mean value suggests stronger agreement. Allfour strategies, namely, demonstration, discussion of the issues to note, written introduction ofthe task, and worksheets, received a median of 4.0, suggesting that the students agreed that thesewere helpful strategies.

The students in this study regarded teacher support to be important. This finding is consistentwith the ratings of a question in which students were asked how they would solve problemsencountered during the process of investigation. The students were asked to compare the frequencyof their use of the different sources of support, namely, solving the problem themselves, turning to

112 CHENG

TABLE 5Students’ Degree of Interest in the Various Tasks in a Science Investigation

Median Range

Learn the skills of measuring, drawing diagrams, and handling apparatus 4.00 4.00Take turns to observe, measure, record, and organize tasks 4.00 4.00Plan an investigation 4.00 4.00Predict the answers of questions or results of experiments 4.00 4.00Explore interesting science issues on my own 3.00 4.00Evaluate my own or each others’ performance 3.00 4.00Compare results and draw conclusions 3.00 4.00

Note. A higher mean value means a higher level of interest.

their peers for help, asking the teacher, and ignoring the problem. The findings shown in Table 5suggest that the teacher was the most frequent source of support, with 82 and 68.1% of the studentsrating “always” and “sometimes.” Peers also helped to solve problems with 43.7 and 50.5% rating“always” and “sometimes.” The students would “sometimes” (72.1%) solve the problem them-selves, and over half of the students (58.2%) suggested that they would not ignore the problem.This suggests that the students have a strong reliance on the teachers, and it is also quite disturbingto note that 17.1% of the students suggested that they would not solve the problems by themselves.This may indicate a problem in the motivation to learn or the ability to learn science.

While the students did not find the scientific investigation tasks difficult, they still preferredvarious forms of teacher support to prepare them for the tasks and to give them guidance insolving the problems they encountered.

The importance of prior science knowledge and skills

The teachers concurred with the design in the study that the students need to be prepared forthe scientific investigations, as they did not have much prior knowledge or experience of workingon scientific investigations.

The first lesson is on scientific investigation. They would have liked to have had more examples ofwhat a scientific investigation is, and how it is conducted. They were interested, and more than halfof the class wanted [to have more examples] . . . the example I gave was on the fermentation of breadusing yeast, and measuring the change in volume. . . . I tried to read more books and find if there weremore examples so as to help students understand what a hypothesis is, what a topic is, and how todesign an experiment and record results, etc. (D)

The teachers addressed these difficulties in a number of ways. Firstly, the teachers suggestedthat they start with an introductory activity that is at a lower level of difficulty. For example, theymade use of the activity to develop students’ skills in identifying variables: “I gave them someideas to start with, a simple example, to see if there were any problems and if they could thendevelop some basic concepts” (C).

After I got the information you provided, I found that a lot of the variables could be changed. Dueto the ability of the students, this is the first time we have conducted this type of activity [scientificinvestigation]. We focused on the investigation of one variable and the whole form is doing the samething. (B)


Before we launched this activity, all the students were divided into eight groups to design aparachute, which is similar to this activity. They worked on only one variable [the area of theparachute]. This prepared them for this activity. (B)

Secondly, the teachers adjusted their level of expectation of the students. For example, this teachermade reference to similar reports completed by students in another school: “We made referenceto reports written by students from different schools, to understand their level of ability and knowwhat they would be able to write” (B).

Thirdly, teachers provided more detailed guidelines for students who had not been engagedin similar tasks before. They provided information about the tasks to be completed, as explainedbelow:

I found that they did not or seldom wrote journals at first, but that they wrote more at a later stage.In fact, I used a lot of time to explain to them the importance of writing learning journals. They arenot used to this, and have never written journals. The reflection only came at the end of the project,writing their feelings, thoughts. They seldom reflected on the difficult things, or what worked well intheir journals. (B)

As the responses in the students’ questionnaires suggest that they did not have much difficulty withthe tasks in the scientific investigations, these strategies can be seen to be effective in supportingstudent learning.

Helping students to work in groups

Though the students were required to work in groups during the investigation process, theywere not adapted to this mode of learning. They had different views and sometimes argued witheach other:

The girls paid more attention to the aesthetic sense; they forgot about the durability, and the importanceof symmetry. This shows that they did not put much emphasis on these. The boys were better.Though they didn’t look very good, their rockets could fly higher and the structure was moresymmetrical. . . . They sometimes argued with each other at first. They had different ideas. (B)

As students lacked experience of working in groups, they could not distribute the work or enhancethe quality of their work by group effort.

