1. SCIENCE INVESTIGATION STATIONS IN THE ELEMENTARY LIBRARY:
MULTIPLE COLLABORATIONS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
A Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Phoenix Campus
College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Lisa D’Ann Hettler
October, 2013

2. ii
SCIENCE INVESTIGATION STATIONS IN THE ELEMENTARY LIBRARY:
MULTIPLE COLLABORATIONS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
Copyright © 2013
Lisa D’Ann Hettler
All rights reserved

3. iii
SCIENCE INVESTIGATION STATIONS IN THE ELEMENTARY LIBRARY:
MULTIPLE COLLABORATIONS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
A Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Phoenix Campus
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Lisa D’Ann Hettler
Argosy University
October, 2013
Dissertation Committee Approval:
Sue Adragna, Ph.D. Date
Gerry Bedore, Ph.D. Heather K. Pederson, Ph.D.

4. iv
SCIENCE INVESTIGATION STATIONS IN THE ELEMENTARY LIBRARY:
MULTIPLE COLLABORATIONS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Phoenix Campus
College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Lisa D’Ann Hettler
Argosy University
October 2013
Susan Adragna, Ph.D.
Gerry Bedore, Ph.D.
Department: College of Education

5. v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to describe and explain the perceptions of
a new science program, Science Investigation Stations in the Library, being implemented
in a large school district in Texas. Four schools that participated in the program during
the 2012–2013 school year were asked to participate. Fifth grade teachers, librarians, and
academic support teachers of science from each of the campuses were invited to
participate. Twelve participants completed an open-ended questionnaire about the
collaboration process of the stations, as well as the perceived benefits to the fifth grade
students’ academic achievements in science. Additional data was collected from a focus
group interview with four librarians and comments from questions posted on a blog.
Findings indicate that the collaboration piece, though desired by the librarians and
academic support teachers, was perceived to have minimal teacher involvement. As for
the perceived benefits to science understandings of fifth graders, all three groups noticed
high motivation, effective participation, and support for various learning styles and sub-
groups of students. Further qualitative data and quantitative data would help to elaborate
on the potential benefits of the program.

6. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my chair, Dr. Susan Adragna and
committee member, Dr. Gerry Bedore, for their invaluable support and guidance in the
planning and implementation of this research project. The deepest appreciation is further
offered to the librarians, teachers, and academic support teachers of the school district for
their participation in the research study. Without their contributions of time and
resources, this study would not have been possible.
Additional thanks go to those fellow classmates along the journey, whose words
of encouragement and feedback made the tough parts bearable. Also, those friends that
were in my original dissertation writing group so many years ago, thank you so much for
believing in me and encouraging me to continue even when I wanted to quit.

7. vii
DEDICATION
To JAB, thank you for loving me and believing that I could do this!
To my parents, thank you for always loving me and for understanding and encouraging
my continual need to learn something new.

8. viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1
Problem Background .............................................................................................. 4
Problem Statement.................................................................................................. 6
Purpose of the Study............................................................................................... 6
Research Questions................................................................................................. 6
Limitations.............................................................................................................. 7
Delimitations........................................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 8
Academic Support Teacher (AST).................................................................... 8
Constructivism.................................................................................................. 9
Cooperative/Collaborative Learning................................................................. 9
Library Standards.............................................................................................. 9
Perceptions...................................................................................................... 10
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR™
).................. 10
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).............................................. 10
Importance of the Study........................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................................................... 13
Constructivism...................................................................................................... 14
Dewey and Personal, Meaningful, Student-Centered Education.................... 16
Piaget and Developmental Stages................................................................... 19
Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development......................................... 22
Bruner and Social Constructivism .................................................................. 25
von Glasersfeld and Radical Constructivism.................................................. 31
Constructivism in Science Education ............................................................. 34
Current Research on Science Education of Elementary Students ........................ 38
The How and Why of Science Learning......................................................... 39
Cooperative Learning and Collaboration........................................................ 45
Misconceptions in Science.............................................................................. 46
Use of Technology.......................................................................................... 48
Depth of Understanding.................................................................................. 51
Science and Literacy Connections.................................................................. 52
Staff Collaboration................................................................................................ 56
Partnering with Teachers ................................................................................ 56
Models for Collaboration................................................................................ 57
Libraries as Contributors to Academic Achievement........................................... 58
Support and Enhancement of Academic Achievement of Students ............... 58
Support of At-Risk and Special Needs Students............................................. 59
Growth in Student Scientific Inquiry.............................................................. 60
Summary............................................................................................................... 61

