research about science process skills

• Research Matters — to the Science Teacher

The Science Process Skills

Introduction.

One of the most important and pervasive goals of schooling is to teach students to think. All school subjects should share in accomplishing this overall goal. Science contributes its unique skills, with its emphasis on hypothesizing, manipulating the physical world and reasoning from data.

The scientific method, scientific thinking and critical thinking have been terms used at various times to describe these science skills. Today the term "science process skills" is commonly used. Popularized by the curriculum project, Science - A Process Approach (SAPA), these skills are defined as a set of broadly transferable abilities, appropriate to many science disciplines and reflective of the behavior of scientists. SAPA grouped process skills into two types-basic and integrated. The basic (simpler) process skills provide a foundation for learning the integrated (more complex) skills. These skills are listed and described below.

Basic Science Process Skills

Observing - using the senses to gather information about an object or event. Example: Describing a pencil as yellow. Inferring - making an "educated guess" about an object or event based on previously gathered data or information. Example: Saying that the person who used a pencil made a lot of mistakes because the eraser was well worn. Measuring - using both standard and nonstandard measures or estimates to describe the dimensions of an object or event. Example: Using a meter stick to measure the length of a table in centimeters. Communicating - using words or graphic symbols to describe an action, object or event. Example: Describing the change in height of a plant over time in writing or through a graph. Classifying - grouping or ordering objects or events into categories based on properties or criteria. Example: Placing all rocks having certain grain size or hardness into one group. Predicting - stating the outcome of a future event based on a pattern of evidence. Example: Predicting the height of a plant in two weeks time based on a graph of its growth during the previous four weeks.

Integrated Science Process Skills

Controlling variables - being able to identify variables that can affect an experimental outcome, keeping most constant while manipulating only the independent variable. Example: Realizing through past experiences that amount of light and water need to be controlled when testing to see how the addition of organic matter affects the growth of beans. Defining operationally - stating how to measure a variable in an experiment. Example: Stating that bean growth will be measured in centimeters per week. Formulating hypotheses - stating the expected outcome of an experiment. Example: The greater the amount of organic matter added to the soil, the greater the bean growth. Interpreting data - organizing data and drawing conclusions from it. Example: Recording data from the experiment on bean growth in a data table and forming a conclusion which relates trends in the data to variables. Experimenting - being able to conduct an experiment, including asking an appropriate question, stating a hypothesis, identifying and controlling variables, operationally defining those variables, designing a "fair" experiment, conducting the experiment, and interpreting the results of the experiment. Example: The entire process of conducting the experiment on the affect of organic matter on the growth of bean plants. Formulating models - creating a mental or physical model of a process or event. Examples: The model of how the processes of evaporation and condensation interrelate in the water cycle.

Learning basic process skills

Numerous research projects have focused on the teaching and acquisition of basic process skills. For example, Padilla, Cronin, and Twiest (1985) surveyed the basic process skills of 700 middle school students with no special process skill training. They found that only 10% of the students scored above 90% correct, even at the eighth grade level. Several researchers have found that teaching increases levels of skill performance. Thiel and George (1976) investigated predicting among third and fifth graders, and Tomera (1974) observing among seventh graders. From these studies it can be concluded that basic skills can be taught and that when learned, readily transferred to new situations (Tomera, 1974). Teaching strategies which proved effective were: (1) applying a set of specific clues for predicting, (2) using activities and pencil and paper simulations to teach graphing, and (3) using a combination of explaining, practice with objects, discussions and feedback with observing. In other words-just what research and theory has always defined as good teaching.

Other studies evaluated the effect of NSF-funded science curricula on how well they taught basic process skills. Studies focusing on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) and SAPA indicate that elementary school students, if taught process skills abilities, not only learn to use those processes, but also retain them for future use. Researchers, after comparing SAPA students to those experiencing a more traditional science program, concluded that the success of SAPA lies in the area of improving process oriented skills (Wideen, 1975; McGlathery, 1970). Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that students learn the basic skills better if they are considered an important object of instruction and if proven teaching methods are used.

Learning integrated process skills

Several studies have investigated the learning of integrated science process skills. Allen (1973) found that third graders can identify variables if the context is simple enough. Both Quinn and George (1975) and Wright (1981) found that students can be taught to formulate hypotheses and that this ability is retained over time.

Others have tried to teach all of the skills involved in conducting an experiment. Padilla, Okey and Garrard (1984) systematically integrated experimenting lessons into a middle school science curriculum. One group of students was taught a two week introductory unit on experimenting which focused on manipulative activities. A second group was taught the experimenting unit, but also experienced one additional process skill activity per week for a period of fourteen weeks. Those having the extended treatment outscored those experiencing the two week unit. These results indicate that the more complex process skills cannot be learned via a two week unit in which science content is typically taught. Rather, experimenting abilities need to be practiced over a period of time.

Further study of experimenting abilities shows that they are closely related to the formal thinking abilities described by Piaget. A correlation of +.73 between the two sets of abilities was found in one study (Padilla, Okey and Dillashaw, 1983). In fact, one of the ways that Piaget decided whether someone was formal or concrete was to ask that person to design an experiment to solve a problem. We also know that most early adolescents and many young adults have not yet reached their full formal reasoning capacity (Chiapetta, 1976). One study found only 17% of seventh graders and 34% of twelfth graders fully formal (Renner, Grant, and Sutherland, 1978).

What have we learned about teaching integrated science processes? We cannot expect students to excel at skills they have not experienced or been allowed to practice. Teachers cannot expect mastery of experimenting skills after only a few practice sessions. Instead students need multiple opportunities to work with these skills in different content areas and contexts. Teachers need to be patient with those having difficulties, since there is a need to have developed formal thinking patterns to successfully "experiment."

Summary and Conclusions

A reasonable portion of the science curriculum should emphasize science process skills according to the National Science Teachers Association. In general, the research literature indicates that when science process skills are a specific planned outcome of a science program, those skills can be learned by students. This was true with the SAPA and SCIS and other process skill studies cited in this review as well as with many other studies not cited.

Teachers need to select curricula which emphasize science process skills. In addition they need to capitalize on opportunities in the activities normally done in the classroom. While not an easy solution to implement, it remains the best available at this time because of the lack of emphasis of process skills in most commercial materials.

by Michael J. Padilla, Professor of Science Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Allen, L. (1973). An examination of the ability of third grade children from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study to identify experimental variables and to recognize change.  Science Education, 57 , 123-151. Chiapetta, E. (1976). A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science instruction at the secondary and college level.  Science Education, 60 , 253-261. McGlathery, G. (1970). An assessment of science achievement of five and six-year-old students of contrasting socio-economic background.  Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education, 7023 , 76-83. McKenzie, D., & Padilla, M. (1984). Effect of laboratory activities and written simulations on the acquisition of graphing skills by eighth grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans. Padilla, M., Okey, J., & Dillashaw, F. (1983). The relationship between science process skills and formal thinking abilities.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 . Padilla, M., Cronin, L., & Twiest, M. (1985). The development and validation of the test of basic process skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick, IN. Quinn, M., & George, K. D. (1975). Teaching hypothesis formation.  Science Education, 59 , 289-296. Science Education, 62 , 215-221. Thiel, R., & George, D. K. (1976). Some factors affecting the use of the science process skill of prediction by elementary school children.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13 , 155-166. Tomera, A. (1974). Transfer and retention of transfer of the science processes of observation and comparison in junior high school students.  Science Education, 58 , 195-203. Wideen, M. (1975). Comparison of student outcomes for Science - A Process Approach and traditional science teaching for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes: A product evaluation.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12 , 31-39. Wright, E. (1981). The long-term effects of intensive instruction on the open exploration behavior of ninth grade students.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18.

Undergraduate students’ science process skills: A systematic review

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Henta Fugarasti , Murni Ramli , Muzzazinah; Undergraduate students’ science process skills: A systematic review. AIP Conf. Proc. 18 December 2019; 2194 (1): 020030. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139762

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the researches trends on undergraduate students’ science process skills (SPS) on biology with the consideration on the types of SPS, the assessment and its validation. The review followed a PRISMA approach. The article selection had been done systematically by searching the research paper published in online database within 2000 - 2019. By using the keywords “science process skills” and “biology”, it was found 52 articles in Google scholar, 60 articles in Science direct, and 217 articles in Taylor & Francis Online. Those articles then were selected based on some inclusive criteria, such as SPS, higher education, biology or science, and retained 19 papers matched. The selected papers were reviewed by scoring each paper to come out with the quality and relevant papers. The result of the review shows that the integrated SPS were mostly found as the type of SPS investigated in the undergraduate level, with the focus on formulate the hypothesis, interpret the data, interpret the model, experiment, define operationally, identify and control variable. The trend of SPS in Indonesia is similar with the SPS promoted by the AAAS but tends to be simplified, while in the other developed and developing countries it varies according to the learning topics. The scope of the research covered some topics on biology and science. The most instrument used to measure the SPS is Science Process Skill Test (SPST), a multiple choice, questionnaire, and interview protocol. An expert judgement is the most common validation used in Indonesian research. The study about SPS for undergraduate students should be further done on developing learning design, and modules with instructional design focusing on detail training on each skill of SPS and covered various topics in biology

Citing articles via

Publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.9(4); Winter 2010

Teaching the Process of Science: Faculty Perceptions and an Effective Methodology

*Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; and

Mary Pat Wenderoth

Matthew cunningham, clarissa dirks.

