JOURNAL OF RESE.4RCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 24. NO. I . PP. 39-31 1987)

A COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND FORMAL SCIENCE INSTRUCTION UPON SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND REASONING ABILITY OF SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS

WALTER L. SAUNDERS Utah State University. Department of Seconddry Eiiircation.

Logan, Litdl 84322

DAN I EL S E PA R DS 0 N National Energy Foundation. 5160 W h y Post Way, No. 200,

Salt Lake City, Utuh 84116

ABSTFUCT

Several recent studies suggest concrete learners make greater pains in student achievement and in cognitive development when receiving concrete instruction than when receiving formal instruction. This study examined the effect of concrete and formal instruction upon reasoning and science achievement of sixth grade students. Four intact classes of sixth grade students were randomly selected into two treatment groups; concrete and formal. The treatments were patterned after the operational defini- tions published by Schneider and Renner (1980). Pretest and posttest measures were taken on the two dependent variables; reasoning, measured with Lawson’s Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning, and science achievement, measured with seven teacher made tests covering the following units in a sixth grade general science cuniculum: Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Cells, Plants, Animals, and Ecology. Analysis of covariance indicated signrficantly higher levels (better than 0.05 and in some cases 0.01) of performance in science achievement and cognitive development favoring the con- crete instruction group and a significant gender effect favoring males.

Introduction

A long standing issue in science education involves the pedagogical pur- pose of laboratory instruction in the science programs of schools. Because laboratory instruction is a costly endeavor in terms of both fiscal resources and human resources, many educators have questioned its benefits. However, in recent decades a growing body of educational literature stemming from applica- tions of the Piagetian perspective on cognitive development suggests that for learners who are reasoning at a concrete level. science laboratory activities, or more generally “hands-on” activities, may play an important role in at least

Q 1987 by the National .4ssociation for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons. Inc. CCC OOX-~308,87JJlOO39- I3504.W

40 SAUNDERS AND SHEPARDSON

two major educational outcomes: ( I ) science achievement. and (7) cognitive development.

The notion that concrete operational learners may be expected to benefit from instruction which incorporates hands-on experiences stems from the Piagetian or constructivist perspective. i.e., that individuals construct their knowledge based upon their sensory experiences with the world. These con- structions or “schema” are said to represent one’s understanding of the world and to provide a basis for ”prediction,” i.e., operative thought. Piaget suggests that the acquisition of certain logical operations necessary for operative thought results from the continued interplay of sensory experiences and mental schema. (Piaget, 1970, p. 153). This “equilibration theory” presupposes a physical interaction between subject and object.

While his theory of cognitive development has received extensive criticism [A) stage theory issues, Flavell. 1985, p. 82ff Ennis, 1978, p. 202; Nagy & Griffiths, 1982, p. 537ff Tomlinson-Keasey, 1982, p. 131ff B) sematics issues, Donaldson, 1978, p. 56; Elliot & Donaldson, 1982, p. 157ff; and C) equilibration specific issues, Flavell, 1985, p. 2901 nevertheless, empirical studies continue to confirm his findings on developmental trends, (Driver, 1982, p. 357; Flavell, 1985, p. 115). Piaget’s data suggested that one could expect children to be functioning at the beginning stages of formal operational reasoning by the time they enter the sixth grade (roughly 12 years of age). However, many subse- quent studies have shown that most secondary students are still reasoning at the concrete level.

Representative studies and their respective percentages of concrete learn- ers are: Lawson and Renner (1974). 75% of students between grades 7-12; Wollman and Karplus (19741, 85% of students in seventh and eighth grade; Renner and Stafford (1972). 77% of seventh, eighth, and ninth grade students. Recent reports in the literature and the findings presented below. lend further confirmation to the above described percentages (Fowler and Mulopo, 1984, eleventh grade chemistry students. 50% concrete; Johnson and Barufauldi, 1984, nursing students, age ranging from 21 to 48,58.5% not formal; Olstad and Havry. 1982, college students 54% not formal, and medical students 96% not formal: Song and Fowler, 1981, college freshman, 60% not formal; Staver and Halsted. 1984. high school chemistry students, 53% concrete).

While Piaget did not consider himself an educator nor a psychologist. his writings have resulted in the development of a rationale for a number of science cumculum projects. including the Science Cumculum Improvement Study (SCIS). Science 5/13 in England and the Australian Science Education Project (ASEP), (Driver, 1982). The major emphasis in these curriculum projects is on science as a process and upon the active involvement of the learner with the concrete objects of study. The obvious implication of such an emphasis is that instructional practices stemming from selected science cumculua may in fact effect cognitive development.