I made it a rule that they had to write at least 30 words. That meant that even if they did not have anyproblems, they still had to write 30 words. If there was a problem, they had to write a solution; if not,they had to explain the process of the investigation. They could work together to think about whatthey could write. (B)

The findings from the questionnaires completed by the students suggest that the teacher was themost frequent source of support, whereas peers were comparatively less frequently considered intimes of difficulties. This reflects the scenario that the students did not benefit much by workingin groups or know how to make the best of the support from their peers. In the face of suchdifficulties, the teachers suggested simple solutions. They tended to allow students to solve theproblems on their own and would intervene only when the students failed to do so or when theproblems became very serious.

114 CHENG

(How can this be solved?) The teacher had to help, but they could arrive at a consensus at times; e.g.,a girl would say “I did not expect that the boys would have such good thinking ability. They are quickand then everyone accepts their ideas.” (D)

In order to support students to conduct scientific investigation projects, teachers need tounderstand the students’ abilities in engaging in self-regulated learning and group learning.Having some relevant prior learning experience in scientific investigation may help students tocope better with subsequent investigation tasks.

The development of self-regulated learning abilities

Though the level of interest in scientific investigative activities reported by the studentsthemselves was not low (with a median value above 4.0 for four of the tasks), the teachersperceived a lack of self-regulated learning habits among the students and noted that support isneeded to help students change their learning habits. When there were school holidays during theimplementation of the investigation tasks, the teachers found that the students could not keep upwith the schedule. For example:

Students did well during the lessons; they were involved and I was happy with their performance.However, when they were asked to complete the work at home individually or as a group, theirperformance was often very poor. I asked them why they couldn’t get together after school tocomplete the work, and I discovered that they relied on each other to make the first move. (A)

The activity started before the Easter holidays. . . . After the holidays, only a small part of the workwas completed. Some of the groups had forgotten about the work and so I had to spend a lot of timeexplaining and getting them started all over again. The schedule was delayed for two weeks becauseof this. (A)

To address this problem, the teachers in School B suggested that they check students’ workprogress regularly in order to ensure that those with lower self-regulated learning abilities couldkeep up with the schedule:

I would use the last 5 minutes of my lesson plus the time for the recess to check the students’ progress.This would make them more serious about their work, and think that it was important. It was not onlythe quality of the work but that the whole activity was important for them. (B)

The teachers realized that regulating the progress of the students’ work was a problem, anddevised some strategies, including the checking of unfinished products, drafts of students’ work,and allowing time for students to discuss their work during lessons. It is also necessary thatteachers consider whether students are equipped with the relevant knowledge or prior learning orthe necessary skills that are required to complete the scientific investigation projects.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The teachers reported that the students were able to develop the concept of a fair test, and that theinvestigations offered opportunities for students to compare their hypotheses with the findings.The investigation tasks proved to be meaningful learning experiences for students of diverseabilities. The findings from the students’ questionnaires suggest that they did not find muchdifficulty with the tasks in the scientific investigations and that there were positive influences


on the students’ interest in learning science through their engagement in scientific investigationtasks. The students demanded more support from the teachers and agreed with the usefulnessof all four strategies suggested. They were concerned about having prior knowledge about theinvestigations and time to complete the scientific investigations. The strategies adopted by theteachers in this study worked, including starting with an introductory activity that was at a lowerlevel of difficulty, adjusting the level of expectations on the students by making reference tostudents’ work of a similar level, providing more detailed guidelines, having students distributetheir work in groups, and providing opportunities for students to solve problems on their own.

There were challenges related to raising students’ self-regulated and active learning abilitiesand promoting group cooperation among the students. These are key factors to consider indeveloping students’ abilities to engage in scientific investigations. Instead of taking these factorsseparately, they can be interpreted as related to one another. The implementation of scientificinvestigation tasks means a shift in the strategies for the learning and teaching of science.While teachers and students are used to having textbook-based experiments, the introductionof self-planned and self-regulated scientific investigation tasks poses a challenge to both. It isnot surprising to find that students met difficulties in working according to their implementationschedules and learning with their peers in groups over a period of time. The transition fromtextbook-based learning cannot happen overnight.

In order to enhance the participation of students and teachers in scientific investigation tasks,the implementation of scientific investigation tasks can be conceptualized as consisting of twostages, a preliminary and an enhancing stage. The design of the two stages takes into considerationstudents’ prior science knowledge and skills, their experience in engaging in group work, andtheir ability to engage in self-regulated learning tasks.