¶ Scientific Inquiry, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA, 98505

Associated Data

Most scientific endeavors require science process skills such as data interpretation, problem solving, experimental design, scientific writing, oral communication, collaborative work, and critical analysis of primary literature. These are the fundamental skills upon which the conceptual framework of scientific expertise is built. Unfortunately, most college science departments lack a formalized curriculum for teaching undergraduates science process skills. However, evidence strongly suggests that explicitly teaching undergraduates skills early in their education may enhance their understanding of science content. Our research reveals that faculty overwhelming support teaching undergraduates science process skills but typically do not spend enough time teaching skills due to the perceived need to cover content. To encourage faculty to address this issue, we provide our pedagogical philosophies, methods, and materials for teaching science process skills to freshman pursuing life science majors. We build upon previous work, showing student learning gains in both reading primary literature and scientific writing, and share student perspectives about a course where teaching the process of science, not content, was the focus. We recommend a wider implementation of courses that teach undergraduates science process skills early in their studies with the goals of improving student success and retention in the sciences and enhancing general science literacy.

INTRODUCTION

Successful undergraduate programs in the life sciences are those programs that graduate students who are able to “think like a scientist” ( Handelsman et al. , 2004 ; Handelsman et al. , 2007 ), that is, students who are able to solve problems in multiple contexts and effectively integrate information into meaningful scientific concepts. Scientists and science educators agree that a hallmark of a successful undergraduate science degree is the acquisition of skills such as data interpretation, problem solving, experimental design, scientific writing, oral communication, critical analysis of primary literature, collaborative work, and monitoring and regulating one's own learning process ( Airey and Linder, 2009 ; Alberts, 2009a , b ; Bao et al. , 2009 ; Brickman et al. , 2009 ; Carnegie Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education, 2009 ). Although scientists use these skills daily, these skills are rarely taught to undergraduates in an explicit and scaffolded manner. Frequently, undergraduate life science programs primarily focus on the delivery of vast amounts of facts, and it is assumed that students will “magically” obtain science process skills somewhere during their four years of study. A more effective way to help students master science disciplines and better prepare them for careers in science would be through explicit instruction of science process skills, helping students acquire a repertoire of these skills early in the college curriculum and thereby augmenting their content acquisition and interdisciplinary ways of knowing. We propose that instructing freshman in the process of science may enable more students to excel in their disciplines, particularly biology, because of its ever accumulating and fragmented content.

Experts have a conceptual framework that allows them to recognize meaningful patterns of information, effectively organize content, flexibly retrieve pertinent knowledge with little effort, and assess their level of understanding of concepts. Novices lack this framework and the accompanying intellectual habits of mind ( Bransford et al. , 1999 ). In academia and science education, experts are the faculty, who possess both skills and content knowledge. Science process skills are the indispensable tools of scientists, helping them form their conceptual framework, thereby facilitating learning of new content associated with novel science problems ( Wilensky and Reisman, 1998 ; Bransford et al. , 1999 ; Hogan and Maglienti, 2001 ; National Research Council [NRC], 2005 ). Through explicit instruction and assessment of students' science process skills we can help students gain the same skills that faculty use every day and help them to approach science as scientists do. Indeed, these are the same skills strongly promoted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for K–12 science education ( AAAS 1993 ) and highlighted in reports that outline recommendations for collegiate science education ( NRC, 2003 ; American Association of Medical Colleges and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2009 ; Labov et al. , 2009 ).

Acquisition of science process skills can have a profound impact on student success in college science classes. In 2006, we reported evidence that freshmen who participated in a course in which they were explicitly taught science process skills outperformed students who did not participate in the program in subsequent introductory biology courses ( Dirks and Cunningham, 2006 ). Similarly, students in a molecular biology course who practiced data analysis, diagrammatic visualization, and other analytical reasoning skills had improved test scores compared with those in a control course ( Kitchen et al. , 2003 ). Explicit instruction in generating and interpreting scientific graphs ( Shah and Hoeffner, 2002 ) and experiential research projects that promoted science process skills also benefited students' learning and reinforcement of course content ( Souchek and Meier, 1997 ; DebBurman, 2002 ; Wilke and Straits, 2005 ; Yeoman and Zamorski, 2008 ). The use of primary literature to improve critical thinking in undergraduates has also been well documented ( Janick-Buckner, 1997 ; Fortner, 1999 ; Hermann, 1999 ; Henderson and Buising, 2000 ; Muench, 2000 ; Kozeracki et al. , 2006 ; Hoskins et al. , 2007 ; Gehring and Eastman, 2008 ). Lastly, faculty in other science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, such as chemistry ( Bunce and Hutchinson, 1993 ; Veal et al. , 2009 ), physical chemistry ( Nicoll and Francisco, 2001 ), and geology ( McConnell et al. , 2003 ), have shown the connection between student acquisition of science process skills and academic success.

Here we present results from a survey indicating overwhelming support by faculty for teaching undergraduates science process skills, as well as the direct conflict they feel between spending time teaching content and process. We also provide an extensive description of the Biology Fellows Program (BFP) from our 2006 report, sharing our teaching philosophies, methods, and core course materials used to explicitly teach science process skills. By describing our pedagogical foundation and methods used in the BFP, we hope to help other faculty incorporate and formalize the teaching of science process skills as early as possible into undergraduate curricula.

FACULTY VIEWS OF UNDERGRADUATES' ACQUISITION OF SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS

Devoting more time to teaching the process of science may come at the expense of teaching content—is this tradeoff acceptable? To help answer this question, we created an online science process skills survey for faculty (Supplemental Material A, Faculty Survey). The survey was vetted by nine faculty from four institutions for question clarity and to validate the science process skills list we had generated. We sent the survey to approximately 450 life science faculty and postdoctoral fellows from a wide range of institutions of higher education using email lists from professional meetings, or by sending it to faculty and departmental chairs at specific institutions. To maximize the number of participants, our emails asked the recipients to forward the survey to other faculty within the life science departments at their institutions. We had 159 respondents, comprising 154 faculty and 5 postdoctoral fellows with teaching experience (all respondents will be referred to as faculty). On average, the respondents had been teaching for 14 years. Although half of respondents (51%) were from research 1 (R1) universities, others institutions were also represented: non-R1 (11%), liberal arts colleges (23%), and community colleges (14%). We asked faculty to identify how important it is, on a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), for undergraduates majoring in the life sciences to obtain 22 specific science process skills by the time they graduate with a 4-yr degree. On average, faculty signified that it was important for students to acquire all of the 22 skills listed in the survey, with all skills receiving a mean score of 3.5 or higher ( Table 1 ). The list of 22 skills was clustered into 10 major categories based on similarity of skill, and faculty were asked to select the three most important skill categories. Faculty from all institution types indicated that problem solving/critical thinking, interpreting data, and communicating results: oral and written, were the most important ( Figure 1 ). In contrast, when faculty were asked to select the three least important skill categories that students should acquire, we saw differences in faculty responses based on institution type. The least important skills for faculty from R1 universities, non-R1 universities, and liberal arts colleges related to metacognition and collaborative work ( Figure 2 A), whereas the least important skills selected by faculty at community colleges were those related to research ( Figure 2 B). However, regardless of the institution type, many respondents commented that it was “very difficult” to select the three least important skills students should acquire because all the listed skills were important. We received 14 comments from faculty indicating that the question was “impossible” to answer because it was “vital” or “critical” that students learn all the skills we provided on our list.

Faculty ranking

a The average score of importance was determined by converting a descriptive Likert scale to a numerical scale (5 = Very Important, 4 = Important, 3 = Moderately Important, 2 = Of Little Importance, 1 = Unimportant), and taking the average.

The three skills selected by faculty (N = 156) as the most important for students to acquire in an undergraduate education as determined by comparing all averages. The percent faculty at different institutions is reported for each skill.

The three skills selected by faculty (N = 156) as the least important for students to acquire in an undergraduate education as determined by comparing all averages. Percent faculty at (A) R-1, non-R1, and liberal arts institutions and (B) community college is reported for each skill.