The investigation of instructional practices which effect gains in cognitive development has received increasing attention the past decade or so. Many of these kinds of studies seem to confirm the hypothesis that concrete experiences are a necessary requisite to the development of formal operational thought. In a training study designed to improve students’ performance on the control of

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND REASONING ABILITY 41

variables task. students who were instructed with concrete objects (bouncing balls. bending rods, a whirly bird. etc.) performed at higher levels of success than a similar group of students who were not instructed with these apparatii (Lawson & Wollman, 1976). A similar training study (Wollman & Lawson. 1978) on the ability to solve proportional reasoning problems showed that stu- dents whose instruction included active student involvement with physical objects, performed with greater success than a control group in which the instruction was totally verbal.

Both of these studies were of rather short duration and the results some- what limited in their generalizability to other tasks or contexts. Similar studies of longer duration also seem to point in the direction of a link between cognitive development and instruction which makes use of concrete objects. For in- stance. Schneider and Renner (1980) found "concrete instruction" to be supe- rior to "formal instruction'' in both effecting scienc; achievement and intellec- tual growth. Their study took place over an interval of 12 weeks with students in the concrete instruction group interacting with "actual apparatus" while those in the formal instruction group were instructed with "verbal and printed words". It is important to note however, that not just any hands-on activity or laboratory instruction seems to enhance these two outcomes but rather a planned sequence of instructional activities which generally proceed from rather loosely structured "exploratory" experiences to more structured "con- cept invention" and "concept application" activities.

Additional studies which seem to suggest that this planned sequence, often referred to as "concrete instruction", "the learning cycle", inquiry teaching, discovery learning, or inductive instruction is particularly effective in promot- ing gains in both achievement and cognitive development for learners who are functioning at the level of concrete operations are Linn and Thier, (1975); Purser and Renner, (1983); Schenider and Renner, (1980).

Purpose The several studies mentioned above, Purser and Renner (1983), Schneider

and Renner (19801, Wollman and Lawson (1978) and Lawson and Wollman (1976), were conducted over a time interval ranging from four-30 minute "pull- out sessions" with fifth and seventh grade students (Lawson & Wollman, 1976) to "a period of more than eight months" with ninth and tenth grade students (Purser & Renner, 1983).

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of longer term treat- ments at lower grade levels than those mentioned previously. Specifically, the study investigated the effects of concrete instruction and formal instruction upon the science achievement, and level of cognitive development of sixth grade students for an entire school year.

Design

The study employed a pretest-posttest control group design. Four intact classes of sixth grade students were randomly selected into two treatment groups; formal instruction and concrete instruction.

4: S A U N DERS 4ND S H EPARDSON

Sample

All of the subjects were students in a sixth-grade general science course at Grand County Middle School. Moab, Utah. The students had been randomly assigned to the class periods prior to the investigation. The intact classroom groups (class periods) were randomly assigned to the treatment or control. The class size varied throughout the investigation due to either, ( 1 ) absences on data collection days, or (2) attrition due to students moving outside of the district. The sample for which the data were complete was 115.

The treatment group, which was exposed to a concrete instructional strat- egy, consisted of 62 students at the initiation of the investigation. The control group, which was exposed to a formal instructional strategy consisted of 60 students at the initiation of the investigation. At the conclusion of the investiga- tion the treatment group consisted of 57 students and the control group con- sisted of 58 students.

The sixth-grade science courses were selected for this investigation be- cause (1) they represented a population of first year science students with limited knowledge of science concepts, and (2) according to Piaget (1964) the students should be in transition between concrete and formal operational rea- soning, thus the effect of instructional strategies on cognitive development may be more pronounced.