9. ix
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 62
Research Design.................................................................................................... 63
Selection of Participants ................................................................................. 65
Obtaining Permissions .............................................................................. 66
Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 66
SISL Perceptions Questionnaire ............................................................... 67
Focus Group Discussions.......................................................................... 68
Methodological Assumptions ......................................................................... 69
Procedures....................................................................................................... 70
IRB Protection and Ethical Considerations .................................................... 72
Data Processing and Analysis............................................................................... 72
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS........................................................................................ 75
Descriptive Data.................................................................................................... 76
School A.......................................................................................................... 79
School B.......................................................................................................... 80
School C.......................................................................................................... 80
School D.......................................................................................................... 81
Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................ 82
Librarians .............................................................................................................. 84
Research Question One................................................................................... 85
Collaborative Roles of Team Members .................................................... 86
Teacher’s Role in Collaboration ............................................................... 88
Lessons Before and After Stations............................................................ 90
Effects on Other Teaching ........................................................................ 90
Research Question Four.................................................................................. 91
Stations Overall Enhancement of Science Learning................................. 91
Use Of Best Practices in Science Learning............................................... 93
Support for Student Learning of Science Concepts Through Different
Learning Styles ......................................................................................... 95
Support For Special Education and ELL Students ................................... 96
Academic Support Teachers of Science ............................................................... 96
Research Question Two .................................................................................. 97
Collaborative Role of Team Members...................................................... 98
Teacher’s Role in Collaboration ............................................................... 98
Lessons Before and After Stations............................................................ 98
Effects on Other Teaching ........................................................................ 99
Research Question Five ........................................................................................ 99
Stations’ Overall Enhancement of Science Learning ............................... 99
Use Of Best Practices in Science Learning............................................. 100
Support for Student Learning Of Science Concepts Through Different
Learning Styles ....................................................................................... 103
Support For Special Education And ELL Students ................................ 104
Fifth Grade Teachers........................................................................................... 105
Research Question Three .............................................................................. 107
Collaborative Roles of Team Members .................................................. 107

10. x
Teacher’s Role in Collaboration ............................................................. 108
Lessons Before and After Stations.......................................................... 109
Effects on Other Teaching ...................................................................... 109
Research Question Six .................................................................................. 110
Stations Overall Enhancement of Science Learning............................... 110
Use Of Best Practices in Science Learning............................................. 111
Support for Student Learning of Science Concepts Through Different
Learning Styles ....................................................................................... 113
Support for At-Risk, Special Education and ELL Students.................... 114
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115
Discussion........................................................................................................... 118
Perceptions About Collaborative Roles of Team Members ......................... 119
Specific Perceptions About the Teacher Role .............................................. 120
Perceptions That Teachers Were Essential for the Lessons Before and After
the Stations.................................................................................................... 121
Perceptions of Effects on Teaching of Other Lessons.................................. 122
Perceptions About Overall Enhancement of Science Learning.................... 123
Perceptions About Use of Best Practices...................................................... 124
Cooperative Learning and Collaboration................................................ 124
Misconceptions in Science...................................................................... 125
Prior Knowledge ..................................................................................... 127
Use of Technology.................................................................................. 128
Science and Literacy Connections.......................................................... 128
Perceptions About Supports of Different Learning Styles ........................... 129
Perceptions About Support for At-Risk, Special Education, and English
Language Learners........................................................................................ 130
Conclusions......................................................................................................... 133
Implications for Practice..................................................................................... 134
Implications for Research ................................................................................... 136
Recommendations............................................................................................... 138
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 140
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 151

11. xi
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. District Approval Letter............................................................................................ 152
B. Sample of Principal Permission Letter...................................................................... 154
C. First Screen of Online Questionnaire with Consent.................................................. 156
D. Letter of Consent-Focus Group................................................................................. 158
E. Questionnaires for Participants-Teachers.................................................................. 161
F. Questionnaires for Participants-Librarians................................................................ 164
G. Questionnaires for Participants-ASTs....................................................................... 167
H. WebQuest Questionnaire for Teachers ..................................................................... 170
I. Permission to Use WebQuest Questionnaire.............................................................. 173
J. Compiled Questionnaire Responses........................................................................... 176
K. Focus Group Interview Transcript ............................................................................ 197
L. Compiled Blog Responses......................................................................................... 213

12. 1
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
Science scores of American students and the science literacy of the American
population have been a concern for several decades (DeBoer, 2000; Yager, 2000).
Spurred to action by the Soviet launching of Sputnik into space in 1957, an outcry for
reforming science education began (Frelindich, 1998). According to the most recent
reports, little ground is being gained (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley, 2010;
Gonzales et al., 2009; National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). For example,
according to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS), fourth
and eighth grade students’ scores in the United States showed no significant increases in
2007 when compared with the scores from 1995 (Gonzales et al., 2009). In addition, in
2007 only 15% of fourth graders and 10% of eighth graders scored at or above the level
considered advanced. For both of these groups, these percentages were lower than the
1995 percentages for the fourth graders and the 1999 percentages for the eighth graders
(Gonzales et al., 2009). In 2009, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) developed a new science framework to use for the science assessment given at
grades 4, 8, and 12 (Aud et al., 2011). Reviewing the Texas scores from that year, it
showed that 70% of fourth graders were at or above the basic level, 29% at or above the
proficient level, and only 1% at the advanced level. Eighth graders, however, only had
64% at or above the basic level, 29% at or above the proficient level, and 2% at the
advanced level. Data for grade 12 was not available at the state level (Aud et al., 2011).
However, of even more importance than these mediocre test scores is a concern with
what kind of students America is placing out into the world. For the 21st century, it is
important that the students graduating from high school can do more than the basics, it is

