Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of the type of achievement grouping on students’ question generation in science

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the influence of different types of achievement grouping on question generation. There were 46 participants from two Grade 5 classrooms. Students completed a test to determine their achievement levels. One of the classrooms was randomly assigned, to work in homogeneous achievement groups and the other one in heterogeneous achievement groups. The study lasted for 5 weeks during the spring semester of the 2013–2014 academic year. Before the study, both classrooms received instruction on the taxonomy of questions. Students were divided into corresponding achievement groups in the last science lesson of each week and were asked to generate and discuss questions in their groups regarding the topics covered in the week. The results were analysed based on a comparison between the homogeneous and heterogeneous achievement groups regarding the number of questions each student asked and the level of those questions. The results noted no difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous achievement groups in terms of the numbers of total questions, lower order questions or higher order questions. High-achieving students generated more overall questions and more higher order questions regardless of grouping type.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1997). Learning with peers: From small group cooperative to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

  • Carter, G., Jones, M. G., & Rua, M. (2003). Effects of partner’s ability on the achievement and conceptual organization of high-achieving fifth-grade students. Science Education, 87(1), 94–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, M., Singh, K., & Filer, K. (2009). Language factors associated with achievement grouping in math classrooms: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 20(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2004). Students’ questions: Fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. School Science Review, 86(314), 107–112.

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000a). Learning deeply in science: An analysis and reintegration of deep approaches in two case studies of Grade 8 students. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 173–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000b). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, N. (1996). Developing children’s questioning skills through the use of a question board. Primary Science Review, 44, 8–10.

  • Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. BioScience, 47(9), 601607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E. (2000). Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool. Science Education, 84(5), 594–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E., & Harper, K. A. (2002). Closing the feedback loop in large enrollment physics courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(7), 476–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 524–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Teachers’ thoughts about changing to constructivist teaching/learning approaches within junior secondary science classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 20(1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, K. A., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: Meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 776–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). RESEARCH REPORT: Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jofili, Z., Geraldo, A., & Watts, M. (1999). A course for critical constructivism through action research: A case study from biology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, S., & Kablan, Z. (2013). Assessing the relationship between learning strategies and science achievement at the primary school level. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 525–534.

  • Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open- ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2013). Questioning and the quality of knowledge constructed in a CSCL context: a study on two grade-levels of students. Instructional Science, 41(3), 597–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Student assessment of collaborative learning in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced the achievement of sixth-grade mathematics students. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 3(2/3), 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 854–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Erberber, E., Preuschoff, C., & Galia, J.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 International science report. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

  • Maskill, R., & Pedrosa De Jesus, H. (1997). Pupils’ questions, alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 781–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckinhgam: Open University Press.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer- assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & Jong, T. D. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom: Student questions as course curriculum on biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57(5), 278–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (2004). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement. The RoutledgeFalmer reader in psychology of education, 1, 271–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Watts, M., Gould, G., & Alsop, S. (1997). Questions of understanding: Categorising pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review, 79(286), 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (Ed.). (1992). The status of science, technology, society: Reform efforts around the world. Arlington: ICASE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., Tsaparlis, G., Fatsow, M., & Lubezky, A. (1997). Student self-assessment of higher-order cognitive skills in college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(2), 99–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary Education, Kocaeli University College of Education, 41380, Izmit, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Sibel Kaya

Authors
  1. Sibel Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sibel Kaya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaya, S. The effect of the type of achievement grouping on students’ question generation in science. Aust. Educ. Res. 42, 429–441 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-014-0164-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-014-0164-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation