Analysis and Description of Students’ Learning during Science Classes Using a Constructivist-Based Model

Ken Appleton

Faculty of Education, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland 4702, Australia

Received 22 May 1995; revised 15 April 1996; accepted 17 September 1996

Abstract: Constructivist ideas have had a major influence on science educators over the last decade.In this report a model describing possible student responses during science lessons is outlined, and a ra-tionale for it is provided on the basis of both constructivist theory and tests of the model in middle schoolscience classes. The study therefore explores a way to analyze and describe learning derived from bothconstructivist theoretical considerations and classroom practice. The model was tested in a series of sci-ence lessons, resulting in several revisions. The final version explained in this report is therefore consis-tent with the science lesson contexts explored and the theoretical constructs which underlie it. The lessonswere conducted in three classes of 11- to 13-year-olds in provincial cities in Queensland, Australia. Stu-dents were mostly of Caucasian extraction, in mixed-ability and mixed-gender classes. Three students fromeach class were interviewed individually immediately following each of the three lessons, for a total of 27interviews. The interviews, videotapes of lessons, and field notes were used as data sources. The final ver-sion of the model proved to be fairly robust in describing students’ cognitive progress through the lessons.This study has resulted in a model for science lessons which allows the identification and description ofstudents’ cognitive progress through the lessons. By using this focus on the learner, it provides preknowl-edge for teachers about how students might arrive at solutions to science problems during lessons, andtherefore potentially provides indications about appropriate teaching strategies. J Res Sci Teach 34:303–318, 1997.

Constructivist ideas about learning have had a major influence on the thinking of scienceeducators over the last decade (Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1994). This has been particular-ly evident in attempts to understand the origins of students’ misconceptions in science (e.g.,Cleminson, 1990; Freyberg & Osborne, 1985), how teachers may deal with these in the class-room (e.g., Hewson & Hewson, 1983), and how they may improve the effectiveness of theirteaching (e.g., Appleton, 1993a). The main tenet of constructivist theories is that existing ideaswhich learners may hold are used to make sense of new experiences and new information.Learning therefore occurs when there is a change in the learner’s existing ideas, either by addingsome new information or by reorganizing what is already known. Emphases in constructivistthought include considerations of the constructs and processes seen to be internal to the learn-er (Freyberg & Osborne, 1985) as well as the influence of the social context and social interac-tions (O’Loughlin, 1992; Tobin, 1990).

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 34, NO. 3, PP. 303–318 (1997)

© 1997 by the National Association for Research in Science TeachingPublished by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/97/030303-16

In this report a model for analyzing and describing students’ learning in science lessons isoutlined, and a rationale for it in terms of both constructivist theory and tests of the model inmiddle school science classes is provided. The study therefore explores a view of learning de-rived from both constructivist theoretical considerations and classroom practice. It is a step to-ward the further identification of ways of teaching that are based on sound theoretical consid-erations, are effective in achieving learning gains, and are able to be implemented readily in theclassroom.

Constructivist Models of Learning

Several models of learning in science based on constructivist theories have been proposed,such as that suggested by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982). They described the con-ditions which determine whether cognitive change in learners will occur. Their four main pointswere that learners must recognize the inadequacy of their existing conceptions (dissatisfaction),understand the new conception being taught, and recognize it to be both plausible and fruitfulfor their own learning. These points serve as a useful clarification of learning situations but donot provide clear indications as to what learners might do, and in turn, what teachers might do,to facilitate learning. In addition, Cleminson (1990) outlined five tenets of constructivism whichprovide general indications about the state of the learner, emphasizing that conceptions of theworld are personally constructed views developed from birth. These conceptions influence theway the learner views the world, may differ from the views of formal science, and may be dif-ficult to change, since they hold subjective meaning for the learner.

Roth (1990), citing Mayer (1983), used schema theory to suggest three conditions neces-sary for learning: (a) The learner must receive presented material; (b) the learner must have rel-evant prior knowledge or schema; and (c) the learner must activate that relevant prior knowl-edge (p. 144). These models serve as examples of what has been available to teachers interestedin applying constructivist ideas in the classroom. However, the models tend to be limited inscope and provide few clear indications for what a teacher might do to help students learn. Forinstance, ideas similar to Cleminson’s (1990) tenets and Mayer’s (1983) conditions for learningare the basis for the cognitive change conditions outlined by Posner et al. (1982). None elabo-rated on what learners and/or teachers might do to satisfy the conditions for learning to occur.

A result of the emphasis on constructivist theories of learning has therefore been a corre-sponding emphasis on constructivist teaching; that is, on ways of teaching informed by con-structivist theory (Appleton, 1993a; Glasson & Lalik, 1993; Hewson & Hewson, 1983, 1988)which might provide specific guidelines for teachers. An important consideration for teachingpractice, then, is the identification and articulation of aspects of constructivism which provideclear directions for teachers. Elements of this have been clarified in a number of contexts (Ap-pleton, 1993a; Baird & Northfield, 1992; Hardy & Kirkwood, 1994; Smith, Blakeslee, & An-derson, 1993), but further clarification of aspects of students’ learning is necessary to informteachers about their own teaching practices and their students’ learning.