13. 2
essential in this technological, information-saturated world that these students be
problem-solvers, critical thinkers, creative, and be able to predict and adapt to rapid
changes. As Berube (2008) noted,
We must forgo this notion of churning out students who care only about what grade
they made or what their score was on a standardized test, but instead lead the way and
focus on training children how to think, how to criticize, how to deduct, how to
problem solve, how to figure, how to argue, how to create, how to appreciate—only
then will our educational “product” be superior to that of any other nation on earth,
for one cannot have leadership without leaders. (p. 110)
Numerous national organizations, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the Board of Science Education (BOSE) of the National Research Council (NRC), the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Science
Teachers Association (NSTA), and the National Center for Improving Science Education
(NCISE) as well as the federal government, have called for a need to improve the science
literacy of all Americans in order to prosper in a global society. For example, the NSF,
created in 1950 by Congress, is “the only federal agency dedicated to the support of
fundamental research and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines” (NSF,
2010). As outlined in the most recent strategic plan, “NSF envisions a nation that
capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in
advancing research and education” (NSF, 2011, p. 3). Each year thousands of projects at
universities and colleges receive funding from the NSF for research. In addition, since its
inception, the NSF has supported education at all levels (NSF, 2008).
The AAAS is another important organization that has a long history in support of
science education. Begun in 1848, this organization has as its mission, “To advance
science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people”
(AAAS, 2012a, para.1). AAAS’s main extended education endeavor is Project 2061.

14. 3
Started in 1985, Project 2061’s main goal, according to AAAS, is “to help all Americans
become literate in science, mathematics, and technology” (AAAS, 2012b, para. 1). In
addition, the book Science for All Americans, developed as a result of Project 2061,
“consists of a set of recommendations on what understandings and ways of thinking are
essential for all citizens in a world shaped by science and technology” (Rutherford &
Ahlgren, 1990, p. 11).
More recently, the United States witnessed the launch of President Obama’s
“Educate to Innovate” Campaign on November 23, 2009. This campaign is “a
nationwide effort to help reach the administration’s goal of moving American students
from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math achievement over the next
decade” (“President Obama Launches,” 2009, para. 1). The federal government, as well
as many other organizations and companies, are all expected to contribute to working
with students to increase the number who are succeeding in science and math. As
outlined in the campaign, the major goals include,
• Increase STEM literacy so that all students can learn deeply and think critically in
science, math, engineering, and technology.
• Move American students from the middle of the pack to top in the next decade.
• Expand STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups,
including women and girls.
(“Educate to Innovate,” 2012, para. 6)
However, it is important to take all the research and input from the national
organizations and apply it to the actual education system. This current study is an
example of one method that a specific district was using to bring about changes in their
students’ science education. As described in the following (“Problem Background”)
section, the overall problem with science education in K–12 is narrowed down to the
actual results in one large district in South Texas.

15. 4
Problem Background
The scores from the 2009 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)
indicated that only 34% of elementary students “scored at or above proficient” (Banchero,
2011, para. 14). The state of Texas overall ranked average with 70% of the students
scoring at or above basic and 29% scoring at or above proficient (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). Student scores on Texas’s state assessment, Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), show an 83% passing rate in science for all grades from
the 2010–2011 school year (Texas Education Agency, 2011b). Reviewing the scores for
fifth graders, overall state scores for 2011 indicate that 86% of students met the standard
and fifth grade students in the metropolitan school district in central Texas where the
current study took place actually had a 90% passing rate (Texas Education Agency,
2011c). However, based on information about the new state assessment, State of Texas
Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR™
), “overall test difficulty will be
increased by including more rigorous items” (“A Comparison of Assessment Attributes,”
2010, sec. 2). One area of particular concern is the first administration of the science-
standardized test to students that occurs in the fifth grade. Since the test in fifth grade is
the first time students are state-tested in science, this is a crucial year for building a solid
foundation for all future science learning of the students.
Based on this information, an idea was generated for a new way of presenting
certain science information to fifth grade students. In addition, with the continual threat
of budget cuts, finding new ways to showcase the respective expertise of the academic
support teachers and the librarian would be helpful. A new program was created called
Science Investigation Stations in the Library (SISL). In the school year 2010–2011, six

16. 5
different school librarians, including the current researcher, and their respective schools
were chosen to pilot the program. These six schools designed three units of stations to
use at their various schools. In the summer of 2011, a professional development session
about the program was presented to 15–20 other librarians. These librarians then
completed one or more sets of stations during the 2011–2012 school year. Of the
campuses continuing to use SISL, the researcher chose four campuses that conducted a
set of stations during the 2012–2013 school year to participate in this qualitative case
study.
The stations served to present concepts and ideas about various science topics for
fifth grade students based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for
Science and the Library Standards created by the district under study. In Texas, fifth
grade students are the first group to take a state-standardized achievement test to assess
their scientific understandings. The stations include the concepts of using literacy to
enhance understanding, as well as recent research that shows students can understand
more complex science than is often believed (Metz, 2011). A study by Evagorou,
Korfiatis, Nicolaou, and Constantinou (2009) presented support for using simulations as
well as focusing the stations on specific skills. However, there is no documentation that
shows that a program, such as the Science Investigation Stations in the Library (SISL),
has been attempted as a way for improving fifth grade science learning. This program
brought together a variety of experts on the individual campuses to meet the needs of the
particular students at that particular campus. At the same time, the overall framework for
the program, if successful, could be implemented in a variety of schools across the
district and statewide.