At the preliminary stage, students come with little or no experience in scientific investigation.Teachers need to recognize their need for some input of background knowledge and skills. Toget students ready for the next stage, teachers may need to conduct some demonstrations in thelessons, discuss the nature of scientific investigations using short inquiries that can be completedin a lesson, or let students discuss their first scientific investigation projects in class, as well asoffer advice when necessary. The teacher remains the most important source of support. Thisstage also provides an opportunity for students to organize themselves into groups and workcooperatively. Teachers may suggest that students divide up the different types of tasks amongthe different group members. The interest of these students is likely to be further enhanced as theyprovide support to their peers. The preliminary stage is targeted at promoting students’ interest inscience learning and scientific investigation activities; they will become more familiar with thebasic process skills (Colvill & Pattie, 2002) such as measuring, observing, and manipulation ofapparatus. Teachers can also start to engage students in self-reflection after the activity, as thiswill further students’ performance in future investigations.

Having equipped the students with some basic knowledge and skills, the teachers can let themdesign scientific investigations at the enhancing stage. Students will then be required to plan theirinvestigations and draw up a working schedule for a task that may last for only a few days toone week. This is to familiarize students with the requirements of self-regulatory learning tasks.The teacher can provide more room for peer and self support as well as promote independentlearning. The aim is to improve students’ competence in planning scientific investigations andimprove their ability to work in self-regulated learning tasks and in groups. When students arefamiliar with the requirements, teachers can introduce scientific investigation tasks that take alonger period of time to complete; for example, one month or a school term. The time required

116 CHENG

also reflects the demand on the self-regulated learning ability of the students and the complexityof the tasks.

While science educators have focused on how science learning can be achieved throughscientific investigation tasks, the pedagogy and the ways to support students’ learning need tobe analyzed. Further research can look into ways that can enhance students’ ability to work ingroups and how they can become self-regulated learners.

NOTES

1. The other five strands are, namely, life and living; the material world; energy and change; the earth andbeyond; and science, technology, and society.2. B denotes a teacher from school B.

REFERENCES

ACT Department of Education and Community Services (2000). Curriculum profiles for Australian schools. Canberra,Australia: Curriculum profiles for Australian schools.

Alao, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (1999). Predicting Conceptual Understanding with Cognitive and Motivational Variables.Journal of Educational Research, 92 (4), 243–54.

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.),Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Arisawa, S., & Tsukimoto, K. (1998). Free study handbook. Tokyo: Fukuinkan Shoten Publishers.Baldwin, R. S., Peleg-Bruckner, Z., & McClintock, A. H. (1985). Effects of Topic Interest and Prior Knowledge on

Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 497–504.Bame, A., & Booth, R. (2000). Design problem solving: The signature of technology education. In G. E. Martin (Ed.),

Technology education for the 21st century: A collection of essays (pp. 21–32). New York: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.Bachta, L. M. (2001). Concrete inquiry. The Science Teacher, 68(1), 40–48.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Brown, D. C., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions by analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus

explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing

conceptual change. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17–34.Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core

process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64, 6–8.Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & H.v.Z. Emily, Inquiring into inquiry learning and

teaching in science (pp. 21–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, Prior Knowledge, Interest, and Experience in Electricity and Conceptual

Change Text Manipulations in Learning about Direct Current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–23.Chin, C. (2003). Success with investigations. The Science Teacher, 70, 34–40.Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational

Research, 64, 1–35.Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education London: Routledge.Colvill, M., & Pattie, I. (2002). Science skills—The building blocks. Investigating, 18(4), 27–30.Conner, L. N. (2004). Teaching values through the process of facilitation. Pacific Asian Education, 16(2), 65–80.Costa, A. (1991). Mediating the metacognitive. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching

Vol. 1, pp. 211–214. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Retrieved February

13, 2007, from http://www.cmec.ca/science/frameworkCrossland, J. (1998). Teaching for progression in experimental and investigative science. Primary Science Review, 53,

18–20.


Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Science education, key learning area curriculum guide (Primary 1–Secondary3). Hong Kong: The Curriculum Development Council.

Cuseo, J. (1992). Cooperative learning vs small-group discussions and group projects: The critical difference. CooperativeLearning and College Teaching, 2(3), 5–10.

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2006). An overview and comparison of Australian State and Territory K–10 science curriculumdocuments. Teaching Science, 52(2), 17–24.

Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office. (1989). Science in the national curriculum. London: HerMajesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO).