The theoretical constructs on which this proposed model is based are drawn from three mainstreams of constructivist thought which have held sway in science education, developmentalpsychology (Piaget, 1978), cognitive psychology (Claxton, 1990; Howard, 1988), and socialconstructivism (O’Loughlin, 1992). The Piagetian notions of accommodation and disequilibri-um rather than his developmental emphasis have been incorporated into the learning model, although to Piaget they were inseparable. Views of cognitive structure based on schemata(Howard, 1988) are an important feature in that ideas which students bring to a learning expe-rience are used to interpret the experience and are modified as inadequacies in schemata are re-

304 APPLETON

vealed through disequilibrium. Since schooling is a social experience, however, the interpreta-tion of experiences and consequent learning are also considerably influenced by the social con-text (Vygotsky, 1978). The notion of scaffolding1 (Bruner, 1985, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978), for in-stance, demonstrates the key role of interactions between teacher and student, and perhapsstudent and student.

The complex interaction between these factors has been identified in the model, althoughsome details and levels of generality have been sacrificed to retain simplicity. Like all models,the one discussed here is an attempt to represent a complex idea or process in a simplified form.Specific aspects of constructivism relevant to the model will be referred to in later discussions.

Methodology

An early version of the model was first derived from several aspects of constructivism, par-ticularly those emphasizing processes internal to the learner. It was evaluated using groups ofstudents working on their own questions related to the topic floating and sinking (Appleton,1989). The model was then extended using further constructivist ideas and was again tested, thistime in a series of discrepant-event science lessons. As a result there were several further revi-sions. The final version explained in this report is therefore consistent with the science lessoncontexts explored and the theoretical constructs which underlie it. The final, more detailed eval-uation of the model as a descriptive and analytical tool is described in this study. In this evalu-ation, three different teaching strategies using discrepant events (a technique which presents stu-dents with a science problem) were identified (Friedl, 1986; Liem, 1987; Suchman, 1966).Teachers from the selected classes were instructed in how to use the teaching strategy theywould each employ. Three different lessons taught by each teacher were videotaped. Three stu-dents from each class were subsequently interviewed using a stimulated recall technique basedon the videotaped lessons (Edwards & Marland, 1984; Keith, 1988) to identify their cognitiveand other responses during the lessons. The interviews were conducted individually immedi-ately after each lesson, so that each student was interviewed three times, providing a total of 27interviews for analysis.

Discrepant-event strategies were chosen because they readily generate cognitive conflict(Liem, 1987), a component of the constructivist theoretical framework. The three strategies se-lected were prominent in the literature and differed in aspects of their delivery. The Suchman(1966) strategy used teacher demonstrations to present the discrepant events, followed by stu-dents asking the teacher questions, and some student–student discussion. The teacher neitherconfirmed nor denied possible explanations proposed by the students. The Liem (1987) strate-gy followed the teacher demonstration of the discrepant event by an explanation of the event bythe teacher, including teacher questioning and examples drawn from the students’ experience.In the Friedl (1986) strategy, the students conducted the discrepant events and discussed possi-ble answers in small groups. The teacher encouraged subsequent tests of variables or aspects ofthe events, focusing on process skills. The use of these different strategies provided informationfrom a range of social contexts which might be encountered in science lessons. For consisten-cy, only the first lesson of each strategy was used in the study.

Taking into account the school and classroom contexts where the lessons would be taught,a short list of possible discrepant events was drawn up from the published material (Friedl, 1986;Liem, 1987; Suchman, 1966), from which three were selected by a panel of science educators.Discrepant events which might generate different levels of cognitive conflict were chosen bythe panel to provide information about a range of types of problems which students might en-counter. The discrepant events chosen were the diver (Suchman, 1966), double pendulum (Such-

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 305

man, 1966), and strong pull, weak pull (Friedl, 1986). A brief description of each may be foundin the Appendix.

Data Sources

All students in the respective evaluations of the model were drawn from mixed-ability,mixed-gender classes in provincial cities in Queensland, Australia, and were mostly of Cau-casian extraction. The main criterion for selection of classes was that the day-to-day classroomwork be similar to the teaching strategies to be used in the evaluations, to reduce the effect ofnovelty. The initial evaluation in hands-on inquiry classes used small groups of 11- to 12-year-olds, each working with a teacher or student teacher (see Appleton, 1989, for a complete de-scription). In the next evaluation, a discrepant event lesson was conducted in each of three class-es of 11- to 12-year-olds, and four students from each class were interviewed after the lessons.The final series of evaluations reported here were conducted in three classes of 12- to 13-year-olds from the same school.

The teachers selected for the study normally taught science using a mixture of hands-on in-vestigations and teacher demonstration, so the use of the discrepant-event strategies was not en-tirely novel to them or the students. The teachers decided among themselves who would useeach discrepant-event strategy for the series of lessons. They were then provided with an in-ser-vice program to familiarize them with their selected strategies. The lessons were taught in aroom usually used cooperatively by the teachers for science and similar lessons.