17. 6
Problem Statement
The problem was there had not been an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program Science Investigation Stations in the Library on the fifth graders’ science
education or of the overall perceptions of the program from the views of the various
participants, including librarians, academic support teachers of science (ASTs), and
teachers, as implemented in four elementary libraries in a metropolitan school district in
south central Texas.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative collective case study was twofold. The first
objective was to analyze the perceptions of librarians, academic support teachers of
science, and fifth grade teachers about the collaborative planning process of the Science
Investigation Stations in the Library program. The second objective was to analyze the
three groups’ perceptions of the impact on the fifth graders’ science education of the
Science Investigation Stations in the Library program as implemented in four elementary
libraries in a metropolitan school district in central Texas.
Research Questions
For the current qualitative collective case study, the researcher used several
research questions to guide the study. The qualitative research questions were as follows:
1. How do the librarians, as team members of the Science Investigation Stations
in the Library project, describe their experiences with the program?
2. How do the academic support teachers of science, as team members of the
Science Investigation Stations in the Library project, describe their
experiences with the program?

18. 7
3. How do the fifth grade teachers, as team members of the Science Investigation
Stations in the Library project, describe their experiences with the program?
4. What, if any, of the science academic achievements of the fifth graders do the
librarians attribute to the Science Investigations Stations in the Library
project?
5. What, if any, of the science academic achievements of the fifth graders do the
academic support teachers of science attribute to the Science Investigations
Stations in the Library project?
6. What, if any, of the science academic achievements of the fifth graders do the
fifth grade teachers attribute to the Science Investigations Stations in the
Library project?
The researcher used open-ended questions about perceptions on a questionnaire
completed by all participants. The researcher then collected additional data from a focus
group interview with librarians and focus group blogs with the librarians, academic
support teachers of science, and fifth grade teachers. The collection of various pieces of
data helped to provide an in-depth picture of the perceptions of the various participants—
teachers, librarians, and academic support teachers—about the value of the program and
its contributions to fifth graders’ science education.
Limitations
As noted by Bryant (2004), limitations of a study are those that come from
methodology. A limitation to this qualitative study is the fact that participants may have
completed the questionnaire with answers that they believed the researcher was expecting
(Creswell, 2007). Also the open-endedness of the questions while providing rich data

19. 8
may not allow for easy correlation between the various members (Creswell, 2007; Yin,
2009). The schools chosen to participate may not have conducted the science
investigation stations in the same manner at each location. The amount of time spent by
the various classes, as well as the time of day, may have varied between the participating
schools. In addition, the various years of experience of the various team members could
have affected the implementation of the program, as well as the perceptions of any
academic achievements. Finally, the amount of staff development received by the
librarians could have had an effect on the overall implementation of the program.
Delimitations
According to Bryant (2004), delimitations are those factors that can affect
generalizability. Inherent in the case study methodology is the fact that the purpose is to
describe the specific case and is not geared for too much generalizability (Creswell, 2007;
Yin, 2009). However, a delimitation unique to this current study was that not all schools
participating had an academic support teacher and this would affect analysis of that
particular collaborative member. Another delimitation was that the schools studied were
in a large district in central Texas. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to
rural districts, districts in other parts of Texas, and school districts in other states. The
researcher focused the study on fifth graders in science so the results may not be relevant
to other grades or subject areas.
Definition of Terms
Academic Support Teacher (AST)
As defined by the job description within the school district, the academic support
teacher or AST is a teacher who provides instruction and aid for students in a particular

20. 9
subject area; in the case of this current study, science. Due to recent budget cuts, only
those schools designated Title I by the federal government currently have an academic
support teacher for science (L. Rollins, personal communication, January 11, 2012).
Constructivism
The concept of constructivism as a theory of learning is explored in the chapter
two literature review. However, a concise definition, as it relates to science education
and as considered for this current study, “is premised on the ideas that knowledge is
‘constructed’ on the basis of a person’s prior experiences” (Llewellyn, 2007, p. 55).
Cooperative/Collaborative Learning
According to the Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (2005), cooperative and
collaborative learning “refers to a variety of instructional arrangements that have the
common characteristic of students working together to help one another learn”
(Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 2005, para. 1). For this present study, part of the
research served to discover how the teachers, ASTs and librarians perceive the use of
cooperative/collaborative learning, with regards to its use in the Science Investigation
Stations in the library.
Library Standards
Library standards were created by a district committee and aligned with the
American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Standards for the 21st Century
Learner and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for English Language
Arts and Reading. The standards are also informed by the International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS*S)
Performance Indicators for Students (Metropolitan District, 2010).