Description of Treatments

These treatments, concrete and formal instruction, have been well de- scribed elsewhere. For a detailed description see, Schneider and Renner (1980). Briefly, formal instruction consisted of an emphasis upon oral and writ- ten language. Formal instructional activities included lecture-discussion, oral quizzes, written assignments. reading assignments, films, film strips, written tests and quizzes. Lecture-discussion sessions were conducted as follows. The session usually commenced at the beginning of the class period. Major ideas and key vocabulary words were on the chalk board prior to the class period. The instructor lectured to the students while students took notes and asked questions. These lecture-discussion sessions averaged 15 to 20 minutes in length. Films were used about 10% of the class time (roughly one film per week). Prior to viewing the film the instructor would brief the students about what to look for in the film and after viewing the film the instructor would conduct a class discussion over the major ideas presented in the film. The content of the films illustrated the science concepts contained in the cumcu- lum. Reading assignments comprised a major portion of the instructional activi- ties. Students were given class time to complete reading assignments in the text and were required to respond in writing to assigned questions in the text. These questions were collected and graded by the instructor. Additionally, the in- structor "went over'' the questions with the entire class so that every pupil had the opportunity to learn the correct answers. Infrequently, the instructor per- formed demonstrations of science principles before the entire class. Students were not allowed to manipulate the materials or apparatus during these demon- strations. Finally, the instructor administered oral quizzes about twice a week. Students were instructed to take out a sheet of paper and write the answers to

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND REASONING ABILITY 43

questions which were spoken aloud to the entire class. It is imponant to em- phasize that students in the formal instruction group did not perform any labo- ratory investigations and did not manipulate science apparatus.

Concrete instruction was organized around the learning cycle approach and involved an emphasis upon hands-on activities. The learning cycle approach can be described as consisting of three phases which are: exploration, concep- tual invention, and discovery (or application). For any given concept under study, several class periods are required to complete the learning cycle. During the expioration phase the students are involved in exploratory hands-on labora- tory activities related to the concept under study. The concrete activities in- clude observation, measuring, and investigating. While interpreting and pre- dicting are clearly intellectual processes (eg. not sensory experiences) they are considered to be a necessary part of Piaget's "interplay between subject and object." This interplay comprises the essence of equilibration theory. Written instructions were provided to assist students in their interactions with the concrete materials. but no information concerning the concept being studied was provided during the exploration phase and a deliberate attempt was made to encourage students to explore materials and ideas with "minimal guidance or expectation of specific accomplishments" (Karplus, 1979). The conceptual invention phase consisted of teacher led discussions about the concrete activi- ties which had been experienced during the exploration phase. The discus- sions, which can be described as "guided discovery," culminated with explica- tion of the concept.

The discovery phase, or better, the application and extension phase follows the conceptual invention phase and expands the concept through further exper- imentation, discussion, reading, and audiovisual materials.

The investigation was conducted from August 22, 1982, to May 24. 1983. All class periods were 45 minutes long and students followed the same class schedule Monday through Friday. Pretest and posttest measures were adminis- tered for the two dependent variables; reasoning, measured with Laws0n.s Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning (1978), and science achievement, mea- sured with seven teacher made tests covering the following units in a sixth grade general science curriculum: Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science; Cells, Plants, Animals, and Ecology. The scores on each of the seven tests were converted to percentages and these percentages were added together to consti- tute the total score. Thus the maximum possible score for science achievement was 700; the minimum possible was zero. For the other dependent measure, cognitive development, the maximum possible score is 15 points.. The criteria for stage classifications were those used by Lawson (1978); and are concrete 0-5, transitional 6-12, formal 12-15.

The schedule of test administration is shown in Table I. The examinations were carefully constructed by the instructor of the class, and represented the content covered in lecture, textbook, and laboratory activities. They were judged to have content validity by both authors.

.

Reliability

Kuder-Richardson formuta 20 gave a reliability estimate of 0.88 for science achievement and 0.63 for cognitive development.

44 SAUNDERS AND SHEPARDSON

TABLE I Examination Dates for the Several

Subsections (Unit Tests) of the Achievement Test

S3IEbl 'E d ' l i T:

Chemistry ?l:yslCs tartn

C e l l s P l a n t s Animals

Lawsons

-

Science

i c o l o g y

Reasoning

P R E T E S i POSTTEST

Findings

The purpose of this investigation was to study the effects of a year long program of concrete instruction and formal instruction upon, (L) science achievement, and (2) cognitive development in a population of sixth grade students.

Analysis of the data for the two dependent variables. science achievement and cognitive development was undertaken using an analysis of covariance with scores on the pretests as the covanates. In every instance, regression lide slopes met the criterion for heterogeneity thus meeting the assumption of ho- mogeneous regression in analysis of covariance. The results of the ANCOVA for the two dependent variables are given in Tables 111, IV, VI, VII, respec- tiveiy. There was an effect due to gender, at the P = 0.032 level of significance favoring males on the posttest of cognitive development.