Three students from each class were interviewed individually immediately following eachlesson, for a total of 27 interviews. The students selected for interview were nominated by theclass teachers. The teachers were asked to nominate students who were articulate, would be rep-resentative of the class, and could be teamed with a friend when possible. The resultant groupof students interviewed covered a range of abilities in science, with an overrepresentation ofbetter than average students (5 of the 9 students). The interviews, videotapes of lessons, andfield notes were used as data sources.

Analysis

Analysis consisted of building a series of case studies of the selected students’ sequence ofresponses through each lesson. The interviews were transcribed for analysis. Analytic proce-dures involved a form of discourse analysis in which the interview was viewed as a narrativemutually constructed by the interviewer and interviewee (Mishler, 1986). Parts of the student’snarrative which appeared to indicate a cognitive response were selected and categorized usinga coding system devised in an earlier evaluation (Appleton, 1993b). This had been developedusing analytic induction techniques (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, & Alexander, 1990) fromsimilar interview data. The videotapes of the lessons were also viewed to obtain further indica-tions of cognitive responses and triangulate with the interview data. Field observations provid-ed a further data source for triangulation. The identified responses were then compared with theproposed model, providing a rationalized reconstruction of the students’ progress through eachlesson in terms of the model. This revealed both its explanatory power and deficiencies. Revi-sions of the model were based on this data.

Results

The final version of the model (Figure 1) proved fairly robust in describing students’ cog-nitive progress through the lessons. Explanations of components of the model in terms of con-

306 APPLETON

structivist ideas and the students’ behaviors follow. In the confines of this article it is not pos-sible to describe details of the model revisions and evaluations (Appleton, 1993b), so the resultsare presented first as a description of the final version of the model, and second, as two casestudies showing how the model was used to analyze and describe students’ learning progressduring lessons.

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 307

Figure 1. Final version of the model for describing and analyzing students’ learning dur-ing science lessons.

Existing Ideas

The starting point of the model is typically constructivist: The learner brings to the learn-ing situation all previous experiences and feelings. Many of these experiences are organized insome way into ideas–concepts–schemata,2 which are used to interpret and make sense of anynew encounter. The totality of a learner’s schemata can be seen as a worldview which deter-mines how that person interprets the world and his or her behavior in it (Kelly, 1955). The con-text of the encounter (e.g., a school setting) will predispose those schemata which are perceivedvia the worldview as being associated with that context, being used to interpret it. For instance,a student, John, observing the diver discrepant event, used schemata from the previous week’sscience lesson on air to search for explanatory ideas. Such activated schemata in turn act as fil-ters for incoming sensory input: some input is selected to be attended to, and other inputs areignored (Osborne & Wittrock, 1983). These activated schemata also act as a filter for the mem-ories explored to make sense of the experience, as memories associated with these schemata arerecalled first. John used a strong memory from the previous science lesson about air pressure tofocus his observations on the aspects of the diver event which involved air—in particular, theair gap between the water in the cylinder and the balloon stretched over the top. This exampleembodies three aspects of the sorting through recall process: The student used a lesson cue (theprevious science lesson) to activate certain sets of memories over others; these memories causeda focus on observations related to those memories so that some aspects were noted, such as theair gap, and others were not; and the memories now perceived as relevant to both the observa-tions and cues were used to try to find a best-fit idea which might serve as a basis to explain thediscrepant event.

Processing Information

Each retrieved memory is therefore fitted against the observed aspects of the new encounterto try to identify a best-fit explanation in which the schemata retrieved are used to constructmeaning from the new information obtained through the senses. For instance, John focused onthe air gap at the top of the cylinder and constructed the meaning that air pressure in the gapwould increase when the balloon was pushed down and decrease when the balloon was pulledup. The increased pressure would push the diver down in the water, and the decrease in pres-sure would pull it up again. The meaning he constructed from his selected observations there-fore provided him with a best fit with the ideas he had recalled.

This processing of information can be represented in many ways; for instance, Piaget (1978)used the terms assimilation and accommodation to explain it. It will often result in some mod-ification or restructuring of a schema (Carey, 1985), in the accommodation sense. In the evalu-ation, attempts to distinguish between assimilation and accommodation proved difficult in a les-son context in which new information was constantly being processed, so an alternative wassought which might be more functional. The deep processing–surface processing3 distinction(Biggs & Moore, 1993; Marton & Saljo, 1976) provides a functional view of this processing ofinformation phase, particularly if Biggs and Moore’s achievement approach to learning (1993)is seen as a contextual overlay which greatly influences students’ processing behaviors. Thetypes of cognitive behaviors displayed by many students, such as comparing information witha tentative idea, using analogies, and making thought experiments, indicated they were usingdeep processing techniques. On the other hand, a few students clearly worked at the surface pro-cessing level by focusing on concrete aspects of the discrepant events, and apparently were un-able to retrieve (or unwilling to try to retrieve) any explanatory ideas.

