Discussion strategies and student cognitive skills

Abstract

Thisstudy compared the effects of two specific post-laboratory discussion strategies in science on the development of the four cognitive skills of observation, inference, verification and classification. The two strategies were: (1) teacher-dominated, in the form of organized lectures based on the data students had collected; and en sb.ident-dominated, in that students evaluated their own results and justified all 'inferences they made. The .sample consisted of eight groups of sixth grade students, four from an urban school and four from_a suburban school. The discussions were analyzed using the Classroom Observational Record, and students' ability in -the foursAills were assessed using the Skill Measures. -Analysis of variance indicated that strategy e4 resulted-in a significantly-greater gain in the quantity and quality of student inferences than-did strategy (1). In -the suburban school, strategy (2) was better than strategy (1) -in developing observation, but the reverse was found in-the urban school..Noconclusions -could be drawn concerning the skills of verification and classi (Author/MM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODLJCED EXACTLY AS RECEVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU. CATION POSITION OR FOLIcY Discussion Strategies and Student Cognitive Skills Eugene C. Abraham Temple University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Miles A. Nelson University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin William U. Reynolds Jr. University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A paper presented at. 'the 1971 American Educational Research Association Annual MeetingNew York City February 5, 1971 Discussi n .J.tratgies and Student Cogrlitive Skills by Eugene C. Abraham Mlles A. Nelson William W. Reynolds Jr. Theoretical Fra e, rk One of the major distinctions between many traditional science programs and teaching science by an Inquiry method is-that the latter puts a much greater emphasis on the processes of science (Van Deventer: 1966)These processes include such skills as observation, classification, inference, and verification. Teaching science through inquiry allows the child to manipulate and. control phenomena-directly in a way that requires explanations for observed inconsistencies. As Gagne (1963) has said, what it is (inquiry) is a set of activities characterized by a pro, solving approach, in which newly encountered phenomena becei-ae a challenge for thinking. Referring to Buchman Butts and Jones (1967) have said, has analyzed in depth how inquiry is conducted by the Elementary School child. He has stated that in inquiry into a problem situation, a child (1) searches, (2) processes data, (3) discovers, (4) verifies. Butts and Jones ( 1967) themselves say, These five activities (searching, processing data discovering, verifying, assimilatingaccommodating) arey OPeq4X1 for a model of inquiry. There are a great many different ways of classifying these processes, ranglng from the classical scientific method to descriptions of critical thinkingand problem solving. Havin and discover relationships in science children inquire predicated upon the idea that they are acquiring certain skills as well as conten Most of the current el mentary school science projects emphasize inquiry, and stress the importance of the acquisition of skills by the children which will enable them to coll ct and process information leading to the evaluation of hypotheses. The child should be then proceed to able to perform able to attempt explanations for phenomena, and evaluate his explanations. The child should be such skilTh as observation, inference, classification, prediction, hypothesis for ation, verification,-and evaluation of hypotheses. To a considerable degree, the success with which a child can solve problems or process information depends upon his level of proficiency with these and other skills. The child must not simply create able to eValuate its feasibilitv The developmental ps chology the active interactions of stude an explanation, but should be or suitability as well. of Piaget (1964) also emphasizes ts in the learning process. Plaget also stresses the importanoe of peer interaction throughout the entire learning Process, as well as maximizing the direct ex periences of students with phenomena. Bruner (1967) also believes that students both with the be direct and should be active in the learning process interacting phenomena and with other _students. xperience should concrete at first, gradually becoming and symbolic as their abilities develoD. Suchman (1964) has incorporated many of the ideas of Piaget more abstract and Bruner into his student is an etort DLIDLIE,..)._aneritPro-rram for science. The encouraed to experiment and work with materials in -solve problems or a. observed incons onSIStendie .-:_thatoccur. -These.