Donnelly, J. F. (1987). Fifteen-Year-Old Pupils’ Variable Handling Performance in the Context of Scientific Investigations.Research in Science and Technological Education, 5, 135–147.

Donelly, J. (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,20, 585–596.

Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small scale research: A teachers’ guide. Edinburgh: ScottishCouncil for Research in Education (SCRE).

Duggan, S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). A critical point in investigative work: Defining variables. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 33, 461–474.

Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Science Teaching andSchool Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175–86.

Fitzgerald, M. A., & Byers, A. (2002). A rubric for selecting inquiry-based activities. Science Scope, 26, 22–25.Goldsworthy, A., & Feasey, R. (1997). Making sense of primary science investigations. Hatfield, England: Association

for Science Education.Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.Hackling, M. W., & Fairbrother, R. W. (1996). Helping students to do open investigations in science. Australian Science

Teachers Journal, 42, 26–33.Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1995). The development of expertise in science investigation skills. Australian Science

Teachers Journal, 41(4), 80–86.Haigh, M., & Hubbard, D. (1997). “I really know I have learned something”: Investigative work in science education. In

B. Bell and R. Baker, Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand, 53–65, New Zealand: AddisonWesley Longman.

Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 28(2), 115–135.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st. century. ScienceEducation, 88, 28–54.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2002). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Kreke, K., Fields, A., & Towns, M. H. (1998, April). An action research project on student perspectives of cooperative

learning in chemistry: Understanding the efficacy of small-group activities. Paper presented at the Annual Meetingof the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Laase, L., & Clemmons, J. (1998). Helping students write the best research reports ever. New York, New York: ScholasticPress.

Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Base for an accommodation between science and technology education in thecurriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255–281.

Lotan, R. A., Cohen, E. G., & Holthusi, N. C. (1994). Talking and working together: Conditions for learning in complexinstruction. Paper presented to Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA,April 4–8, 1994.

Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative andqualitative approaches. London: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American

Association for the Advancement of Science.National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through

collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.

118 CHENG

Sawyer, K. R. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as discipline improvisation. Educational Researcher,33(2), 12–20.

Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic setting. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 75–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Solano-Flores, G., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Development of performance assessments in science: Conceptual, practical,and logistical issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(13), 16–25.

Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature.Science Education, 64, 679–692.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong. (2003). The first HKPISA report. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute ofEducational Research.

Warner, S. A. (2003). Teaching design: Taking the first steps. The Technology Teacher, 62, 7–10.Watson, S. B. (1991). Cooperative learning and group education modules: Effects on cognitive achievement of high

school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 141–146.Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in

cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60–66.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P. Pintrich, & M.

Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research and applications (pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic.Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American

Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Development phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome

goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.


APPENDIX 1 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Experience of Learning in the Scientific Investigation Activities

Part A: Background (Put a tick for the appropriate response)

Gender: � Male � Female

Have you conducted a scientific investigation before?

� Once before � Twice before � Three times before � Four times before

Part B

1. Please put a to indicate your degree of interest in the various tasks in a scientificinvestigation

Very low levelof interest

Notinterested No opinion Interested

Very stronglevel of interest

Explore interesting science issues onmy own

Predict the answers of questions orresults of experiments

Plan an investigationTake turns to observe, measure,

record, and organize tasksCompare results and draw

conclusionsEvaluate my own or each other’s

performanceLearn the skills of measuring,

drawing diagrams, and handlingapparatus

2. Do you think that the teaching strategies below are helpful in supporting your scientific

investigations? (Please put a that best represents your thinking)

Strongly disagree Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly agree

Written introduction of the taskWorksheetsDemonstrationDiscussion of the issues to note

120 CHENG

3. What do you think about the level of difficulty of the various tasks in a scientific

investigation? (Please put a that best represents your thinking)

Very difficult Difficult No opinion Easy Very easy

Identify the problemPredict resultsPlan an investigationMeasure and record dataCompare results and draw

conclusionsReflect on my own performanceSkills of measuring, drawing

diagrams, and handlingapparatus

Write a hypothesis

4. What do you think is the reason that you found the above task(s) difficult? (Put aunder the reason. You can choose more than one item)

Insufficient knowledge/ skills Insufficient resources Insufficient instructions Insufficient time

5. When you encounter some difficulties in the process of conducting scientific investiga-

tions, what is your preferred source of support? (Please put only one in each row)

Never Sometimes Always

Solve the problem on my ownDiscuss with my group membersAsk the teacherIgnore the problem

Documents

Identifying Strategies to Support Junior Secondary Students to Engage in Scientific Investigation Tasks