Once the new information is processed, one of three possibilities exists. First, the new in-

308 APPLETON

formation may form an apparent identical fit with an existing idea (schema). That is, the infor-mation observed about the new encounter seems to fit perfectly with the existing idea, so that theencounter is fully explained to the satisfaction of the learner. This occurred with the student de-scribed earlier; his explanation provided an apparent identical fit with what he had observed. Ifhe had noted some other aspects of the discrepant event, such as the diver continuing to descendwhen the balloon was no longer being pushed, he should have recognized that his idea did notin fact form an identical fit. It should be acknowledged at this point that on many occasions theidea used by a student to arrive at an identical fit will be consistent with the event, and may alsobe similar to the accepted scientific explanation. This tended to occur later in the discrepant eventlessons, when more detailed observations had been made and several ideas explored, eliminated,or modified. For instance, in the strong pull, weak pull lessons, once students noted the sharp im-pulsive force applied to the string, they correctly attributed that as a reason why the string broke.

On many occasions when students achieved an identical fit, they seemed ready to ceasework and go on to something else. This was particularly evident in the floating and sinking eval-uation, when students thought that their reason for the apple floating (“The skin is watertight,”and “The seeds have air around them”) was correct. When the teacher continued to engage themin the lesson and encouraged them to test their ideas, they were forced to reexamine their ex-planations and search for an alternative. In the double pendulum lesson, Denise rememberedseeing a similar arrangement at a science fair, and so quickly concluded that the moving barlinking the pendulums caused the second one to begin swinging. However, as the lesson con-tinued (for instance, the teacher repeated the experiment with pendulums of different lengths),she reconsidered her original idea, realized it was inadequate, and sought further ideas.

Melinda, in commenting on her group’s ideas to explain the diver in the Suchman (1966)strategy, described the process of arriving at an idea but was forced to reconsider it when theteacher removed the balloon rubber from the cylinder while the small bottle was at the bottomof the cylinder:

Well, when we were thinking—one idea we had was when [the teacher] pushed down on[the balloon rubber at the top] the air pressure sort of made, closed in together and some-how pushed the water into the bottle and when she pulled [the balloon rubber] up and letthe air have more space, then the thing could just—all the water could come out of the bot-tle again, but she took the whole thing out. [The teacher] took the whole lid off when [thebottle] was at the bottom, so it couldn’t have been anything to do with the air sort of get-ting more space, not putting so much pressure on it, so we had to start all over again then.

Another possiblility after new information has been processed is as follows. The new infor-mation may form an approximate fit with an existing idea in which aspects are seen to be related,but details may be unclear. For some students, the expediency of near enough is good enough ar-rests any further processing of information. Other students may keep a more open mind, accept-ing the idea as a possible fit, but also seeking to clarify more details. Neil, a student in John’sgroup, accepted John’s idea about air pressure because he saw John as a clever boy. However, hehad no clear notion himself about how air pressure might make the diver go up and down. By theend of the lesson, he had progressed no further, but still felt that air pressure was a good expla-nation. He had in fact exited from the learning situation by accepting a trivial answer from a re-spected peer as a good enough answer.

As noted in the previous section, some students are forced by events in the lesson to re-consider their vague idea, highlighting the key role of the social context (Edwards & Mercer,1987; Vygotsky, 1978) in influencing students’ learning progress. This happened to Steven inthe double pendulum lesson, when he thought that the second pendulum moved because the first

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 309

was magnetic. Later in the lesson this idea was proved wrong, and he became aware that thelinking bar was moving, providing an alternative idea. Some students accept a vague idea as atentative answer, and actively try to clarify or extend the idea by seeking further information.

Finally, the new information is acknowledged as not being explained by the ideas tried sofar. This incomplete fit of information to schemata results in cognitive conflict (Festinger, 1957;Piaget, 1978). An immediate consequence of cognitive conflict is try to reduce the level of con-flict (Festinger, 1957) by seeking information which might provide a solution, or which mighttrigger an appropriate memory.

For example, Melinda provided some comments about this, related to the diver discrepantevent using the Suchman (1966) strategy:

We were more sort of surprised that [the diving bottle] was [going up and down] in thefirst place, but, um, we were also thinking about, I wonder why it does that and just won-dering about how and what was making it do that. . . . I think when we first got our ideawas when [the teacher] let us sort of start discussing it and other people had bits of theirideas and we put all our ideas into one.

Seeking Information

In the evaluation, several ways of seeking information were identified (Figure 1), althoughwhich was used depended on the social teaching–learning context (Glasson & Lalik, 1992;O’Loughlin, 1992). For instance, in the Liem (1987) strategy, the students were unable to ex-plore the materials themselves, as they were under the total control of the teacher. Since theavailability of information was controlled by the teacher, students had little option but to waitfor the answer to be revealed, often by small bits of information being provided through the les-son, with a final concluding summary. For some students this was a form of scaffolding (Bruner,1985, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) to which they actively responded; for others it was something tosit through until the final answer was given.