TABLE I1 Means and Standard Deviations for Pretest, and

Posttest of Science Achievement

Concrete : t i s t ruc t 1 on

Mean Stdnadrd D e v l d t r o n

P r e t e s t 27J Sd

P o s t t e s t 490 90

Formal ins r ruc t i o n

P r e t e s t 264 5b

P 0 % t t e s t 435 33

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND REASONING ABILITY 45

TABLE I11 Analysis of Covariance for Posttest Scores on

Science Achievement Using Pretest Scores as the Covariate

UJIISTED SUM siiuacc JF OF SQUARES YEAN SQUARE

i r ed tment I 39350.57 333Sd.47

3ex 1 291.91 293.31

:ncer3c t ion 3 3 9 3 . 3 5 3 2 3 3 . d 5

i o v a r r a t e 174991.37 4 7 4 9 9 1 . 3 7

I r r w ? I Jo'J.24 7.19 J 7 4 4 . 3 2

Results f o r Science Achievement

While the two groups, concrete instruction and formal instruction, were quite similar to each other in their pretest results, (concrete F = 273: formal .Y = 263) the descriptive statistics shown in Table I1 suggest that the group receiving concrete instruction outperformed those who received formal instruction. with the mean achievement score in the concrete group of K = 490 and in the formal group of K = 434. The means and standard deviations for science achievement are shown in Table 11.

When pretest differences were taken into account through the analysis of covariance. the difference between these two groups was significant, at better than p = 0.01 (see Tables I11 and IV).

TABLE IV Adjusted Hypotheses Tests for Posttest Scores on

Science Achievement Using Pretest Scores as the Covariate

S I G N I F I C A I I C E SOURCE DF F-RATIO LEVEL

Treatment 1 39358 -07 = 8.29 .OG5 - --

E r r o r 97 5744.d1

Sex I 293.01 = .U6 ns - -

i r r a r 57 4 144 . .j 1

:n t e r a c t i o n 1 139d.35 = 1 . 7 7 n s - -

i r r o r fi 4744.;;

46 SACNDERS .4ND SHEPARDSON

TABLE V Pre and Post Means and Standard Deviations for

Lawson's Test of Formal Reasoning

,onCrete i n r t r u c t l o n

flea n 5 tdnda r d Dev l a t i on

?re test 2.J7 2.01

P o s t t e s t 4.75 3.21

Formal I n s t r u c t i o n

P r e t e s t 2.28 1.84

P o s t t e s t 3.17 2.81

Results for Cognitive Development

The results for cognitive development are very similar to those for science achievement in that the pretest means were very similar prior to the initiation of the treatment while following the treatment the mean of the concrete group was considerably higher than that of the formal group Q = 4.75 concrete, Z = 3.17 formal). With the pretest differences taken into account through the analysis of covariance, the two groups differed significantly at better than p = 0.01 (see Tabies VI and VII).

As can be noted in Table VIII, the posttest mean for females in the con- crete group was considerably lower than the mean for males. The same was true of the means for females and males in the formal group. While males and females posttest scores on cognitive development were higher for concrete instruction than formal instruction, there was a significant effect due to gender (at better than p = 0.05) as indicated by the results of the ANCOVA shown in Table VII.

TABLE VI Analysis of Covariance for Scores on Lawson's Test

of Formal Reasoning Using Pretest Scores as the Covariate

~~ ~ ~~ ~

ADJUSTEU SJM SOURCE DF OF SiiJARES MEAN S N A R E S

Treatment I 74.69 74.69

Sex 1 26.15 26.15

I n t e r a c t i o n 1 .40 .40

Covariare 1 326.66 326.66

E r r o r 105 583.68 5.56

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND REASONING ABILITY 47

TABLE VII Adjusted Tests for Scores on Lawson's Test of Formal

Reasoning Using Pretest Scores as the Covariate

S I G i I i ICA\NCE S W R C i JF F-2ATIO LE4E i

Treatment I 74.69 = 13.44 .'loo -- - -

Error :35 5.56

;ex

-- E r r o r

.332

A further analysis of the posttest findings for cognitive development re- vealed a differential shift in the distribution of cognitive growth across the two treatment groups. Table IX shows the numbers and percentages of students in each of the three categories; concrete, transitional, and formal; at the beginning

TABLE VIII Pre and Post Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment and