In response to our open–ended question “What other skills do you think students should have by the time they graduate?,” 69 faculty provided us with 74 suggestions. Of the 74 suggestions, six were restatements of skills provided in our survey, and the remaining 68 could be categorized under one of eight headings: to question or evaluate critically, to apply science to life, to do science—research and instrumentation, to teach or mentor, quantitative skills, to know what science is and is not, interdisciplinary ways of knowing, and time management or organization; the percent respondents for each category are shown in Figure 3 .

Faculty offered other skills (N = 74) that students should have by the time they graduate. These skills generally fell into one of eight categories and are reported as percent of the total.

While the respondents overwhelmingly agreed it is important that undergraduate life science majors acquire science process skills throughout their education, 67% felt that they did not spend a sufficient amount of time teaching these skills ( Figure 4 ). Both the number of faculty who felt they did not spend enough time teaching science process skills and the percentage of time they reported teaching skills varied significantly depending on the institution type ( Figure 5 ). Whereas 50% of faculty from liberal arts colleges feel they spend enough time teaching science process skills and devote, on average, 43% of their time to teaching the process of science, only 23% of the community college faculty feel they spend enough time teaching skills and devote on average only 24% of their class time to development of science skills. As the average class size at liberal arts and community colleges are comparable, class size is not likely to account for the difference in time that faculty spend teaching science process skills. It is interesting that the perceived time spent teaching skills at R1 universities was not significantly different from that reported by community colleges. This is surprising as one might imagine that faculty who are actively engaged in research would devote more class time to teaching the skills inherent to their own work.

Percent faculty (N = 156) at different institutions who felt that the amount of time they spent teaching science process skills was NOT sufficient.

Percent time (mean ± SEM) faculty (N = 156) at different institutions reported teaching skills as opposed to content. Values not sharing the same letter are significantly different from each other as determined by a one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test.

The dissonance between faculty views about the importance of undergraduates acquiring science process skills and the amount of time they actually spend teaching these skills was addressed by asking faculty to select any or all reasons (from a list of five reasons, as well as an option to suggest their own reason; see question %7 in Supplemental Material A, Faculty Survey) for why they spend so little time teaching skills. The most common reason selected by faculty was “teaching skills is too time-consuming” followed by “I think students need to have adequate content before they can learn science process skills” ( Figure 6 ). However, 37% of responders cited one or more other reasons; these open-ended responses generally fell into five main categories: time constraints due to need to cover content (65%), large class size or lack of student preparation (12%), students will learn skills elsewhere (10%), lack of support (not enough teaching assistants or assessment tools; 10%), and professional obligations such as tenure (5%). In the open-ended responses, as in the “check all that apply” responses, covering content was one of the main reasons faculty offered as to why they could not devote more class time to teaching the process of science.

Percent faculty (N = 100) selecting reasons that prevent them from spending more time teaching science skills. Numbers sum to greater than 100% due to respondents choosing more than one response.

Collectively it appears that the need to cover content outweighs faculty's desire to teach the process of science even when faculty feel it is critically important that students learn these skills. This is especially alarming because the faculty we surveyed also reported that in a 4-yr period they teach, on average, twice as many freshman and sophomore courses as they do junior- and senior-level courses. This indicates that beginning college students who take science courses are much more likely to learn content rather than science process skills. Many students who take introductory science courses do not go on to earn science degrees ( Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ). For most of these students this course is probably their only formal science class, and they leave college without having the skills to critique scientific reports in the news media or make informed decisions concerning science public policy and the environment. For students who do go on in science, the introductory course has failed to provide them with the conceptual framework needed for them to succeed in subsequent science courses.

TEACHING THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE

There are only a few documented programs that formally aim to place a greater emphasis on teaching the process of science as opposed to just delivering content for life science majors. A project at Brigham Young University (BYU) refocused undergraduate biology teaching efforts toward training students to interpret data and think analytically ( Kitchen et al. , 2003 ). BYU students who were taught these skills achieved higher exam and diagnostic test scores than students in a course where the focus was solely on information transfer. Student response to the course design was generally positive, and some students indicated that they wished they had learned these skills earlier in their education ( Kitchen et al. , 2003 ). Similarly, faculty at Lake Forest College (LFC) successfully integrated the teaching of science process skills with content in a sophomore-level introductory biology class ( DebBurman, 2002 ). LFC students who were taught science process skills in this relatively explicit manner reported that this helped them more readily acquire content in other classes and made them realize that they needed to improve their proficiencies in these areas. In 2006, we reported that incoming freshmen who participated in a unique premajors program (BFP) that explicitly taught science process skills had significantly greater success in subsequent introductory biology courses compared with students who did not participate in the program ( Dirks and Cunningham, 2006 ). In that report we showed 1) the demographic make-up of the BFP, 2) a comparison of non-BFP and BFP students' grades in the introductory biology series, and 3) BFP students' learning gains on pre- and posttests in graphing and experimental design. In response to many requests by faculty, here we provide a detailed description of our pedagogical philosophies, methodologies, and materials for teaching the course, as well as additional assessment results of student learning gains in scientific communication and survey information about BFP participants' views of the program.

Pedagogical Foundations of the BFP: Helping Students Learn How to Learn

The BFP at the University of Washington was founded to increase student success and retention in the biological sciences, particularly students from underrepresented groups. The three main programmatic goals were to 1) teach freshmen science process skills, 2) help them to develop more robust study techniques and metacognition, and 3) introduce them to the culture of science. This premajor program was offered for two credits during winter and spring quarters, meeting once a week for 1.5 h; thus it was a relatively small time commitment for students who had other academic requirements to fulfill. The BFP class size ranged from 50 to 60 students each quarter.

While the BFP had several components, we believe the success of the program was primarily due to a combination of pedagogical methods. We designed the BFP to be a “low-stakes” learning environment where students would be held accountable for their own education without incurring large penalties for their failures. Thus the grading emphasis was on students' in-class participation and improvements on their assignments over time, rather than the quality of their initial work. Students also frequently worked in groups of three to four, modeling the collaborative aspects of science. This low-stakes, noncompetitive approach allowed students to take more risks when completing assignments and generated a more productive learning environment for a cohort who would subsequently be taking biology together in a much larger (400+ students) class. This approach to learning was perceived as less stressful and threatening by the BFP students based on student comments as well as the fact that from 2003 to 2006 (the time frame in which we evaluated the program) we observed a very high retention rate with 98% of the 196 BFP students successfully completing both quarters of the BFP.

Other teaching strategies focused on helping students develop better study and metacognitive skills. We began the program by discussing our learning objectives and the role of metacognition in learning ( Bransford et al. , 1999 ; Table 2 ). After a brief introduction, students had small group discussions about what they hoped to accomplish in the program and in their first year as a college student, how they learn best, and how they know when they really know something. As an assignment we gave students time management sheets, asking them to indicate their hour-by-hour activities for the week and identify the blocks of time that they thought were “quality” study hours—those hours when they were fully awake and not distracted. We also instructed students to work toward being an active learner (i.e., taking notes while reading their textbook, drawing models of concepts, and creating questions). A critical aspect of our approach was to keep our pedagogy transparent throughout the course, taking time each class period to reflect on the purpose of an activity or assignment, as well as keeping a positive learning environment—one that was predominantly student-centered, collaborative, and active.

Syllabus for the two-quarter (20 wk) BFP

To further develop students' metacognition we would address their tendencies to overestimate their proficiency at science process skills. We found that many students had been exposed to some skills, such as reading graphs or designing experiments, but were not proficient at these tasks, even if they thought they were. Therefore, before extensive instruction in any given skill area, students were challenged with a moderately difficult assignment for which they received detailed feedback without penalty. These assignments also served as our diagnostic pretests for determining student learning gains throughout the program (Supplemental Material B; SM1). From our experience, we found that students were more receptive to instruction after trying these assignments on their own. This “try and fail” approach to learning has been demonstrated to be successful in other contexts, especially mathematics, where students are asked to attempt difficult problems on the board on a regular basis ( Mahavier, 1997 ).

Early in the program we introduced students to Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive domains ( Bloom et al. , 1956 ), explaining the different levels at which they would be challenged in the BFP and their future science courses. To emphasize the value of Bloom's taxonomy, we gave students practice at identifying the cognitive levels at which they were working by deconstructing activities from both the perspective of the educator and student. This pedagogical transparency helped students to invest more in their work and better assess their own learning.

We also dedicated several class periods to helping students practice different learning strategies and providing them with tools for effective studying. Students were taught how to diagram questions by circling key terms and underlining parts that they had been specifically asked to address. We gave instruction and practice for concept mapping ( Novak, 1990 ) and for creating diagrams or drawings as representational models; we frequently required students to use these tools during mini-lectures to organize their interpretation of biological content. Many of these activities were followed by an evaluation session in which students would use their diagrams to teach their peers content while the instructor assessed their materials. By requiring students to practice a repertoire of study skills during each class period, we reinforced new approaches to studying and learning.