The Social Context

Early versions of the model drew mainly on ideas from developmental and cognitive psy-chology, as outlined previously. Later versions acknowledged aspects of social constructivistthinking, particularly the notion of scaffolding (Bruner, 1985, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). In thisevaluation, the significance of the broader social context of the lessons became more apparent.Verbal scaffolding by teacher with student, such as in the Liem (1987) strategy, and by studentwith student in the Friedl (1986) strategy, was noted. The effect the teaching strategy had on thesocial context of the lesson, and hence the responses of the students, was evident. For example,the social rules generated by the Liem strategy prevented the students from gaining informationfrom each other or from the materials directly, whereas the Friedl (1986) strategy made infor-mation from both peers and the materials readily available. Hence, an important caveat aboutthe social context influencing students’ pathways through the model was added to it, in an at-tempt to include this aspect more comprehensively (Figure 1).

Some Examples

To exemplify how the model (Figure 1) was used to analyze and describe students’ learn-ing in science lessons, the classroom actions and learning progress through the model of twostudents, Thomas and Leonie, are outlined below. The students and lessons were selected ran-domly from those analyzed. By the teachers’ judgment, Thomas could be considered to have av-

310 APPLETON

erage ability, and Leonie, slightly below average. In the descriptions below, the coding systemused in data reduction has been omitted, as it would complicate the examples unnecessarily.

Thomas. The discrepant event used in this lesson was the diver (Suchman, 1966), describedin the Appendix. It was introduced as a teacher demonstration with explanations of the materi-als and presented with an air of mystery: “I wonder what’s going to happen?” (after Liem, 1987).The teacher then explained the event using the materials as an aid and drew the students’ at-tention to key observations. Examples to which the students could relate were provided. Theteacher involved the students in working through ideas using a normal classroom interactionpattern (teacher question–student response–teacher response). All student interaction was di-rectly with the teacher, with no student–student discussion.

Thomas, a student in the class, was interviewed after the lesson and his progress throughthe model during the lesson inferred. Thomas was the youngest of the students included in thestudy; his 12th birthday was a few weeks after the interview. His teacher considered him to beaverage in science. He tended to watch a lot of television, including a magazine show featuringnew developments in science and technology. He enjoyed doing science experiments at homeand was encouraged by his parents to do so. He was very nervous in the interview, but relaxedas the interview progressed. Phrases in italics in the description below refer to specific parts ofthe learning model.

When the discrepant event was presented as a new encounter, Thomas sorted through re-call to find memories perceived as relevant, to help make sense of the observed aspects of theencounter:

When the lesson started and [the teacher] asked why this [discrepant event] sort of hap-pened, I didn’t really know at that moment. I was thinking—my mind was a blank. I wastrying to think [of an idea to explain it].

He did not appear to use lesson and teacher cues, but instead focused on what he noticedabout the event:

When [the teacher] brought [the bottle] up about halfway it looked like it was gonna, itwas going through my mind, I was thinking, “Oh, it’s gonna make it and it started to dropagain.” . . . And then when he brought it nearly to the top I thought, “Oh it’ll drop againlike last time.”

Thomas was content at this stage to process the information at a surface level; no ex-planatory ideas were immediately obvious and he did not actively seek one. He therefore movedrapidly to an incomplete fit state, and chose to seek information which might provide an answerby waiting for the answer to be revealed, apparently a strategy he has used successfully before.This course of action was suggested by comments such as:

[The interviewer asked what things were going through his mind as the discrepant eventwas conducted by the teacher.] Just what he was saying. Just concentrating on; just think-ing over again what happened, how it [might have] happened, and the bottle [going upand down] again . . . I was thinking it all over again and I felt, um, you know relief kindof thing. [He was having difficulty expressing that he felt puzzled.] Just how could a bot-tle just go up like that? Feeling, how could it go up? . . . [I was] sitting there waiting.

Thomas was rewarded when ideas from the teacher, ideas from peers, and some previous-ly unnoticed information from exploring the materials indirectly became available. He sought

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 311

a best-fit idea by processing the information at a deep level. This involved attempting to con-struct a new idea from the information gained, but the existing ideas on which he attempted tobuild appeared to be somewhat tenuous. He arrived at an approximate fit, with a vague idea ac-cepted. He put it this way:

When [another student] said [“suction”] I thought about it and I thought, “Oh, yeah.” SoI started thinking about suction as well. . . . It ticked my mind off and turned it on and Istarted thinking . . . thinking on the line about the suction bit and about how did the bal-loon bring it up and down and when [the teacher] said, um, suction, um, sucking it up, Ithought, “How could that suck it up?” And then I started to think even deeper. I started tothink about air pushing against water and water pushing against air.

As the lesson progressed, he continued to seek information from the same sources. Theteacher engaged in a process of scaffolding with a particular focus on a few students, but thiswas of limited help to Thomas. For example, the teacher began to explain how pressure on theballoon rubber increased the air pressure at the top of the cylinder, which in turn increased thepressure on the air trapped in the floating bottle. In his explanation, the teacher drew on expe-riences of pressure most students would recognize, such as difficulty breathing at depth whensnorkeling, and ears popping when rapidly ascending a mountain. The new information wasagain processed by restructuring of ideas, but Thomas was unable to continue to clarify hisvague idea, as the scaffolding went beyond his zone of proximal development. For instance,Thomas stated about one idea mentioned,

Yeah, well, I was confused there. [The idea stated] was kind of different to what I wasthinking. My mind went all boggly.