21. 10
Perceptions
Perceptions are based not only on what is construed by the senses, but also on
what is given attention at any one time. Perceptions involve what has been experienced
as well as what is taken from that experience by the individual (James, 1891).
Perceptions are also influenced by the need to ignore some information, change how
some information is viewed, and “by blending incoming meanings with our past habits
present desires, and future directions” (Allport, 1961, p. 262). For the purposes of this
current study, the following definition of perception applies:
It is a process of inference in which people construct their own version of reality
on the basis of information provided through the five senses...strongly influenced
by their past experiences, education, cultural values, and role requirements, as
well as by the stimuli recorded by their receptor organs (Heuer, 1999, p. 7).
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR™
)
STAAR™
replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in
Spring 2012 and administered to students in grades 3–8 in the subjects of math and
reading at all grades, science in fifth and eighth grades, writing in fourth and seventh
grades, and social studies in eighth grade (Texas Education Agency, 2011a).
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
TEKS are the state curriculum standards developed and adopted September 1,
1998 for all of the content areas and all grades K–12 (Texas Administrative Code, n.d.).
Those TEKS dealing with fifth grade science were the focus of the current study. The
science TEKS for grades K–12 were revised and became effective August 4, 2009 (Texas
Education Agency, 2010).

22. 11
Importance of the Study
While there has been much research on the positive effects that libraries and
librarians can have on student achievement (Achterman, 2008; AASL, 2009;
Hockersmith, 2010; Lance, Rodney, & Schwarz, 2010), as well as the effects of different
levels of collaboration (Montiel-Overall, 2005), there has been limited research on
specific examples of programs that demonstrate the highest levels of collaboration and
the potential effect on student academic achievement. The current study of the
implementation of the science stations may add to the growing body of knowledge about
the impact the library and librarian can have on student achievement. In addition, this
qualitative case study on the Science Investigation Stations in the Library may lead to
understanding in several key areas in the school setting. First, the perceptions from the
various members could provide better understanding about how teachers, librarians, and
instructional specialists can collaborate together to improve student achievement lending
support to ideals of librarians and teachers collaborating as presented by Montiel-Overall
(2005). Second, information may be gained on best practices for implementation of the
stations. Finally, the use of the science stations may have a positive impact on fifth
graders’ mastery of essential science understandings, vocabulary, inquiry and concepts as
suggested by Krueger and Stefanich (2011).
This chapter included and introduction to the current qualitative study conducted
on a program in a large metropolitan school district in Central Texas. The following
chapter includes the literature review that includes information on constructivism, science
learning of elementary students, staff collaboration, and libraries as support for student
achievement. Chapter three is a presentation of the methodology of the entire study and

23. 12
includes information about the participants, the methodology used, and the data analysis.
Chapter four contains a compilation of the findings from the data. Finally, the
dissertation ends with chapter five that includes the discussion, conclusions, and
recommendations based on the results of the research.

24. 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Science education reform became a hot topic in the late 1950s and continues to
this day (National Research Council, 2007). In actuality, interest in the science research
needs of America and the involvement of the federal government had begun during
World War II and resulted in the formation of the National Science Foundation in 1950
(Mazuzan, 1994). Then in October of 1957, the Russians launched the first artificial
satellite, Sputnik (Garber, 2007). With the launching of Sputnik, the Foundation’s budget
was increased and it began to address how to improve science education in the United
States. In the 1980s, the publication of A Nation at Risk triggered another wave of
standards and goals, including several reform efforts that led to higher average science
scores (Berube, 2008). The 1990s continued to elicit a wide call for continued reform of
science education for all students (Bybee, 1995). The trend in the 1990s, for the first
time, inspired reform that would begin in elementary school and continue through high
school. Finally, the most recent need for reform has only been made stronger with
mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 that required schools to begin
assessing students in science starting by fifth grade (Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber,
2008). More than 50 years have passed since Sputnik and more than a decade of the 21st
century is past. However, there is still an even greater need for science education in
America. This time, the race is not into space, but rather a test of ingenuity and future
leadership (Century, Rudnick, & Freeman, 2008).
Individuals in the Central Texas district that is the focus of the study, based on a
need for improving elementary science education, particularly at the fifth grade level,
developed a science program that brings teachers, librarians, and academic support

25. 14
teachers of science (AST) together to implement science project stations in the library for
fifth grade students. The purpose of the stations is to allow the fifth graders to have
engaged, enriched experiences of certain science topics.
This chapter is a review of the literature as it applies to the Science Investigation
Stations in the Library (SISL) program. While no such program has been reviewed in the
literature, there has been research on the various structures upon which the program was
designed. Constructivism, particularly as it applies to science education, has been
considered an important approach for science education since the 1980s (Tobin &
Tippins, 1993). In addition, since the focus of the SISL program is on science education,
it is important to review the current research on science education for students.
Furthermore, the success or failure of SISL may be dependent on the collaborative
process of the staff of fifth grade teachers, librarians, and academic support teachers of
science involved in planning SISL. The sections of this chapter begin with a review of
the learning theory of constructivism, the major theorists, and how constructivism has
been applied to best practices for science learning in K–12. The following sections
include current research on how students learn science as well as on staff collaboration,
with a specific focus on the librarian–teacher collaboration research.
Constructivism
Constructivism in education is the belief that students have to build their own
understandings “as a way of coming to know one’s world” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p.
23). The concept and ideas that have become known as constructivism have been around
for decades (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Berube (2008) stated that the ideas of
constructivism were being used by educators at least a century before the term was used.

