Development and Evaluation of a Practice Model Based on Questioning Framework in Science for Inducing Cognitive Conflicts in Case of the After-image Effect

Tables index

Veiw figure View Table

4.2. Implementing the Science Education Program

In the actual class, the lesson was to start from the activity of showing the photograph of Figure 2., that is called the “Puzzling Picture” strategy. At first, this would involve divergent questioning with “What is this photo of?” For this question, many of the students would focus on the water droplets and space arrangement. Then, for the second step, it was decided to perform convergent questioning with “How does this phenomenon occur?” With this design, rather than foregrounding scientific correctness, we decided to give priority to the fact that expressing opinion stood the students in good stead. At the same time, it was intended that priority be given to the rational thinking of students rather than their scientific correctness. Thereafter, it was decided to perform the dialogue activity “Think-Pair-Share” to deepen understanding of the phenomenon. In addition, Figure 3 and Figure 4 were shown to engage the students in the activities involving description of this phenomenon. At first, an experiment was conducted regarding an after-image effect using a fan with written characters, as shown in Figure 3.

Download as

Veiw figureFigures index

View next figure

Figure 3. An after-image effect

The light of a stroboscope is shone onto this fan. When the rotation speed of the blades of the number of emissions and the fan of the stroboscope matches, it looks like it has stopped the number of actual wings. At that time, by confirming that the characters written on the blades of the fans rotate so that they are readable, it is possible to perform a description of the after-image effect. Then, the experiment is conducted to think about the principle of water droplets falling, stopping, or climbing. Arranged in eight circles as shown in Figure 4, it is voiced in order, that is, 1, 2, 3, ... and so on. At the same time, the person who said 1 raises their hand.

Download as

Veiw figureFigures index

Figure 4. Principle to proceed in reverse

For example, if everyone said 1, everyone raises their hands because everyone utters 1. In this case, the information about voice and hands shows that the students are advancing in the right direction. Then, if everyone says the order 1, 2, 1, 2 ...,that is from 1 to 2, there will be a show of hands every second time. Such is the case here—through the information about voice and hands, it can be seen that they are advancing in the right direction. However, if everyone says the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., that is from 1 to 4, there will be a show of hands only by People 1 and 5 in Figure 4. In this case, the information about voice shows that they are advancing in the right direction; but, the information about hands is flashing.

Furthermore, if everyone says the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., that is from 1 to 7, there will be a show of hands every seven counts. In this case, the information about voice shows that they are advancing in the right direction; but, the information about hands is in the left direction. Thus, it is possible to experience the principle of sampling. The students’ impressions after practice were as follows. “I see that my thinking is deepening more and more.” “Water drops flow backwards. At first I thought it was a lie. However, I can confirm the principle by using a fan and the activities of raising my hand, so I was able to understand. It was a funny experiment. “Raising one's hand in the activity was easy to understand.”

In this way, the practice of science education programs based on the questioning framework received many favorable opinions in terms of comprehension. In the following sections, the effect of the “Puzzling Picture” and “Think-Pair-Share” will further be analyzed in detail. For that purpose, a quantitative analysis is carried out both of the questionnaire and the description of the contents of the completed worksheets.

4.3. Analysis of the Free Description of the Experimental Results

In order to analyze the deepening of understanding, a field for free description of the experimental results was integrated into the worksheet that was used in class (see Appendix 1). It was decided to focus on the presence or absence of description content of both the “observation and experiment results” and the “result of reason” in the worksheet. A convenient manner is shown in Table 2, in which the answers were divided into three standards: A, B, and C. Then, the description content for Question 2 written on the worksheets was analyzed.

Table 2. Classification Method of description

Download as

Tables index

Veiw figure View Table

Based on the classification method shown in Table 2, the results of the analysis in the description content of the Think column, the Pair column and the Share column are summarized as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that the figures in the table show the number of respondents.

Table 3. Analysis of the descriptive content in the worksheet

Download as

Tables index

Veiw figure View Table

The results of chi square calculation for the Think column of Table 3 reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis (χ²=0.33, df=2, ns). In other words, at the stage of thinking alone, the trend of descriptions in the results about observation and experiment did not change on the basis of the class, that is, on whether it was the Class A or the Class B.

The results of chi square calculation for the Pair column of Table 3 accept the null hypothesis as true (χ²=71.3, df=2, p< .05). The results of residual error analysis revealed that in the Class A, there were many standard Cs, while in the Class B, there were few standard Cs. Thus, it is clear that in the discussion activity with two people, “observation and experiment results” and “the result of reason” were noted in the Class B.

The results of chi square calculation for the Share column of Table 3 accept the null hypothesis as true (χ²=11.5, df=2, p< .01). The results of residual error analysis revealed that in the Class A, there were few standard As and there were many standard Cs, while in the Class B, there were many standard As and there were few standard Cs. Thus, it is clear that it was able to share with the whole group in the Class B. In the discussion activities “Think-Pair-Share,” which were divided into three stages, the discussions between two people were very important. In other words, if there is a good discussion between two people, it is considered to be easier to share with the whole group. Then, to understand the relevance between the activities shared by the whole and activities that made up the discussion involving two people, there was more detailed analysis. Based on the classification method of describing the contents of Table 2, the results were conveniently scored with standard A as 3 points, standard B as 2 points, standard C as 1 point. This is regarded as the investigation object of the 3-point scale, which enabled the calculation of the average score and the standard deviation as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. The average score and the standard deviation of the investigation object of the 3-point scale

Download as

Tables index

Veiw figure View Table

As shown in Table 4, the results of analysis of variance and the main effect of the discussion method were significant (F(2,188)=18.06, p< .01). In addition, the main effect of the treatment in both the Class A and the Class B was significant (F(1,94)=8.07, p< .01). The interaction effect of the method and treatment of discussion was also significant (F(1,188)=8.03, p< .01). Multiple comparison of the treatment was significant at the 1% level. In the method, in any of the discussions, the Class B had the higher average score. Therefore, the discussion activities with two people can affect the sharing with the whole group. Thus, changes in the stepwise description contents were observed. From one point of view, “Think-Pair-Share” can be said to be based on a scaffold that enables the students to obtain knowledge by performing interactions with others, thereby advancing up the ladder to better understanding in a stepwise manner.

4.4. Analysis of the Questionnaire

In order to investigate the effect of discussion activities in the questioning framework, a questionnaire was carried out with all of the students on the content after class. It should be noted that questionnaire Item (1) used the term “print” rather than the “worksheet,” with which the students were familiar, in order to ensure that there was no misunderstanding.

Item (1): With regard to the class print, it required you to write three items, that is, your ideas, the ideas you discussed with your partner, and the ideas and you shared with the whole group. Using this print, were you able to deepen your thoughts?

Item (2): Were you able to take advantage of your previous knowledge in the discussion activity?

Item (3): Were you able to discover new knowledge in the discussion activity?

Item (4): Were you able to come up with new questions in the discussion activity?

The questionnaire therefore consisted of 4 questions, which were answered according to a 5-point Likert scale (1: I strongly disagree, 2: I do not think so, 3: I cannot say either way, 4: I think so, 5: I strongly think so). Furthermore, for each item, it was decided to elicit an answer on the reason for thinking so in an open-ended section. The data reduction is regarded as the values obtained in the reply and the strength. In the questionnaire, 5 points were regarded as the perfect score. The results show the average points, standard deviation, and the t-test, as in Table 5.

Table 5. The questionnaire with 5 points as the perfect score

Download as

Tables index

Veiw figure View Table