He therefore fell back to surface processing in an attempt to cope with the lesson. The in-formation seeking and processing was an iterative process, with Thomas gaining information,processing it, and attempting to clarify his vague idea. By the end of the lesson, which forced hisexit, he thought that his approximate fit was an adequate answer. However, when he attemptedto provide details of his explanation during the interview, it was apparent that he did not fullyunderstand and relied on remembered statements (often imperfectly recalled) from the teacher:

Just the air pressure and that . . . You could tell [someone who did not know why the bot-tle went down], when they pushed the balloon down you’re pushing the air down and ithasn’t got anywhere else to go. So you can kind of explain to them how it forces the wa-ter down and virtually takes the bottle down with them.

Leonie. The discrepant event, strong pull–weak pull (see Appendix), was presented usingFriedl’s strategy (1986). The students were organized in groups of four, each group with its ownset of equipment. After an initial discussion of the equipment, the teacher gave instructions forconducting the discrepant event. After the students’ first attempts to pull the string, he demon-strated how to do it and the students repeated the event several times in their groups. The teacherthen asked for variables which might be altered, and those suggested were tested by the stu-dents. The teacher also asked them to think of reasons for the string breaking, and toward theend of the lesson invited students to explain their reasons. Some confirmation of students’ ideaswas implicit in the teacher’s selection of clever students to provide explanations, and not seek-ing alternative views or querying conclusions.

Leonie was 12 years old. She had arrived at the school at the beginning of the school year

312 APPLETON

9 months earlier and had taken some time to make friends. She was considered by her teacheras a just below-average student. She spent a lot of time at home watching television, especial-ly the teenage soap programs. She also helped with household chores. She enjoyed sciencelessons in which students were given the opportunity to work with the materials, but confessedto finding some lessons hard to understand. There were some nonverbal behaviors in the video,such as deferring to other students, which suggested that she might have felt inadequate whenworking with students she considered to be clever at science.

At the presentation of the discrepant event as a new encounter, Leonie sorted through re-call by noting aspects of the encounter and trying to find memories perceived as relevant. In theinterview, she made comments such as, “I didn’t know why, how come [the string] broke. . . . Iwas wondering what broke it.” When asked if she had any possible answers or ideas come tomind, she said that none had. In processing this information from watching the event, she usedsurface processing since no relevant explanatory schemata were recalled, and she tended to fo-cus on concrete aspects of the event. She described her role as “just watching.” This resulted inher being in an incomplete fit state, seeking information.

Leonie used three strategies to obtain information: waiting for the answer to be revealed,exploring the materials directly, and using ideas from peers suggested in the group discussion.Her waiting behavior was most evident from the videotape of the lesson. She sat in the group,offered few comments, and took a turn at the materials only when the other students (there was1 boy in her group of 4) had finished. For significant parts of the lesson, her body language con-veyed patient waiting. The last source of information, ideas from peers, was particularly usefulto her, as two students in her group were actively proposing ideas, and she mentioned in the in-terview the students whose ideas had helped her. She also looked at other groups at work to seewhat was happening there.

As new information became available, she processed the new information by attemptingdeep processing, but found difficulty as the information available made only tenuous links withher existing ideas. Her explanation of what went through her mind when someone explained anidea was:

Well, bits and pieces of the ideas, kind of thing, to make up [my own idea] to see what’sreally happening . . . At that stage [of the lesson] I was just listening seeing what they weresaying.

Her first idea was associated with the string being easy to break. She explored this by takinga piece of string and trying to break it using her hands. The second notion, obtained from peers,related to the quick impulsive jerk on the string. However, she still had very little on which to basean adequate explanation, so she arrived at an approximate fit, with a vague idea accepted.

As further activity, mainly testing different masses suspended by string, and discussion oc-curred in her group she continued to seek information using the same sources. Her earlier vagueidea was abandoned as another vague idea was constructed using deep processing, based on herown observations and the ideas of others. After several lighter weights had been tested, she wasasked whether she had any theories in mind by that stage:

Yeah, I think I did. Um, the heavier [the weight] is, the easier [the string] would break.And the lighter [the weight] is, kind of, the harder to break.

She had an inkling of this idea herself, but it was clarified when stated by another student:“I had a little bit of that idea, but then [the other student] said it.” However, she experienced

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 313

difficulty in reaching a good understanding of the discrepant event, because her understandingof inertia, a necessary interpretive construct, was inadequate. The lesson therefore concluded,forcing her to exit with an approximate fit. At the end of the lesson, the teacher explained themain points of the event, but it did not make a lot of sense to Leonie, “Because I didn’t knowwhat ‘inertia’ kind of meant or anything.”

At the conclusion of the lesson, Leonie took the opportunity to ask the teacher for clarifi-cation as to why the string broke. This resulted in a short follow-up lesson (not videotaped) inwhich the teacher engaged in scaffolding (using ideas from the teacher) with a small number ofstudents. Leonie reached a much clearer understanding of the why the string broke as a resultof this intensive instructional segment. The following interview segment, later verified with theteacher, shows the extent to which this intensive scaffolding segment helped her:

Leonie: Because [the teacher] goes round, “You’re not inertia” kind of thing. And“Inertia stays still” kind of thing.