26. 15
However, the term itself is thought to have arisen from the reference Piaget (1935/1995)
made about his views as a “constructivist” and Bruner’s (1961) reference to discovery in
learning as making the student a “constructionist” (p. 26).
The most recent edition to current science standards can be found in “A
Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core
Ideas” (NRC, 2012). This document is the first step in a revision of the “National
Science Education Standards” (NRC, 1996). The framework builds on the foundation of
these standards as well as the work presented in two other documents, Science for All
Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1993) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS,
1993). In addition, two organizations, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) provided
support and research included in the development of the framework (NRC, 2012). The
framework was designed as a “broad set of expectations for students in science” (NRC,
2012, p. 1), so that by the end of 12th grade, all students would be able to meet the
following expectations:
• have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science;
• possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public
discussions on related issues;
• are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to
their everyday lives;
• are able to continue to learn about science outside school;
• and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited
to) careers in science, engineering, and technology. (NRC, 2012, p. 1)
While the word constructivism is not used in any of the previously mentioned works, the
major tenets of constructivism are built into the various standards and benchmarks and
considered essential for learning. According to Berube (2008), the main idea of
constructivism that children learn through discovery and their own experiences is the

27. 16
most vital piece of learning science. The five main principles of constructivism, as
identified by Brooks and Brooks (1999) are as follows:
• Teachers see and value their students’ points of view.
• Classroom activities challenge students’ suppositions.
• Teachers pose problems of emerging relevance.
• Teachers build lessons around primary concepts and “big” ideas.
• Teachers assess student learning in the context of daily teaching. (pp. ix–x)
These principles are then expanded to identify the major practices of constructivist
teaching. In order to understand the current perspectives on constructivism it is important
to first go back and review the historical underpinnings of today’s ideas and then
summarize the current research about constructivism applied specifically to science
education (Peters & Stout, 2006). The beginning ideas of constructivism in education
have their roots in the ideas of Dewey, as explained in the following section.
Dewey and Personal, Meaningful, Student-Centered Education
The origins of contemporary constructivism began with the work of Dewey, even
though he never used the word constructivism in his writings (Berube, 2008). Dewey
(1910/2005a) originally argued in 1916 that school should be like a small community
where students learned to work together to solve real problems. While he made no
specific mention of a library, Dewey (1910/2005a) regarded the other areas of a school,
besides the classroom, as places where children could act more natural and become
involved in discussion and working together.
In How We Think, Dewey (1910/2005a) put forth a compelling argument for the
place of curiosity in school, arguing for curiosity that is developed to become interested
in problems raised by making observations, and based on the understanding of facts.
Dewey (1910/2005a) directed teachers to work “to keep alive the sacred spark of wonder

28. 17
and to fan the flame that already glows” (p. 29). In a later publication, Democracy and
Education, Dewey (1916/2005b) expanded on the idea of curiosity and learning, and
stated that while it cannot be expected that children will make original discoveries
comparable to the vast discoveries of man, it can be expected that they can make original
discoveries that constitute learning for them. In other words, originality should not be
viewed from the perfect idea or principle, but rather based on the individual student’s
ability and achievement.
Dewey (1932/1990) contended that students have four inherent responses that
should be capitalized on in school. The first is that of language. Students enjoy talking
and can express many ideas through their speech. According to Dewey (1932/1990),
language is maybe the best resource that education has because it is the most basic form
of expression for children, particularly in social situations. The second resource is the
child’s proclivity to making things. Children like to play and, in play, they like to put
things together. This creation of things and observing what happens is the third resource
of inquiry. By directing this resource, schools can use this inherent characteristic to
guide students to creating things that serve to explain new ideas and understandings. The
final resource is that of artistic expression. From a young age students like to draw, build,
and reshape objects. In some children, particularly younger children, this expression
through art is often tied to the need to explain and express ideas. Dewey (1932/1990)
argued that utilizing these four resources and using them in school will lead to more
learning than in a more traditional setting of the teachers giving information with the
students expected to remember it all.

29. 18
Dewey (1916/2005b) argued that students needed experiences that were personal
to them and that learning occurred as they searched for solutions to real problems. He
believed that a person was only an individual when he or she thinks for oneself (Dewey,
1916/2005b). In order to do that, the learner needed to have time for observing,
reflecting, forming, and testing questions to expand and clarify his/her own learning.
From Dewey (1932/1990) also came the idea of connecting current school
experiences to prior experiences. Dewey (1910/2005a) argued for using prior
experiences because to ask a child to solve a problem of which he/she has no prior
experience is an act of futility. Students learn best when they are able to make
connections to prior learning and the new activities. Dewey (1910/2005a) also pointed
out that prior experience is not just what has been learned in school, but should also
include many of the out-of-school experiences as well.
Dewey (1932/1990) expressed that the child’s life in school needs to connect with
the life outside school. Students have scattered and random ideas that can be organized
by the teacher when he or she provides appropriate materials to direct the students’ ideas
and interests toward the wanted objective (Dewey, 1932/1990). With regards to science
and the scientific method, Dewey (1910/2005a) encouraged the use of hands-on learning
and discovery learning, and mentioned that this learning did not have to occur in a
laboratory or with fancy equipment. However, Dewey (1910/2005a) pointed out that:
The entire scientific history of humanity demonstrates that the conditions for
complete mental activity will not be obtained till adequate provision is made for
the carrying on of activities that actually modify physical conditions, and that
books, pictures, and even objects that are passively observed but not manipulated
do not furnish the provision required. (p. 82)

30. 19
Dewey’s (1910/2005a) idea was that the students in school should be allowed to work
through problems and ideas. He argued that students who are only sitting and receiving
information are not apt to be learning much.
Dewey (1910/2005a) made a strong argument that applies maybe even more
today than it did when he wrote it:
While it is not the business of education to prove every statement made, any more
than to teach every possible item of information, it is its business to cultivate
deep-seated and effective habits of discriminating tested beliefs from mere
assertions, guesses, and opinions; to develop a lively, sincere, and open-minded
preference for conclusions that are properly grounded, and to ingrain into the
individual’s working habits methods of inquiry and reasoning appropriate to the
various problems that present themselves. (pp. 23–24)
Overall, Dewey’s contributions to constructivism include the idea of tying learning to
prior experiences, focusing on students’ natural inclinations of imagination, curiosity,
building, and talking to each other, and the idea that students need to be involved in the
learning if real education is to take place. Piaget (1935/1995) added to Dewey’s ideas by
providing a framework for the different stages of children. Piaget’s ideas as they apply to
constructivism are the topic of the next section.
Piaget and Developmental Stages
Like Dewey, Piaget did not refer to his thoughts about learning as constructivism;
others applied the term later. However, many of his ideas are incorporated into the
learning theory of constructivism. Piaget is best known for his theory of developmental
stages in children (as cited in Llewellyn, 2007). While the stages do not specifically
address constructivism, they do provide a strong argument for the provision of hands-on
materials, especially as students begin the transition into abstract concepts. However,
Piaget clearly stated that students would pass through the stages at different rates. For

31. 20
example, in regards to science education, Piaget (1935/1995) claimed that as a student
passed from the concrete operation stage to the propositional stage, if he/she was able to
deduce hypotheses and conduct experiments to test them, then it would be essential for
the schools to enhance these abilities in order to develop students who experiment and
question as well as teachers who place importance on knowledge-gathering and
exploration instead of the recitation of isolated facts. It was through this discussion that
Piaget (1935/1995) recognized the important link between an experimental attitude and
discovery learning. Piaget (1935/1995) realized that children learn in certain ways,
depending on what developmental stage they are in at the time. For constructivism, this
idea is expressed through the belief that children are bringing different levels of
information and understanding based on where they are in regards to cognitive maturity
(Berube, 2008).
Piaget added several additional important assumptions about learning through his
theory of genetic epistemology, “the study of how people acquire knowledge” (Gallagher
& Reid, 2002, p. 21). Gallagher and Reid (2002) derived six principles of learning from
genetic epistemology:
1. Learning is an internal process of construction; that is children’s own
activities determine their reactions to environmental simulation.
2. Learning is subordinated to development; that is competence is a precondition
for learning.
3. Children learn not only by observing objects but also by reorganizing on a
higher mental level what they learn from coordinating their activities.
4. Growth in knowledge is often sparked by a feedback process that proceeds
from questions, contradictions, and consequent mental reorganization.
5. Questions, contradictions, and the consequent reorganization of thought are
often stimulated by social interaction.
6. Since awareness (or conscious realization) is a process of reconstruction rather
than sudden insight, understanding lags behind action. (pp. 21–22)

32. 21
As viewed from a constructivist perspective, these six principles indicate that learning is
a social process in which the student constructs one’s own knowledge based on the
objects around one, activities one is provided, and as aided through the opportunity to
reconsider and adjust one’s ideas and conclusions. Piaget (1935/1995) clarified that the
knowledge was derived not from the actual materials used, but from how those materials
were modified. Llewellyn (2007) explained that by including activities in the school that
allow for students to participate in active learning, work with other students, and have
opportunities to challenge their ideas, true learning occurs.
Piaget’s (1935/1995) views of the teacher’s role also reflected constructivist
thought. Since constructivist teaching involves providing many opportunities for the
students to discover information for themselves, Piaget (1935/1995) believed that the
ideal system would have teachers who, rather than directly giving information to the
student, would instead direct the student to actively construct his/her own knowledge. In
such a school, the teacher’s role becomes one of providing many opportunities and
materials, as well as guiding and encouraging the learner. In other words, the teacher
would be someone who provides the time, materials, and guidance for children to explore
their curiosity and work to solve problems (Piaget, 1935/1995). Piaget (1935/1995) also
provided the idea of a teacher using counter examples to help the student move forward
in his/her thinking through self-correction.
Piaget’s ideas of adaptation, assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration are
important concepts in the constructivist framework. Adaptation is the ongoing method
by which an individual is able to use the environment to learn something new and, at the
same time, be able to adapt as the environment changes (Singer & Revenson, 1996). This