Teaching Science Process Skills

We used a constructivist approach to teaching ( Dewey, 1933 ; Duckworth et al. , 1990 ; Brooks and Brooks, 1999 ; Leonard, 2000 ; Fink, 2003 ; Shepard, 2005 ), whereby we successively introduced increasingly complex activities that required students to practice and integrate many different skills and allowed them to sequentially build, test, and refine their conceptual understanding. We also put skills in context—giving students just enough content to allow them to practice skills. Class instruction about a particular skill always preceded graded assignments that required students to practice that skill. After an initial exercise that required the student to use a skill (i.e., reading primary literature, scientific writing, etc.), students were provided with a grading rubric (Supplemental Material B, SM2), given detailed instruction on the science process skill that was part of the initial exercise, and then introduced to new science content. The same skill was then incorporated into subsequent assignments, allowing students to practice skills in the context of different content ( Figure 7 ). For example, in class we would introduce basic statistics and appropriate ways to display data graphically, followed by an assignment that required them to properly use these skills to make inferences and pose future experiments. Iterative practice and frequent assessment of students' skills helped to reinforce the key learning objectives of the course, while the presentation of new content helped foster their interest in science. As a result of these scaffolded activities, students showed significant gains in their abilities to generate graphs, interpret data, design experiments ( Dirks and Cunningham, 2006 ), write in a scientific manner, and understand the purpose and structure of scientific literature (data presented below).

A schematic representing the kinds and timing of class instruction and practice between assignments.

The ability to write well is crucial for success in both undergraduate classes and any science-related career. Undergraduate research advisors (and results from our survey) cite scientific writing as a skill all students should master ( Kardash, 2000 ). To help students learn how scientists communicate in written form, we gave them a few primary research and review articles very early in the course and taught them the structure of scientific literature. The papers, which contained a variety of content, were selected because they required a minimal understanding of complex techniques. In small groups and then as a class, students compared the overall structure of the different articles and discussed the kinds of information presented in the sections of each paper. We also instructed students on how to search life science databases (e.g., PubMed) and assigned small groups to present to the class a portion of a scientific paper they had found. Although students sometimes had difficulty interpreting the entire paper they selected, they described the parts they did understand and identified areas with which they struggled. Because they worked in small groups to present their paper, the activities gave students practice at working with scientific literature and communicating science orally without being solely responsible for the success or failure of their work. We created a Scientific Literature Test (SLT; Supplemental Material B, SM3) to assess students' understanding of the organization and components of a primary literature paper. After students took the SLT in the first quarter of the program, it was vetted by having a class discussion about their interpretation of the questions and their responses; the test was modified and implemented in subsequent years. Pre- and posttests were administered at the beginning and end of the program, respectively, and scoring was completed by the same grader. BFP students' scores on the SLT increased, on average, from 32% to 86% on the pre- and posttest, respectively ( p < 0.001 by paired T-test; Figure 8 ).

Percent of total points (mean ± SEM) received during either a pretest or a posttest on scientific writing (graded with the SWR; N = 44) or SLT (N = 42) for 2006 BFP students. Statistically significant differences by paired t -test are indicated in the figure.

We used multiple writing assignments as a vehicle to enhance students' mastery of a range of science process skills, particularly scientific writing (Supplemental Material B, SM1). Each writing assignment increased in difficulty as it called for students to integrate several science process skills and required them to work at progressively higher cognitive levels (see Figure 7 ). For example, in assessing whether students could create an effective outline for a paper, students were given an abstract from a relatively easy-to-interpret primary literature paper and asked to produce an outline for the paper. This exercise was followed by an assignment that required students to read a scenario, pose a hypothesis, design an experiment, and create an outline for a paper they would write. By the third assignment, students were given a scenario and raw data for which they had to graph, analyze, and write about in the format of a primary literature paper (Supplemental Material B, SM1, writing assignment 3). We also required students to sequentially add more structure to their writing, culminating in the goal of writing a short scientific manuscript. Each writing assignment was evaluated using a Scientific Writing Rubric (SWR; Supplemental Matrial B, SM2) that assessed six functional categories: following instructions, outlining, writing structure, writing mechanics, experimental design, and graphing. Each category of the SWR was scored on a scale of 0–3, yielding a maximum score of 18. Throughout the program three faculty used and iteratively improved the SWR. A single rater then used the finalized SWR to analyze identical pre- and postwriting assignments administered during the first and penultimate sessions of the program. We found that students had made significant improvement in their scientific writing skills, with average scores increasing from 62% to 83% between pre- and posttests, respectively ( p < 0.001 by paired T-test; Figure 8 ). Importantly, students showed significant gains in all six categories designated on the grading SWR. Thus our students learned many of the science process skills that form the foundation for most scientific endeavors by receiving explicit instruction for, and iteratively practicing, the skills of a scientist.

Incorporating the Culture of Science into the BFP

Students in the BFP came to college with an interest in the life sciences, so we provided them with opportunities to build a professional network of science colleagues, inclusive of faculty. We instructed students in the process of finding an undergraduate research opportunity or a volunteer experience in a medical profession or related field. We also held a panel session in which physicians, scientists, and other life science professionals answered students' questions about their careers. Lastly, we required all BFP students to participate in an annual symposium where they attended an undergraduate research poster session and visited booths to get information about graduate and professional schools, undergraduate organizations in the life sciences, and other opportunities that might help them achieve their career goals. These experiences were extremely valuable to BFP students as indicated by their remarks in closing surveys; students indicated that they felt connected to the life science community on campus and could more clearly see a pathway for their future careers. One indicator that suggests BFP participants maintained a connection to science is that approximately 60% of BFP students were engaged in undergraduate research by their sophomore year.

Supplemental Instruction after the BFP

Supplemental instruction (SI) has been shown to be a very effective method to help students learn the content of large lecture courses ( Preszler, 2006 ). Therefore, as BFP students moved through their science courses in smaller cohorts, we provided each with SI sessions while enrolled in the rigorous introductory biology series. Many of our BFP students were designated as underrepresented minorities (URMs) or those identified for the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP; first generation and economically disadvantaged college students). Unfortunately, URMs and EOPs have traditionally performed poorly in introductory biology courses compared with their majority counterparts; almost half of URMs and EOP students do not continue in science after these courses ( Dirks and Cunningham, 2006 ). SI sessions were designed to build on the foundational skills that BFP students practiced during their time in the program; key parts of these sessions included collaborative learning in small groups, peer instruction, diagramming and ranking old exam questions according to Bloom's taxonomy, and completing practice activities about a topic (e.g., natural selection, Mendelian genetics) concurrently taught in their biology course. To help BFP students develop the ability to identify their level of preparation for an exam, students' took isomorphic quizzes (based on Bloom's levels) before and after practice activities. The tests were not graded, nor were students given the answers until after the session. Four times throughout the session students took a survey in which they were asked to rate their current understanding of the topic on a scale from 1 to 5, with “don't understand at all” being a 1 and “understand very well” a 5 ( Table 3 ). Results from this survey allowed us and the student to track their metacognition. Survey data across multiple deliveries of SI were averaged to create a composite score for each student (N = 39) at each of the four time points during their instruction. Student self-rating of their understanding of the covered material changed significantly over the course of the SI sessions (Repeated measures ANOVA; p < 0.001; Figure 9 ), leading us to perform post hoc pairwise comparisons between time points by paired t -test. Understanding scores averaged 2.6 ± 0.1 (SEM) for students before answering the pretest questions. This score showed a statistically significant drop after students took the pretest, to an average score of 2.2 ± 0.1 ( p < 0.001 versus before pretest). After completing the practice activities, students' mean understanding score increased to 3.6 ± 0.1 ( p < 0.001 versus after pretest). After the posttest, students' rating of their understanding showed a small, but statistically significant drop to 3.4 ± 0.1 ( p < 0.03 versus before posttest). Thus, on average, students felt significantly more confident about their understanding of the content before they were challenged with the pretest than after it, and their confidence significantly increased and remained high after approximately an hour of practice and thinking about content. Although we do not have direct evidence linking a student's understanding score to their exam scores in biology, we believe these structured activities may help to enhance students' ability to monitor their true level of preparation going into an exam by providing them with practice at recognizing what they don't know before any assessment. Because almost all of the BFP students participated in the SI sessions, we cannot assess the impact that the SI may have had on the success of the Biology Fellows in the introductory biology series. However, the SI sessions were an essential component of the program because they provided BFP students with practice at some of the many skills we taught: good study skills, reflection about learning, and effective group work.

Flowchart of BFP activities during supplemental instruction sessions

Students' understanding scores (mean ± SEM) for each of the topics (7–8 per module) were averaged to give the student one understanding score at each of the four time points for that module. Individual students completed between one and four modules. If students completed more than one module, their understanding scores were averaged across modules. Thus, each student (N = 39) received a composite score at each time point. Statistically significant differences by paired t -test are indicated in the figure.