Interviewer: So that helped a bit then?Leonie: Yeah . . .

Interviewer: Do you think you learned something from the lesson, Leonie?Leonie: Well, the heavier [the weight] is, the easier it would [be to] pull [and break

the string], because it would just stay there. One jerk would break the string.And if it was a little jerk, like [when the weight is] lighter, and if you pulled[the string], it would go, um, like flying everywhere.

Ways the Model Might Be Used

The model can be used as a post hoc tool for describing and analyzing students’ cognitiveprogress through a lesson. This study has shown it to be a useful research and evaluation toolfor this purpose. However, teachers may find using the model as a post hoc tool of limited val-ue given the intensive time investment.

On the other hand, teachers might use the model to gain an understanding of the possibledirections students may take during a lesson. This would allow them to make more effective de-cisions about their teaching, to enhance students’ learning. For example, teachers could be alertfor students who have effectively withdrawn from the lesson with an approximate fit answer oran identical fit which is actually incorrect, and have preplanned means of getting them to re-consider their conclusions. In addition, consideration of the social context arising from the se-lected teaching strategy should allow teachers to identify the information sources available tothe students during a planned lesson and consider whether they are appropriate and adequate forall students.

In in-service settings which are limited in time, the model has been used to help teachersreconsider aspects of their science teaching. It has been especially helpful when the teachershave been unfamiliar with constructivist principles of learning, since it seems to provide themwith a concrete focus on a few principles which they can relate to components of their own prac-tice. They can then decide on specific teaching strategies to try in their own classes, to respondto the situation portrayed in the part of the model on which they have focused.

A possibility not yet tested would be to use the model to develop teaching strategies whichwill maximize learning opportunities for students. This was successfully done with an earlierversion of the model (Appleton, 1993a). For example, particular teacher actions can be postu-lated which emerge from parts of the model. An obvious teacher action arising from the exist-ing ideas part of the model and also mentioned in other discussions of teaching based on con-

314 APPLETON

structivism (e.g., Osborne & Freyberg, 1985) is to identify students’ ideas about the science top-ic prior to the lesson. Also consider the possibility that as a result of processing informationfrom the event, the students may believe that they can adequately explain the event using an ex-isting idea, and be unaware that it is actually an inadequate explanation. A consequent teacheraction would be to find out at what tentative explanations the students are arriving, so that spe-cific further teaching actions to oblige them to reexamine their idea may be taken. Specific teach-ing techniques can then be devised so the suggested teacher actions can be implemented. Forinstance, there are a number of established techniques to identify students’ ideas, such as inter-views and concept maps (see Baird & Northfield, 1992, for a comprehensive list).

Conclusion

This study has resulted in a model that allows the identification and description of students’ cog-nitive progress through a science lesson. The model is built on aspects of both constructivist andsocial constructivist thinking, and provides greater insights than earlier discussions of a prelim-inary Piagetian-based version (Appleton, 1993a). It focuses on the learner and his or her re-sponses, rather than teaching steps common to models such as those based on the Science Cur-riculum Improvement Study learning cycle (Francis, Hill, & Redden, 1991). By focusing on thelearner, it provides preknowledge for teachers about how students might arrive at solutions toscience problems during lessons, and therefore potentially provides indications about appropri-ate teaching strategies.

Appendix: The Discrepant Events

The Diver (Adapted from Suchman, 1966)

A small bottle was upturned in a tall glass cylinder of water and adjusted so that it only justfloated. A sheet of rubber was fastened over the top of the cylinder and pushed gently. The bot-tle sank gently to the bottom of the cylinder and remained there even when the sheet of rubberwas removed. When the rubber sheet was pulled gently upward, the bottle rose to the surface.

The Double Pendulum (Adapted from Suchman, 1966)

A thin wooden rod was placed across two metal rods supported by stands about 70 cm abovethe desktop. Two identical pendulums were attached to eyelets fastened to the wooden rod about20 cm apart. The pendulums were made from thick wire about 45 cm long, with hooks bent atthe top and bottom. One end on each was hooked through an eyelet, and on each lower hookwere placed five metal washers. One pendulum was set swinging. Within a very short time, thesecond pendulum began swinging. After a few minutes, it was moving with an equivalent am-plitude to the first, and shortly afterward it was moving with a greater amplitude, while the am-plitude of the first was considerably diminished.

Strong Pull, Weak Pull (Adapted from Friedl, 1986)

A 1-kg weight in a wire harness was suspended by string from a rod firmly held by a clampand stand so that it could swing freely. Another length of string was tied to one side of theweight, and the string was pulled gently to the side so that the weight was displaced horizon-tally. The string remained taut. The weight was then returned to its original position. The string

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 315

was again pulled to the side until it was taut. However, instead of displacing the weight, thistime the string was given a sharp sideways jerk. The string broke near the weight, and the weightswung back and forth slightly.

This article was based on a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, 18–21 April 1995, San Francisco. The author thanks Marie Brennan and Lewis Lark-ing for comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

1 Scaffolding occurs when a tutor (either adult or capable peer) helps the student build an extensionfrom an existing schema into new cognitive territory through a series of small steps of which the studentwould not be independently capable. It involves developing a mutual understanding of each other’s ideasas the extension is constructed. Eventually the tutor can withdraw, leaving the student under full controlof the newly constructed extension.

2 A schema is a knowledge structure of related information organized around a familiar topic, event,or procedure (Gega, 1991, p. 39). The terms are not necessarily synonymous, but will be treated as suchfor the purposes of this article.

3 Biggs and Moore described three approaches to learning in tertiary and secondary students: surface,deep, and achieving. Students who use the surface approach try to avoid both working too hard and fail-ing in assessments. The main strategy employed is rote learning, in which students focus on what appearto be the important points and try to reproduce them. Those who use the deep approach are intrinsicallymotivated and are interested in the task. They use strategies to help them understand the task, such as try-ing to relate it to what they already know, and deriving hypotheses to explain it. The motivation for stu-dents using the achieving approach comes from “the ego trip that comes from achieving high marks” (Big-gs & Moore, 1993, p. 313). They choose strategies which will give the best rewards from the teacher andthe highest marks, so strategies will vary depending on the task and situation. There is always an element ofefficiency in their choice, which can involve either deep or surface approaches (Appleton & Beasley, 1994).

References

Appleton, K. (1989). A learning model for science education. Research in Science Educa-tion, 19, 13–24.

Appleton, K. (1993a). Using theory to guide practice: Teaching science from a construc-tivist perspective. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 269–274.

Appleton, K. (1993b). Students’ learning in science lessons: Responses to discrepant events.Unpublished doctoral thesis, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia.

Appleton, K., & Beasley, W. (1994, July). Students’ learning in science lessons: Towardsunderstanding the learning process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AustralasianScience Education Research Association, Hobart, Australia.

Baird, J.R., & Northfield, J.R. (Eds.) (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Mel-bourne: Authors.

Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Bruner, J.S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J.V. Wertsch

(Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. London: Harvard University Press.Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light

316 APPLETON

of contemporary notions of the nature of science and of how children learn science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 27, 429–446.

Claxton, G. (1990). Teaching to learn: A direction for education. London: Cassell.Edwards, J., & Marland, P. (1984). What are students really thinking? Educational Lead-

ership, 42, 63–67.Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. New York: Methuen.Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). The content of science: A constructivist ap-

proach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.Francis, R.G., Hill, D.M., & Redden, M.G. (1991). Mathematics and science: A shared

learning cycle and a common learning environment. School Science and Mathematics, 91,339–343.

Friedl, A.E. (1986). Teaching science to children: An integrated approach. New York: Ran-dom House.

Freyberg, P., & Osborne, R. (1985). Assumptions about teaching and learning. In R. Os-borne, & P. Freyberg, Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland,New Zealand: Heinemann.

Gega, P.C. (1991). How to teach elementary school science. New York: Macmillan.Glasson, G.E., & Lalik, R.V. (1992). Social constructivism in science learning: Toward a

mind-world synthesis. In S. Hill (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science educa-tion: Vol. I. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the History and Philosophyof Science and Science Teaching (pp. 399–405). Kingston, Ontario: Mathematics, Science,Technology, and Teacher Education Group and Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, On-tario, Canada.

Glasson, G.E., & Lalik, R.V. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle from social con-structivist perspective: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 30, 187–207.

Hardy, T., & Kirkwood, V. (1994). Towards creating effective learning environments forscience teachers: The role of a science educator in the tertiary setting. International Journal ofScience Education, 16, 231–251.

Hewson, M.G., & Hewson, P.W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowl-edge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 20, 731–743.

Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: Aview from studies of science learning. Science Education, 72, 597–614.

Howard, R. (1988). Schemata: Implications for science teaching. Australian Science Teach-ers Journal, 34(3), 29–34.

Keith, M.J. (1988, November). Stimulated recall and teachers’ thought processes: A criti-cal review of the methodology and an alternative perspective. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Louisville, KY.

Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Liem. T.K. (1987). Invitations to science inquiry (2nd ed.). Lexington, MA: Ginn Press.Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning—I: Outcome and

process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Mayer, R.E. (1983). What have we learned about increasing the meaningfulness of science

prose? Science Education, 67, 223–237.Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1990). In-depth interviewing: Re-

searching people. Melbourne, Victoria: Longman Cheshire.

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED ANALYTICAL MODEL 317

Mishler, E.G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism to-ward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29, 791–820.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s sci-ence. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Edu-cation, 67, 489–508.

Piaget, J. (1978). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a

scientific conception. Science Education, 66, 211–227.Roth, K.J. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B.F. Jones

& L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Smith, E.L., Blakeslee, T.D., & Anderson, C.W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with

conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 111–126.Suchman, J. (1966). Inquiry development program in physical science: Teacher’s guide.

Chicago: Science Research Associates.Tobin, K. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education. Aus-

tralian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 29–35.Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process-

es. London: Harvard University Press.

318 APPLETON