the National Research Council’s How People Learn (National Research Council, 2003) and How Students Learn:
Science in the Classroom (Nat ional Research Council, 2005).
Characteristics of Effective Science Instruction
A debate continues over what constitutes effective science instruction. The opposing views are often labeled,
somewhat simplistically, as “reform” versus “traditional” science instruction. Reform instruction is often characterized as
students working in small groups and participating in hands-on activities with students, in some cases, selecting the
topics. Traditional instruction is often characterized as teachers delivering information to students in lectures and
readings, and students working independently on practice problems and worksheets. Often, traditional instruction
includes a weekly laboratory activity in which students work to reinforce what has been taught in a prior lecture.
Debating the mode of instruction misses the point, however, as current learning theory focuses on students’ conceptual
change, and does not imply that one pedagogy is necessarily better than another. For example, students may be
intellectually engaged with important content in a dynamic, teacher-directed lecture, or they may simply sit passively
through a didactic lecture unrelated to their personal experience. Similarly, a hands-on lesson may provide students with
opportunities to confront their preconceptions about scientific phenomena, or it may simply be an activity for activity’s
sake, stimulating students’ interest but not relating to important learning goals. Lessons that engage students in scientific
inquiry can be effective whether they are structured by the teacher or instructional materials, or very “open,” with
students pursuing answers to their own questions. Whatever the mode of instruction, the research suggests that students
are most likely to learn if teachers encourage them to think about ideas aligned to concrete learning goals and relate
those ideas to real-life phenomena.
Elements of Effective Instruction
- Motivation
However well-designed the instruction, students are unlikely to learn if they are not motivated to learn. Lessons should
“hook” students by addressing something they have wondered about, or can be induced to wonder about, possibly, but
not necessarily, in a real-world context. In their analysis of middle school science programs, Kesidou and Roseman
(2002) cited research support for the idea that “if students are to derive the intended learning benefits from engaging in
an activity, their interest in or recognition of the value of the activity needs to be motivated” (p. 530). Students’
motivation may be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic motivators include deadlines for research projects, classroom
competitions, and tests and quizzes affecting students’ grades. Intrinsic motivation, in contrast, usually stems from
intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn. There is some evidence that extrinsic motivation may actually be detrimental,
impeding students’ intrinsic desire to learn. For example, students doing a research project might focus primarily on
completing the task rather than learning the concepts (Moje et al., 2001; Nuthall, 1999, 2001). Similarly, a laboratory
activity performed only to confirm a previously presented idea is unlikely to deepen students’ understanding of that idea;
students will likely focus more on finding the “right” answer than on understanding the underlying concepts. The reality
is that there are, and will always be, extrinsic motivators (e.g., deadlines, tests, college entrance requirements). Based on
research, efforts should be made to balance intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, especially for students not achieving well
even with extrinsic motivators. There are many ways for a teacher to encourage intrinsic motivation. For example,
students can be highly motivated by a discrepant event that contradicts their view of the world (Friedl, 1995; Suchman,
1966). When students make predictions before starting an investigation, their interest may be raised. If students’
observations do not match their original predictions, they may be motivated to find out why (Lunetta et al., 2007).
Students may also be stimulated to learn when they investigate a question that has meaning to them, or if they are
learning about science in a context that relates to their personal experience. - Eliciting Students’ Prior Knowledge
Research has shown convincingly that students do not come to school as empty vessels. They come with ideas and
beliefs gleaned from books, television, movies, and real-life experiences. These ideas can either facilitate or impede their
learning (National Research Council, 2003). In many cases, students have ideas that get in the way of learning new ones.
For example, the commonly held belief that objects in motion contain a force that keeps them moving, or the idea that
plants take in food from the soil, make it difficult for students to accept that both ideas are wrong. Considerable
evidence from research shows that instruction is most effective when it elicits students’ initial ideas, provides them with
opportunities to confront those ideas, helps them formulate new ideas based on evidence, and encourages students to
reflect upon how their ideas have evolved. Without these opportunities, students “may fail to grasp the new concepts
and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside
the classroom” (National Research Council, 2003, p. 14). Thus, learning theory suggests that instruction is more effective
when it takes students’ initial ideas into account. Eliciting students’ knowledge has value even when their ideas are
consistent with scientists’ views. The more students connect new knowledge with pre-existing knowledge, the better they
will understand that new knowledge. Instruction that ties new and existing ideas together increases the likelihood of
learning, adroitness with the knowledge, and retention over time. There are different ways to elicit student ideas. One