Student Perceptions about the Program

Overall, students were very satisfied with their experience in the BFP. The overwhelming majority (94%) perceived that they learned skills that will help them succeed in subsequent science classes (N = 104). Even more telling is the fact that 98% of BFP students would recommend this program to other incoming freshmen (N = 98). A selection of BFP student responses about their experiences while in the program is found in Table 4 .

Sample student quotes

Science process skills form the core of scientific endeavors, so we wished to gain a better perspective on faculty views about teaching these skills to their students. Our survey of numerous faculty and postdocs from a variety of institutions indicated that they highly value undergraduates' acquisition of science process skills yet most did not spend enough time teaching skills because they used class time to cover course content. What is at the root of this contradiction? According to the responses in our survey and reports from others ( Allen and Tanner, 2007 ; Sirum et al. , 2009 ), the expectation that faculty will cover a certain amount of content in introductory life science courses is systemic and communal. It seems to be a collegial obligation to provide students with a certain amount of content knowledge before they enter more advanced courses. Many faculty commented that students often learn skills “somewhere else”—a research experience, laboratory sessions, upper-division classes—other than in an introductory course. Thus it is assumed that students will somehow acquire these skills in their education, which tends to focus more on content than skills.

Although content is clearly important, science process skills provide the tools and ways of thinking that enable students to build the robust conceptual frameworks needed to gain expertise in the life sciences. Scientists use these process skills to approach inquiry in a particular way, leading to a scientifically valid method for obtaining results from which they base new investigations. It is interesting that faculty who teach introductory courses find themselves in this conflicted position—teaching undergraduates content without the skills needed to help them master that content. It is with the best of intentions that faculty provide introductory life science students with a foundation of content knowledge so that they may be better prepared to pursue science with passion, yet this pedagogical philosophy also fails many of the same students they are trying to educate. Introductory science students are often inundated with content—the syllabus that must be covered—at the expense of developing a conceptual framework in which to work with new content. For many students this teaching approach is uninspiring and causes them to leave science ( Seymour, 1995 ; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ), but for those students who stay, it may delay their development into scientists. After a year of introductory science courses, many would agree that most students are still scientifically illiterate ( Wright and Klymkowsky, 2005 ), incapable of applying the scientific method, critically reading news articles, or finding and evaluating pertinent information in their field of study.

We have described a program explicitly designed to teach incoming freshmen science process skills and effective learning techniques, and showed learning gains and perspectives of students who completed the program. To foster undergraduates' intellectual development for using science process skills in subsequent science courses, we contextualized instruction by using scientific content to help emphasize the teaching of skills. Throughout the program, BFP students practiced scientific writing, reading primary literature papers, experimental design, graphing, data interpretation, basic statistics in biology, collaborative work, oral communication, effective studying, and metacognition. Although we do not know which components of the BFP helped students the most, on average, students exited the program very pleased with their experience, showed learning gains in several skill areas, and were highly successful in the Introductory Biology series at the University of Washington ( Dirks and Cunningham, 2006 ). Given that many undergraduates leave science early, especially underrepresented minorities who are often less prepared for the rigorous nature of collegiate science courses ( Cota-Robles and Gordan, 1999 ; Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly, 1999 ), we believe it is imperative that students receive this type of instruction early in their education. When students begin to master science process skills, it helps them develop a conceptual framework in which to assimilate new science content and allows them to approach their learning as a scientist.

The general format of the BFP is flexible enough to accommodate content from a wide variety of disciplines and can be implemented in many different settings. The explicit instruction, transparent pedagogy, scaffolding approach, and iterative practice of science process skills can be applied at several academic levels, helping students to achieve mastery of these skills earlier in their education. Many aspects of this program could be adopted in high school science courses, giving students a head start before transitioning to college ( Wood, 2009 ). At the university level, instruction of this nature could be used either as a requirement for science premajors or integrated as part of an introductory science course. We recommend the latter approach be taken because learning skills in the context of course content is likely to be a much richer experience for students ( Wilensky and Reisman, 1998 ; Airey and Linder, 2009 ), particularly if this integration occurs in all their courses. A wider implementation of programs similar to the BFP could help convey the process of science to incoming freshmen and increase student success and retention, particularly for those students less prepared for college. Armed with the skills of scientists, students are more likely to successfully complete their undergraduate science degrees and be better prepared to pursue graduate study or other rewarding science careers. For students who do not go on in science, learning science process skills will help increase their science literacy.

What do we really want our students to learn in an undergraduate science curriculum, and when do we want them to learn it? When faculty are asked this question their responses vary, but with few exceptions they state they want students to have the skills for interpreting data, critically reading and evaluating different types of literature, problem solving, communicating to others, making connections, and applying scientific content to life. Science faculty take pleasure in doing science because we explore phenomena that interest us, ask questions, pose hypotheses, design experiments to test our hypotheses, and write about our findings for a broader audience. If we redesigned our introductory courses to be more similar to what we like about science, then perhaps our students would far exceed our expectations for investigating the world in a passionate and meaningful way. Students who major in life sciences, and even those who don't go on in science, would possess an ability to use science process skills in a scientifically literate manner. Students taking more advanced science courses would be able to approach our subdisciplines with enthusiasm for learning new content because they would have a skill set for higher cognitive work. However, all of this would have to come at the expense of teaching introductory students the long list of content that makes up the syllabus; syllabi would have to be restructured to include learning goals and objectives that are skill based. We argue that teaching introductory students less content to teach the process of science is both imperative and long overdue.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We thank Alison Crowe for helping to improve this manuscript. We thank Robin Wright for her work that initiated this program, as well as Robert Steiner, Barbara Wakimoto, and Bette Nicotri for their input throughout its development. This work was funded by a grant to the University of Washington from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Undergraduate Biological Sciences Education Program (Grant 52003841) and approved by The Evergreen State College's Institutional Review Board.

Reymund C. Derilo Instructor, College of Teacher Education, Nueva Vizcaya State University, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines

Reymund C. Derilo is a Science Instructor of Nueva Vizcaya State University, Bambang Campus, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. He graduated Master of Arts in Teaching Chemistry at Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines in 2017. His research interests include     scientific epistemological beliefs and pedagogy of science. He also does research in natural science, such as UV-Vis spectrophotometric quantitative determination of heavy metal ions in aqueous solutions using Philippine plants as a chromogenic reagent, phytochemical screening and in-vitro screening of biological activities of ethnomedicinal plants, and characterization of phytofabricated silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) using spectrophotometry. He is currently involved in a project under the Department of Science & Technology – Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (DOST-PCHRD) which focuses on the development of microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs) for the detection of diarrhea-causing pathogens in water.

.................................................

..................................................

Education Journals

European Journal Of Physical Education and Sport Science

European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching

European Journal of English Language Teaching

European Journal of Special Education Research

European Journal of Alternative Education Studies

European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies

Public Health Journals

European Journal of Public Health Studies

European Journal of Fitness, Nutrition and Sport Medicine Studies

European Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Studies

Social Sciences Journals

European Journal of Social Sciences Studies

European Journal of Economic and Financial Research

European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies

European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies

European Journal of Political Science Studies

Literature, Language and Linguistics Journals

European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies

European Journal of Literary Studies

European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies

European Journal of Multilingualism and Translation Studies

...................................................

• Other Journals
• ##Editorial Board##
• ##Indexing and Abstracting##
• ##Author's guidelines##
• ##Covered Research Areas##
• ##Announcements##
• ##Related Journals##
• ##Manuscript Submission##

BASIC AND INTEGRATED SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS ACQUISITION AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT OF SEVENTH-GRADE LEARNERS

For effective science inquiry and hands-on science learning, students should have a good mastery of the science process skills (SPS) before applying the processes. SPS are the building-blocks of critical thinking and inquiry in science. This study sought to investigate students’ SPS acquisition level and its relationship with their academic performance in science. The Science Process Skills Test, a 24-item test intended to quantify students’ basic and integrated SPS, was administered to the 100 randomly selected Grade 7 students of a private secondary school in Northern Luzon, Philippines. The data were analyzed using descriptive and correlational research methods. The results of the study revealed that the students have an average level of basic science process skills, and a low level of integrated science process skills. A significant correlation between students’ performance in science and basic SPS was reported. On the other hand, students’ integrated SPS was found not significantly related to their performance. Furthermore, there was a highly significant, positive correlation between the students’ overall science process skills and science achievement. Hence, it was recommended that students’ science process skills be improved through proper designs of inquiry-based experiments and activities to enhance and elevate students’ achievement in science.

Article visualizations:

Aktamis, H. & Ergin, O. 2008. The effect of scientific process skills education on students’ scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 9 (1): 1-21.

Ardaç, D. & Mugaloglu, E., 2002. Bilimsel Süreçlerin Kazanimina Yönelik Bir Program Çalismasi. Proceedings of V. National Science and Mathematics Symposium 1: 226-231.