Gender for Lawson's Test of Formal Reasoning Concrete I n r t r u c t i on

P r e t e s t Gender Hean Standard D e v i a t i o n

Male 2.5 2.04

Fend 1 e 2.3 2 .a

p o s t t e s t

Ma 1 e 5.6

Female 4 .4

1.4

3.1

Formal I n s t r u c t i o n

P r e t e s t Gender i,lean Standdr l j c v i d t i o n

fqd 1 e 2.3 2 . 2

Fema 1 e 1.7 !.l

P O S t t e S t

Ma I e 4 . 2 J . 2

Fend 1 e 2 . : i , .+

S.4L“DERS AND SHEP.4RDSON

TABLE 1X Distribution of Percentages Across Reasoning Levels for Concrete and Formal Instruction on Pretest and Posttest

Concrete instruction i n=57)

Pretest

P O S t t e S t

Formal 1,nstruction I n-58 1

Pretest

Posttest

Reasoning L e v e l

Concrete Trans1 t i o n a l Formal

962

612

2%

3 72

2%

2%

902 102 0%

79% 212 02

and end of the study. In the formal instruction group, the percentage who were transitional reasoners increased from 10 to 21% during the course of the study, while in the concrete instruction group this percentage increased from 2 to 37%.

In summary, in the fall of the year, at the outset of the investigation. pretest scores show that the two treatment groups differed very little in science achievement or cognitive development. Upon completion of the treatments, in the spring of the following year, a period of nine months, the concrete instruc- tion group scored significantly higher ( p = 0.01 or better) than the formal in- struction group on both of the dependent variables. In addition, the percentage of students advancing from concrete reasoning to “transitional reasoning” was greater in the concrete instruction group than in the formal instruction group. Finally. it was noted that males performed better than females in both treat- ments on the posttest of cognitive development.

Discussion and Implications for Classroom Instruction

The results of the present investigation are consistent with the studies mentioned above and add to an increasing body of evidence which points to a link between hands-on science instructional activities, intellectual develop- ment, and science achievement. As mentioned above, it is probably not random physical interactions with physical materials, per se, such as specimens, appa- ratus. etc., which give rise to the effects upon achievement and cognitive development seen in this and other studies, but rather the entire sequence of learning activities (referred to here as the learning cycle). By involving learners in the carefully structured sequence of activities described in the three phases of the learning cycle. the teacher is providing an environment in which equili- bration can occur in the mind of the learner. In Piaget‘s terminology, the classroom instructional activities need to be designed to engender equilibration

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT 4ND REASONIXG ABILITY 19

by providing for a “physical interaction” between subject and object, (Piaget. 1970, p. 153).

Thus in their endeavor to plan for and carry out effective science programs. teachers need to be cognizant of the educational value of the “learning cycle” approach as a structure for the design and sequencing of classroom instruction. Further, teachers need to utilize verbal behaviors which complement the lenrn- ing cycle or concrete instruction approach to concept development.

Recommendations for Further Research

The present investigation did not look at retention of science knowledge nor the influence of the treatment upon affective variables, nor did it look at teacher verbal behavior. However, these variables are critical in efforts to improve schooling and would be worthy of investigations. The folloniy is a list of suggestions for further research:

1.

2.

3. 4.

5 .

6.

Does concrete instruction organized around the learning cycle ti.e., the planned sequence of hands-on instructional activities alluded to above) have differential effects upon males and females‘? Are males and females at different levels of cognitive development in the sixth grade? What is the extent of cognitive developmental gender differences in sixth grade? What effect would a longer term study have on cognitive. development? Are there ATI’s (Aptitide Treatment Interactions) which would have im- portant implications relative to concrete instruction for variables such as gender, treatment, achievement, attitude, cognitive development and teacher verbal behavior. What are the long term effects of concrete instruction (learning cycle approach) upon science achievement, cognitive development and attitudi- nal variables. What influence, if any, does concrete instruction have upon subject mat- ter retention.

Finally, while not addressed in this present study a related area of investi- gation involves the possibfe effect of concrete instruction upon higher level thinking skills, and in particular upon problem solving in science. If concrete instruction advances cognitive development an obvious manifestation might be seen in improved problem solving performance.

References

Arons, A. B. “Computer-Based Instructional Dialogs in Science Courses”, Science; Vol. 224. No. 4653, June 8, 1984, p. 1051-1056.

