Developing Students' Reasoning
Skills and Engagement in Science Using the C.A.R.E. Approach
Authors
St Hilda's Secondary School
Rachel Teo Physics Teacher
Tan Kah Ooi Physics Teacher
Raymond Ong Physics Teacher
Abstract
Developing student reasoning skills in Science using the C.A.R.E. approach and DCLAP thinking strategy
Based on internal scan, students have difficulty in communicating their scientific reasoning clearly due to a lack in critical thinking skills. In alignment with 21st century competencies and skills, a lesson study incorporating the SHSS C.A.R.E. (Collaborative, Applied, Reflective, Enquiry) approach was implemented to develop students’ critical thinking skills and to improve their quality of experience in the learning of Science. We hypothesized that students would be more engaged through the C.A.R.E. approach and would be able to communicate their scientific reasoning better through a scaffolded SHSS DCLAP thinking strategy.
Introduction
Our team designed a lesson package for the topic on Light, which comprised an experiential and ICT-enriched lesson on refraction using the 5E instructional model. We adapted Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning and its Universal Intellectual standards to teach students the critical thinking skills explicitly and to assess students’ quality of thinking. ‘DCLAP’ (Part of Intellectual Standards: Depth, Clarity, Logic, Accuracy and Precision) was taught to scaffold students' critical thinking.
Students from a Secondary Two Express class were assessed on their level of critical thinking throughout and beyond the lessons through pre-post tests, questioning and online presentations.
- Quantitative data was aggregated from pre-post tests and End-of-year examination results using specific assessment rubrics aligned to ‘DCLAP’.
- Qualitative analysis on students’ scientific reasoning skills development were based on evidence gathered from post-lesson observations, students’ discussions, reflections and written responses from their pre-post tests.
Research Questions
- Quantitative To what extent does the use of C.A.R.E. approach improve students’ scientific reasoning skills and engagement?
- Qualitative How does the use of C.A.R.E. approach improve students’ scientific reasoning skills and engagement?
Literature Review
SHSS Science department wants to adopt and adapt a school-wide overarching structured thinking process to develop students into critical thinkers. The Science department conducted research in various possible thinking frameworks to analyse their constraints and alignment with MOE's curriculum framework and scientific literacy.
Paul-Elder's Critical Thinking Framework
The Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning (Eight Elements of Thought- EoT)
- is in lined with the scientific method;
- is aligned to MOE's 21CC benchmarks; and
- offers the ease to develop rubrics to assess level of critical thinking.
The Universal Intellectual Standards was adapted to teach students explicitly on how to evaluate their answers critically. The generic and specific rubrics to assess the level of critical thinking are based on the following chosen Intellectual Standards, aka SHSS DCLAP thinking strategy
- Depth
- Clarity
- Logic
- Accuracy
- Precision
Introduction to the CARE Model
- to develop students' critical thinking skills,
- to improve the quality of experience in the learning of Science; and
- to develop 21st century competencies and skills.
Scientific inquiry based on BSCS 5E Instructional Model
The five phases in the 5E instructional model are Engage,Explore, Explain, Extend and Evaluate.
The department aimed to develop students' scientific reasoning through 5E and Intellectual Standards (SHSS DCLAP thinking strategy)
Key differences between C.A.R.E. and traditional teaching method
- Awareness of how to evaluate quality of scientific reasoning (DCLAP thinking strategy)
- Infusion of critical thinking skills through 5E approach
- More self-directed and student-centric learning (Use of flipped classroom, online discussion forums)
- Tapping on ICT affordances
Approaches Adopted
- Understanding by Design (UbD) framework in re-designing curriculum for Sec2 Physics Topic on Light via the ‘backward design’ with stages1, 2 and 3.
- Using PLC (Physics PLT platform) for professional discussion and development
- Using Lesson Study Cycle Approach in studying and understanding how students learn tapping on pre-lesson study observation discussion, lesson study observation and post-lesson study discussion to revise lesson plans, worksheets, rubrics, alternative use of ICT platforms so as to enhance students’ learning
- Using SHSS C.A.R.E. Approach in exposing and enabling students in the learning of 21CC and skills
- Using 5E inquiry-based approach in alignment to MOE Science Curriculum, for lesson design
- Adapting Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework (Elements of Thought EoT & Universal Intellectual Standards IS) in teaching and assessing quality of thinking – SHSS DCLAP thinking strategy
Instrument Design (for AfL, AoL)
- Pre-Post Test – aligned to Enduring Understanding EU/ Essential Question EQ
- Teacher’s Lesson Observation Protocol – aligned to Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning: 8 Elements of Thought
- Rubrics (with Intellectual Standards IS) – Generic and Specific rubrics
- PLT survey that is aligned to PETAL framework and SHSS C.A.R.E. approach
- Students’ written reflection
- Leveraging on ICT affordances: using Educreations; Video-recording of lesson; AskNlearn portal –Discussion Forum, Flipped learning with KWL strategy, self-evaluation via diagnostic test (MCQ) with guided feedback to surface common issues for teachers to address as students return to class for lesson
- Other evidences of learning: Class tests, Modular Test, Practical Test (aligned to SPA skills), Authentic Transfer Task (ATT), End-of-Year Exam
Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis
- Based on both teachers’ reported data and students’ reported data
- Quantitative Analysis is based on Pre-Post test; PLT survey
- Qualitative Analysis is based on Lesson Observation [Teacher's Observation Protocol, video recording of lesson via Educreations and online collaboration via ASKnLearn portal] and Students’ Written Reflection
Findings & Conclusion
The C.A.R.E. approach is effective in
- Improving students’ critical thinking (scientific reasoning skills) to a certain extent in terms of quality of answers in Depth, Clarity, Logic, Accuracy and Precision (aka DCLAP) as reflected in their post- test & PLT survey results (quantitative results). However, there is variation in students’ discussion of using DCLAP as a thinking strategy in improving the quality of their written answers based on lesson observation (qualitative analysis).
- Improving students’ engagement level in the learning of the topic: Light (from quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis)
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills.Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Lewis, C. C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Research for Better Schools.
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
Wiggins, G. P., McTighe, J., Kiernan, L. J., & Frost, F. (1998). Understanding by design (pp. 0-87120). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.