Aydoğdu, B., 2006. Identification of variables effecting science process skills in primary science and technology course. Unpublished Master Thesis. Dokuz Eylül University, Educational Sciences Institute, İzmir.

Batamalaque, A., 2007. Basic science development program of the Philippines for international cooperation. University of San Carlos, Philippines: UNESCO International Bureau of Education. http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/pdf/09_Philippines_Antonio.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2019.

Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K., 2001. An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education 19(2): 133-145.

Böyük, U., Tanik, N., & Saraçoğlu, S., 2011. Analysis of the scientific process skill levels of secondary school students based on different variables. Turkish Science-Research Fondation 4(1): 20-30

Cajimat, R., 2015. Fundamental and derived scientific literacy of students in the K-12 curriculum and Revised Basic Education Curriculum. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines.

Çepni S., Ayas A., Johnson D. & Turgut M, 1997. Physics teaching: National education development project. Pre-Service Teacher Training, Ankara: 31-44.

Delen, I., & Kesercioglu, T., 2012. How middle school students' science process skills affected by Turkey's national curriculum change? Journal of Turkish science education 9(4).

Department of Education, 2010. Discussion paper on the enhanced K to 12 education programs’, CEAP, Pasig City Philippines. http://ceap.org.ph/upload/download/201210/17115829500_1.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2019.

Department of Education, 2013. K to 12 mathematics curriculum guides, SEI-DOST & MATHTED, Manila.

Department of Education, 2013. DepEd order No. 43, s 2013. implementing rules and regulations of RA 10533 known as the Enhanced Basic Education Law of 2012. Philippines: Department of Education

Derilo R., 2017. Scientific epistemological views, teaching approaches, teaching beliefs, students' attitude and performance in K to 12 chemistry. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines.

Ekon, E., & Eni, E., 2015. Gender and Acquisition of Science Process Skills among Junior Secondary School Students in Calabar Municipality: Implications for Implementation of Universal Basic Education Objectives. Global Journal of Educational Research 14(1): 93-99.

Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Farsakoğlu, Ö., Şahin, Ç., & Karsli, F., 2012. Comparing science process skills of prospective science teachers: A cross-sectional study. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 13(1): 1-21.

Feyzioğlu, B. 2009. An investigation of the relationship between science process skills with efficient laboratory use and science achievement in chemistry education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6 (3): 114-132

Gürses, A., Çetinkaya, S., Doğar, Ç., & Şahin, E., 2015. Determination of levels of use of basic process skills of high school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 191: 644-650.

Harlen, W., 1999. Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education 6(1): 129–140.

Huppert, J., Lomask S., & Lazarorcitz, R., 2002. Computer simulations in the high school: students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803–821.

Madronio, E., 2015. Chemistry learning environment, attitude and proficiency of generation Z learners. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

Mbewe, S., Chabalengula, V., & Mumba, E., 2010. Pre-service teachers' familiarity, interest, and conceptual understanding of science process skills. Problems of Education in the 21" Century 22(1): 76-86

Medula, C., Antonio, V., Jubay, A., and Aban, L., 2013. Scientific literacy for tomorrow’s world: The case of countryside Filipino secondary school students. Saint Mary’s University Graduate Research Journal 6, (2).

NETRC, 2013. NAT performance SY 2005-2015. http://www.netrc.Sysportal.net/HomePage.aspx?id=20. Accessed April 01, 2019.

Ngoh, T., 2009. Mastery of the science process skills. Unpublished manuscript.

Oloyede, O., & Adeoye, F., 2012. The relationship between acquisition of science process skills, formal reasoning ability and chemistry achievement. International Journal of African & African-American Studies 8(1): 1-4.

Olufunminiyi, A., & Afolabi, F., 2010. Analysis of science process skills in West African senior secondary school certificate physics practical examinations in Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research 5(4): 234-240.

Öztürk, N., Tezel, Ö., & Acat, M., 2010. Science process skills levels of primary school seventh grade students in science and technology lesson. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED) 7(3).

Padilla, M., Cronin, L., & Twiest, M., 1985. The development and validation of the test of basic process skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick, IN.

Saldivar, C., 2015. Functional literacy in Chemistry of Grade 9 students and science teachers under the K to 12 basic curriculum. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines.

Science Education Institute-Department of Science and Technology, 2011. Science framework for Philippine basic education. Manila: SEI-DOST & UP NISMED.

Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martín, X., & Greenhill, B., 2011. The global competitiveness report 2011–2012: Full data edition. Switzerland: World Economic Forum

Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martín, X., & Brende, B., 2012. The global competitiveness report 2012–2013: Full data edition. Switzerland: World Economic Forum

Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martín, X., & Brende, B, 2013. The global competitiveness report 2013–2014: Full data edition. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Swab, K., Salai-i-Martin, X., Eide, E., & Blanke, J., 2014. The global competitiveness report 2014–2015: Full data edition. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martín, X., Samans, R., & Blanke, J., 2015. The global competitiveness report 2015–2016: Full data edition. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Schwab, K., Salai-i-Martin, X., Samans, R., & Blanke, J., 2016. The global competitiveness report 2016–2017. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Schwab, K., Salai-i-Martin, X., and Samans, R, 2017. The global competitiveness report 2017–2018. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Torregoza, H., 2014. Angara wants math, science education elevated. Manila Bulletin. http://www.mb.com.ph/angara-wants-math-science-education-elevated/#dfJoOagXjbRc3C5o.99. Accessed on April 01, 2019.

Walters Y., & Soyibo K., 2001. An analysis of high school student's performance on five integrated science process skills. Res. Sci. Techol. Educ. 19(2): 133–143.

• There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group . All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number ( ISSN ) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library ( Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei ). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the  Open Access Publishing  requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) .

We apologize for the inconvenience...

To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you are a human by ticking the box below.

If you are unable to complete the above request please contact us using the below link, providing a screenshot of your experience.

https://ioppublishing.org/contacts/

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Observatory
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal

Call for experts: Technical Advisory Group on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology

deadline of submission: 18 september 2024.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking experts to serve as members of the Technical Advisory Group on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology. This “Call for experts” provides information about the advisory group in question, the expert profiles being sought, the process to express interest, and the process of selection.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 2.5 billion people need assistive technology, but access to assistive products is as low as 3% in some settings. Among the users of assistive technology, the majority are older people and those living with disabilities or with chronic health conditions. Access to assistive technology is a fundamental human right to live a productive, dignified, and independent life.

Digital health interventions can be used to address barriers to assistive technology. Digital health is the systematic application of information and communications technologies, computer science, and data to support informed decision-making by individuals, the health workforce, and health systems, to strengthen resilience to disease and improve health and wellness. 

Recognizing the need to enhance access to assistive technology and to harness the potential of digital technologies to support health systems for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals, the World Health Assembly (WHA) has adopted two resolutions: WHA71.8 on improving access to assistive technology and WHA71.7 on digital health .

To improve access to assistive technology, WHA71.8 requests Member States to develop, implement, and strengthen policies and programs to improve access to assistive technology, to ensure that adequate and trained human resources for the provision and maintenance of assistive products are available, to promote or invest in research, development, innovation, and product design to make existing assistive products affordable; and to develop a new generation of products. In its resolution on digital health, WHA urges Member States to develop, implement, and utilize digital technologies as a means of promoting equitable, affordable, and universal access to health for all, and to build capacity for human resources for digital health, especially through digital means. The combination of these two approaches holds transformative potential, impacting health, education, livelihoods, and social participation.

Further, the publication of the first WHO and UNICEF Global report on assistive technology and advances in technology, new knowledge, evidence, and innovative solutions are made available. WHO is now in the process of supporting the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology and maximize benefits for users, their families, service providers, and society, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

The Technical Advisory Group on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology (“TAG”) will play an important role in providing recommendations to WHO and will act as an advisory body to WHO in this field.

Functions of the TAG on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology

In its capacity as an advisory body to WHO, the TAG shall have the following functions:

• To provide technical and scientific advice on digital technologies for enhancing access to assistive technology and their use;
• To review and recommend priorities, activities, and strategies for the use of digital technologies for enhancing access to assistive technology, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Operations of the TAG on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology

Members of the TAG shall be appointed to serve for a period of two years and shall be eligible for reappointment. The TAG is expected to meet at least once a year. However, WHO may convene additional meetings. TAG meetings may be held in person (at WHO headquarters in Geneva or another location, as determined by WHO) or virtually, via video or teleconference. The working language of the TAG will be English. We anticipate the time commitment for TAG members will be about one day per month, including participating in meetings and contributing to draft and reviewing technical documents.

Who can express interest?

The TAG on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology will be multidisciplinary, with members who have a range of technical knowledge, skills, and experience relevant to assistive technology and digital health. Approximately 12 members may be selected.