Cantu, L. L., & Herron, D. J., “Concrete and Formal Piagetian Stages and Science Concept Attainment.“ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 15: 135-143, 1978.

SO SACNDERS AND SHEPARDSON

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s Minds. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Driver, R. (1982). Piaget and Science Education: A Stage of Decision in S . Modgil and C. Modgil (Eds) . Jean Piaget Consensus and Controversy. New York: Praeger.

Elliot &: Donaldson ( 1982). Piaget on Language in Modgil, S . and Modgil, C. (Eds). Jean Piaget Consensus and Controversy. New York: h-aeger.

Ennis, R. H. 1978). Conceptualization of Children‘s Logical Competence: Piaget’s Propositional Logic and an Alternative Proposal in Siegel, L.S. and Brainerd, C. J. (Eds). Alternatives to Piaget Critical Essays on the Theory. New York: Academic Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive Development. EngIewood Cliffs, New Jer- sey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fowler, H. S . , & Mulopo, M. M. “Effects of Traditional and Discovery Instructional Approaches on Learning Outcomes for Learners of Different In- tellectual Development: A Study of Chemistry Students in Zambia.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, 1984.

Johnson, D., & Barufauldi, J. “The Effects of Using Concrete Analogies on Formal and Nonformal Operational Nursing Students’ Understanding Phys- iological and Pathophysiological Abstractions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, 1984.

Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, 1979.

Lawson, A. E., “The Development And Validation of A Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15: 11-24, 1978.

Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. “A Quantitative Analysis of Responses to Piagetian Tasks and Its Implications for Cumcula,” Science Education,

Lawson. A. E.. & Wollrnan, W. T. “Encouraging The Transition From Concrete to Formal Cognitive Functioning-An Experiment,” Journal of Re- serirclt in Science Teaching, 13:413-430, 1976.

Linn. M. C., & Thier, H. D., The Effect of Experimental Science on Development of Logical Thinking in Children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 12. No. 1 pp. 49-62, 1975.

Nagy, P., & Griffiths. A. K. (1982). Limitations of Recent Research Relat- ing Piaget‘s Theory to Adolescent Thought. Revieup of Educational Research,

Olstad, R. G., & Haury, D. L. “A Summary of Research in Science Educa-

Piaget, J. (1970). The Science of Education and the Psychology of the

Purser. R. K., & Renner, J. W. “Results of Two Tenth-Grade Biology

Renner, J. W . , & Stafford, D. C. Teaching Science In The Secondary

Karplus, R., Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning. .

581545-559 1974.

5 2 5 13-556.

tion-1982,” Science Education, Vol. 68, No. 3 pp. 207-363. 1984.

Child. New York: Orion Press.

Teaching Procedures,” Science Education, 67%-98, 1983.

School, New York: Harper and Row, pp. 291-300, 1972.

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND REASONING ABILITY . ( I

Schneider, L. S. . & Renner, J. W., “Concrete and Formal Teaching.“ Journal of Resecirch in Science Teaching, 17503-5 17. 1980.

Sheehan. D. J., The Effectiveness of Concrete and Formal Instructional Procedures With Concrete-and Formal-Operational Students. (Doctoral disser- tation, State University of New York at Albany, 1970.) DissertLitiotz Absrracrs Znternutional, Section A; Vol. 31, Nov-Dec pgs. 1929A-3092A. 1970.

Song, Y. K., & Fowler, H. S. “The Relationship Between Piagetian Cogni- tive Development Levels as Measured by the Burney Logical Reasoning Test and Selected Scholastic Variables of Prospective Korean Secondary School Teachers.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, 1984.

Staver. J. R.. & Dalsted. D. A. ”The Effect of Reasoning on Student Performance on Different Sections of a Posttest.“ Science Ediicwtiotz. Vol. 68,

Tomlinson-Keasey, C. (1982). Structures, Functions and Stages: -4 Trio of Unresolved Issues in Formal Operations in hfodgil. S. and Modgil, C. (Eds). Jean Piaget Consensus and Controversy. New York: Praeger.

Wollman, W., & Karplus, R. “Intellectual Development Beyond Elemen- tary School V: Using Ratio In Deffering Tasks,” School Science and Marhe- matics, 73393-61 1 .

Wollman. W. T., & Lawson, A. E., “The Influence of Instruction On Proportional Reasoning In Seventh Graders,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15:227-232, 1978.

No. 2. pp. 169-177, 1984.

Manuscript accepted August 12, 1986