WHO welcomes expressions of interest from professionals, managers, policymakers, researchers, regulators, and experienced assistive technology users with expertise in one or more of the following areas:

• Assistive technology expertise including as an experienced assistive technology user, service provider, policy/decision maker, researcher, or supplier/manufacturer;
• Strengthening access to assistive technology, especially in low- or middle-income countries;
• Using digital technology to enhance access to assistive technology;
• Digital health (see definition above);
• Health technology or systems;
• Using digital technology in low- or middle-income countries.

Submitting your expression of interest

To register your interest in being considered for the TAG on the use of digital technologies to enhance access to assistive technology, use this link to fill in the digital expression of interest form and submit the following documents :

• A cover letter, indicating your motivation to apply and how you satisfy the selection criteria. Please note that, if selected, membership will be in a personal capacity. Therefore do not use the letterhead or other identification of your employer;
• Your curriculum vitae; and
• A signed and completed Declaration of Interests (DOI) form for WHO Experts, is available at https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest .

The deadline for submission is 18 September 2024 at 23:59 Geneva time.

After submission, your expression of interest will be reviewed by WHO. Due to an expected high volume of interest, only selected individuals will be informed.

Members of WHO technical advisory groups (TAGs) must be free of any real, potential, or apparent conflicts of interest. To this end, applicants are required to complete the WHO Declaration of Interests for WHO Experts, and the selection as a member of a TAG is, amongst other things, dependent on WHO determining that there is no conflict of interest or that any identified conflicts could be appropriately managed (in addition to WHO’s evaluation of an applicant’s experience, expertise and motivation and other criteria).

All TAG members will serve in their individual expert capacity and shall not represent any governments, any commercial industries or entities, any research, academic, or civil society organizations, or any other bodies, entities, institutions, or organizations. They are expected to fully comply with the Code of Conduct for WHO Experts (https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest). TAG members will be expected to sign and return a completed confidentiality undertaking prior to the beginning of the first meeting.

At any point during the selection process, telephone interviews may be scheduled between an applicant and the WHO Secretariat to enable the WHO to ask questions relating to the applicant’s experience and expertise and/or to assess whether the applicant meets the criteria for membership in the relevant TAG.

The selection of members of the TAGs will be made by WHO in its sole discretion, taking into account the following (non-exclusive) criteria: relevant technical expertise; experience in international and country policy work; communication skills; and ability to work constructively with people from different cultural backgrounds and orientations. The selection of TAG members will also take account of the need for diverse perspectives from different regions, especially from low and middle-income countries, and for gender balance.

If selected by WHO, proposed members will be sent an invitation letter and a Memorandum of Agreement. Appointment as a member of a TAG will be subject to the proposed member returning to WHO the countersigned copy of these two documents.

WHO reserves the right to accept or reject any expression of interest, to annul the open call process, and reject all expressions of interest at any time without incurring any liability to the affected applicant or applicants and without any obligation to inform the affected applicant or applicants of the grounds for WHO's action. WHO may also decide, at any time, not to proceed with the establishment of the TAG, disband an existing TAG, or modify the work of the TAG.

WHO shall not in any way be obliged to reveal, or discuss with any applicant, how an expression of interest was assessed, or to provide any other information relating to the evaluation/selection process, or to state the reasons for not choosing a member.

WHO may publish the names and a short biography of the selected individuals on the WHO internet.

TAG members will not be remunerated for their services in relation to the TAG or otherwise. Travel and accommodation expenses of TAG members to participate in TAG meetings will be covered by WHO in accordance with its applicable policies, rules, and procedures.

The appointment will be limited in time as indicated in the letter of appointment.

If you have any questions about this “Call for experts”, please write to [email protected] using the subject line “TAG Expression of interest” well before the 18 September 2024 deadline.

Related Highlight

Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children’s Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play

• Published: 02 September 2024

Cite this article

• Han Qi Zeng 1 &
• Siew Chin Ng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1353-5971 1  

Early science inquiries and experiences increase young children’s awareness and interest for science. The importance of promoting science process skills which bolster children’s confidence to formulate and communicate personal ideas have been emphasised by international guidelines. As Loose Parts Play (LPP) is a form of free play involving open-ended play materials, its flexible nature promotes active exploration with materials that encourages children’s interaction with science-related experiences. This teacher action research aims to explore the influence of open-ended questions on children’s science process skills, as well as the scientific concepts that children are capable of exploring independently during play experiences. Analyses draw on video- and audio-recorded observation, child observation notes, and teacher journals. A total of 180 open-ended questions were employed by the teacher-researcher and 155 instances of science process skills were observed in a group of five-year-old children. Findings revealed that periods of uninterrupted play time followed by open-ended questions, extend children’s science process skills, and add complexity to their scientific exploration. Furthermore, children were observed to self-initiate exploration of scientific concepts, such as transforming materials and changing motion, during these uninterrupted play periods. Overall, this teacher action research highlights the pivotal role that educators play in young children’s playful learning experiences, where their timely use of open-ended questions has the capacity to facilitate children’s early science learning during LPP. This study serves to define an educator’s role within student-driven or child-initiated learning experiences, as well as guide educators in the utility of loose part materials, provision of uninterrupted play periods, and planning of open-ended questions to stimulate children’s science exploration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Young children’s development of scientific knowledge through the combination of teacher-guided play and child-guided play.

Supporting the Application of Playful Learning and Playful Pedagogies in the Early Years Curriculum Through Observation, Interpretation, and Reflection

Role of Play in Teaching Science in the Early Childhood Years

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Adbo, K., & Vidal, C. C. (2020). Learning about science in preschool: Play-based activities to support children’s understanding of chemistry concepts. International Journal of Early Childhood , 52 (1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00259-3

Article   Google Scholar  

Åkerblom, A., & Thorshag, K. (2021). Preschoolers’ use and exploration of concepts related to scientific phenomena in preschool. Journal of Childhood Education & Society , 2 (3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202123115

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology , 103 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

Alves, P. F. (2014). Vygotsky and Piaget: Scientific concepts. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art , 7 (3), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2014.0303

Andersson, K., & Gullberg, A. (2014). What is science in preschool and what do teachers have to know to empower children? Cultural Studies of Science Education , 9 (2), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9439-6

Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research , 4 (1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2017.1300068

Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., & Brophy, S. (2011). Early engineering in young children’s exploratory play with tangible materials. Children Youth and Environment , 21 (2), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.21.2.0212 . http://www.jstor.org/stable/

Bautista, A., Ng, S. C., Muñez, D., & Bull, R. (2016). Learning areas in holistic education: Kindergarten teachers’ curriculum priorities, professional development needs, and beliefs. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy , 10 (8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-016-0024-4

Bautista, A., Moreno-Nuñez, A., Ng, S. C., & Bull, R. (2018). Preschool educators’ interaction with children about sustainable development: Planned and incidental conversations. International Journal of Early Childhood , 50 (1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-018-0213-0

Besse-Patin, B. (2018). July 11–13). How to play without toys? A playwork experimentation in Paris. [Paper presentation]. 8th International Toy Research Association World Conference Toys and Material Culture: Hybridisation, Design and Consumption, Paris, France.

Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 21 (2), 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789195

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications . BSCS.

Casey, T., & Robertson, J. (2016). Loose parts play: A toolkit. Inspiring Scotland . https://www.playscotland.org/resources/loose-parts-play-a-toolkit-pdf-2/

Chaille, C., & Britain, L. (2003). The young child as scientist: A constructivist approach to early science education (3rd ed.). Harper Collins.

Deakin University (n.d.). Resources for teaching science: Force and motion. https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/sci-enviro-ed/early-years/force-and-motion/

Deans, J., & Wright, S. (2021). STEAM through sensory-based action-reaction learning. In C. Cohrssen, & S. Garvis (Eds.), Embedding STEAM in early childhood education and care (pp. 135–153). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_7

Dockett, S. (2010). The challenge of play for early childhood education. In S. Rogers (Ed.), Rethinking play and pedagogy in early childhood education. Concepts, contexts and cultures (pp. 32–48). Routledge.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2011). Researching with young children: Seeking assent. Child Indicators Research , 4 (2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9084-0

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Leading Global Nursing Research , 62 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Elsteeg, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. W. Harlen, primary science: Taking the plunge (pp. 36–46). Heinemann Educational.

Eti, I., & Sigirtmac, A. (2021). Developing inquiry-based science activities in early childhood education: An action research. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES) , 7 (3), 785–804. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1973

Flannigan, C., & Dietze, B. (2018). Children, outdoor play, and loose parts. Journal of Childhood Studies , 42 (4), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.18357/jcs.v42i4.18103

Fleer, M., & Pramling, N. (2015). A cultural-historical study of children learning science: Foregrounding affective imagination in play-based settings . Springer.

Fleer, M., Gomes, J. J., & March, S. (2014). Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood , 39 (1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911403900106

Foti, F., Martone, D., Orrù, S., Montuori, S., Imperlini, E., Buono, P., Petrosini, L., & Mandolesi, L. (2018). Are young children able to learn exploratory strategies by observation? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung , 82 (6), 1212–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0896-0

Garbett, D. (2003). Science education in early childhood teacher education: Putting forward a case to enhance student teachers’ confidence and competence. Research in Science Education , 33 (4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000005251.20085.62

Gomes, J., & Fleer, M. (2020). Is science really everywhere? Teachers’ perspectives on science learning possibilities in the preschool environment. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association) , 50 (5), 1961–1989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9760-5

Griffin, P. (Ed.). (2014). Assessment for teaching . Cambridge University Press.

Guarrella, C. (2021). Weaving science through STEAM: A process skill approach. In C. Cohrssen, & S. Garvis (Eds.), Embedding STEAM in early childhood education and care (pp. 1–19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_1

Hamel, E., Joo, Y., Hong, S. Y., & Burton, A. (2021). Teacher questioning practices in early childhood science activities. Early Childhood Education Journal , 49 (3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01075-z

Hammer, A. S. E., & He, M. (2014). Preschool teachers’ approaches to science: A comparison of a Chinese and Norwegian kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 24 , 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.970850

Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice , 6 (1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993044

Hauser, B. (2016). Spielen: Frühes lernen in familie, krippe und kindergarten . Kohlhammer.

Holland, R. (2010). What’s it all about? How introducing Heuristic play has affected provision for under-threes in one-day nursery. In C. Cable, L. Miller, & G. Goodliff (Eds.), Working with children in the early years . Open University.

Houser, N. E., Cawley, J., Kolen, A. M., Rainham, D., Rehman, L., Turner, J., & Stone, M. R. (2019). A loose part randomised controlled trial to promote active outdoor play in preschool-aged children: Physical literacy in the early years (PLEY) project. Methods and Protocols , 2 (2), 27.

Ismail, N. G. A., Pahl, A., & Tschiesner, R. (2022). Play-based physics learning in kindergarten. Education Sciences , 12 (5), 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050300

Jansen, J. (2011). Piaget’s cognitive development theory. In S. Goldstein, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 1104–1106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2164

Kallery, M., Sofianidis, A., Pationioti, P., Tsialma, K., & Katsiana, X. (2022). Cognitive style, motivation and learning in inquiry-based early-years science activities. International Journal of Early Years Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2022.2052819

Kiewra, C., & Veselack, E. (2016). Playing with nature: Supporting preschoolers’ creativity in natural outdoor classrooms. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education , 4 (1), 70–95. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1120194

Google Scholar  

Killiala, M. (2009). August 26–29). ‘Look at me!’ Does the adult see the child in a Finnish daycare centre? [Paper presentation]. 19th European Early Childhood Education Research Association: Diversities in Early Childhood Education. Strasbourg, France.

Kohlberg, L. (1968). Early education: A cognitive-developmental approach. Child Development , 39 , 1013–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127272

Kübler, M., Buhl, G., & Rüdisüli, C. (2020). Connect play and learning—with game-based learning environments. Hep. https://www.hepverlag.de/sites/999193.buchhandelsweb2.de/files/preview/spielenundlernenverbinden.pdf

Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science , 40 (6), 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2

Leontjew, A. N. (1977). Tätigkeit Und Bewusstsein. http://www.ich-sciences.de/media/texte/leo_1973.pdf

Lohaus, A., & Vierhaus, M. (2015). Kognition. In A. Lohaus, & M. Vierhaus (Eds.), Entwicklungspsychologie des kindes- und jugendalters für bachelor (pp. 116–130) Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45529-6_9

Loxley, P., Dawes, L., Nicholls, L., & Dore, B. (2017). Teaching primary science: Promoting enjoyment and developing understanding (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624594

McInnes, K., Howard, J., Miles, G., & Crowley, K. (2011). Differences in practitioners’ understanding of play and how this influences pedagogy and children’s perception of play. Early Years , 31 (2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2011.572870

Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2013). Nurturing early learners: A curriculum for kindergartens in Singapore: Discovery of the world . MOE.

Monteira, S. F., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016). The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 (8), 1232–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21259

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . National Academies.

Neill, P. (2013). Open-ended materials belong outside too! High Scope , 27 (2), 1–18. https://highscope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/156.pdf

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concept. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7967.001.0001

Ng, S. C., & Bull, R. (2018). Facilitating social emotional learning in kindergarten classrooms: Situational factors and teachers’ strategies. International Journal of Early Childhood , 50 (3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-018-0225-9

Ng, S. C., & Sun, H. (2022). Promoting social emotional learning through shared book reading: Examining teacher’s strategies and children’s responses in kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and Development , 33 (8), 1326–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1974232

Ng, S. C., Vijayakumar, P., Yussof, N. T., & O’Brien, B. A. (2021). Promoting bilingualism and children’s co-participation in Singapore language classrooms: Preschool teacher strategies and children’s responses in show-and-tell. Policy Futures in Education , 19 (2), 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320960864

Nicholson, S. (1972). The theory of loose parts, an important principle for design methodology (Vol. 4). Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology. 2.

Olgan, R. (2014). Influences on Turkish early childhood teachers’ science teaching practices and the science content covered in the early years. Early Child Development and Care , 185 (6), 926–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.967689

Oppermann, E., Brunner, M., Eccles, J. S., & Anders, Y. (2018). Uncovering young children’s motivational beliefs about learning science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 55 (3), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21424

Perry, B. (2004). Maltreatment and the developing child: How early childhood experience shapes child and culture [Inaugural lecture]. The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System: https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/903124DF-BD7F-3286-FE3330AA44F994DE/maltreating_and_the_developing_child.pd

Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. R. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). McGraw-Hill.

Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development , 28 (3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771

Rogers, A., & Russo, S. (2003). Blocks: A commonly encountered play activity in the early years, or a key to facilitating skills in science, maths, and technology. Investigating , 19 (1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.126466

Saçkes, M. (2014). How often do early childhood teachers teach science concepts? Determinants of the frequency of science teaching in kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 22 (2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2012.704305

Samuelsson, I. A., & Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 52 (6), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265

Sando, O. J., Sandseter, E. B. H., & Brussoni, M. (2023). The role of play and objects in children’s deep-level learning in early childhood education. Education Sciences , 13 (7), 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070701

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions . Jossey-Bass.

Sim, Z. L., & Xu, F. (2017). Learning higher-order generalisations through free play: Evidence from 2- and 3-year-old children. Developmental Psychology , 53 (4), 642–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000278

Siry, C. (2013). Exploring the complexities of children’s inquiries in science: Knowledge production through participatory practices. Research in Science Education , 43 , 2407–2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9364-z

Siry, C., & Kremer, I. (2011). Children explain the rainbow: Using young children’s ideas to guide science curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 20 (5), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9320-5

Siry, C. A., & Lang, D. E. (2010). Creating participatory discourse for teaching and research in early childhood science. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 21 (2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9162-7

Smith-Gilman, S. (2018). The arts, loose parts and conversations. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies (JCACS) , 16 (1), 90–103. https://jcacs.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jcacs/article/view/40356/36367

Trawick-Smith, J. (1994). Interaction in the classroom: Facilitating play in the early years . Macmillan College Publishing Co.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.

Wasik, B., & Hindman, A. (2013). Realising the promise of open-ended questions. The Reading Teacher , 67 (4), 302–311. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24573578

Weisberg, D. S., & Zosh, J. M. (2018). How guided play promotes early childhood learning. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development , 119 (1), 31–35. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/play-based-learning/according-experts/how-guided-play-promotes-early-childhood-learning

Widger, S., & Schofield, A. (2012). Interaction or interruption? Five child-centred philosophical perspectives. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood , 37 (4), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911203700405

Worth, K. (2010). Science in early childhood classrooms: Content and process. Early Childhood Research and Practice. https://ecrp.illinois.edu/beyond/seed/worth.html

Yang, W., Peh, J., & Ng, S. C. (2021). Early childhood teacher research and social-emotional learning: Implications for the development of culturally sensitive curriculum in Singapore. Policy Futures in Education , 19 (2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320983499

Yoon, J., & Onchwari, J. A. (2006). Teaching young children science: Three key points. Early Childhood Education Journal , 33 (6), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0064-4

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on Han Qi Zeng’s teacher-inquiry project under the supervision of Siew Chin Ng. The authors wish to thank the Singapore University of Social Sciences Early Childhood Education faculty and the participating school for the field opportunity, as well as the children and teachers for participating in this research. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of the institution.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

S R Nathan School of Human Development, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore

Han Qi Zeng & Siew Chin Ng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siew Chin Ng .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zeng, H.Q., Ng, S.C. Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children’s Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play. Early Childhood Educ J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01741-6

Download citation

Accepted : 03 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01741-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Early science learning
• Play-based learning
• Loose parts play
• Questioning strategies
• Science process skills
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research