33. 22
adjustment occurs through the processes of accommodation and assimilation.
Accommodation is when a child can modify his/her knowledge to incorporate a new idea
or new outcome (Gallagher & Reid, 2002). Assimilation is a child’s ability to react to a
new concept (Gallagher & Reid, 2002). Equilibration is when the child can self-correct
or self-regulate when the situation causes a problem because it contradicts something the
student previously thought or identifies a hole in the student’s learning experience
(Gallagher & Reid, 2002). It involves finding a balance between accommodation and
assimilation (Singer & Revenson, 1996).
Also in line with constructivist thinking, both Piaget, and Piaget and Inhelder, put
forth the idea that reality is constructed by the individual as he/she brings his/her own
meaning to the situation, rather than something sitting there waiting to be found (as cited
in Peters & Stout, 2006). According to Gallagher and Reid (2002), this learning principle
means that children learn not only by observation, but by taking what they observe and
restructuring it into a more abstract learning as they develop a set of concepts and
principles.
Piaget’s stages of development are important to the overall understanding of a
child’s intellectual development. However, equally important are the contributions of
Vygotsky. His recognition that an individual’s intellect was dependent upon an adapting
of the social culture in which one found oneself added an important piece to how humans
learn (as cited in Bruner, 1997).
Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development
Vygotsky was a Russian psychologist who was the first to take into account that a
person’s surrounding culture had an impact on his mental growth (as cited in Cole &

34. 23
Scribner, 1978). Vygotsky theorized that learning is formed socially and transmitted by
the culture (John-Steiner & Souberman, 1978). In addition, Vygostky’s work addressed
areas that some theorists believed to be missing from Piaget’s theories. “While Piaget
stresses biologically supported, universal stages of development, Vygotsky’s emphasis is
on the interaction between changing social conditions and the biological substrata of
behavior” (John-Steiner & Souberman, 1978, p. 123).
Vygotsky also emphasized the importance of play. He believed that play was the
main means by which children developed the idea and understandings of culture (John-
Steiner & Souberman, 1978). Vygotsky (1978) believed that play was essential for
helping children to learn to satisfy certain needs as they continued to mature. Vygotsky
(1978) pointed out the idea of perception as an important human characteristic involved
in play. Humans are able to see real objects that other animals cannot. He emphasized
the importance of imagination and rules involved in play (Vygotsky, 1978).
From the point of view of development, creating an imaginary situation can be
regarded as a means of developing abstract thought. The corresponding
development of rules leads to actions on the basis of which the division between
work and play becomes possible. (Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 103–104)
Vygotsky provided constructivist education with several important ideas. The most
important of these is the idea that the social aspects of learning have significance and
influence intellectual development (Berube, 2008). He contended that a person’s
increase in knowledge is directly related to the individual’s interaction in social groups.
Vygotsky (1978) viewed learning as a social process and placed emphasis on the
importance of language and conversation in learning. As such, he was opposed to the
idea of the teacher only giving lectures as the sole expected source of learning (John-
Steiner & Souberman, 1978). Vygotsky believed that students who are involved in

35. 24
discussion and feedback with teachers and peers would be able to take their learning to
more advanced levels (Berube, 2008).
Vygotsky developed the theory of the zone of proximal development (Peters &
Stout, 2006). In the zone of proximal development theory, students have two levels at
which learning can occur: independent and assisted (Llewellyn, 2007). The first is that
level the child has reached as a result of previously completed levels. This level indicates
what a child can complete or learn without help. However, it is at the second level, what
Vygotsky (1978) called “the level of potential development” when students are able to
continue learning a concept with the help of a teacher or further-advanced peers. The
difference between these levels is what Vygotsky called “the zone of proximal
development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). It is this zone in which Vygotsky suggested the
best learning would occur. Rather than settling for what the student can do on his/her
own, it is most beneficial to advance his/her learning through the assistance and support
of a teacher or more advanced students. From this also comes the idea of scaffolding
(Llewellyn, 2007; Peters & Stout, 2006). These two concepts work together to provide
the student with the ability to learn more with the support of his peers and teacher.
According to Berube (2008), Vygotsky placed emphasis on the role that social
context had on cognition. Therefore, some of Vygotsky’s ideas have been identified as
social constructivist. However, the individual most often associated with social
constructivism, especially as it applies to science, is Bruner. His ideas about how the
entire culture that an individual belongs to affects education are the topic of the next
section.

36. 25
Bruner and Social Constructivism
While Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky all placed some level of importance on the
social aspect of learning, it was Bruner in the 1960s who introduced the idea of social
constructivism (Bruner, 1961). His ideas go beyond the idea of cooperative learning into
the idea of how learning is affected by the culture in which one is educated. So, while
Bruner (1977) agreed that learning occurred best (or at all) when the individual had some
part in constructing or discovering the information, he went a step further and claimed
that how the culture interprets and presents information has a bearing on how the
individual interprets the knowledge. In this section, Bruner’s views on the importance of
the social aspect of learning and how it ties into science education will be reviewed.
Bruner’s first book about how students learn was a printing of his report as
chairman of the Cape Cod meeting in 1959 where scientists, teachers, and professors met
to discuss K–12 science education and how it could be improved (Bruner, 1977). Even at
this time, he expressed the importance of the need to educate all children to their full
potential as a way of keeping the country strong even as technology and society became
more complex (Bruner, 1977). This idea has even more importance now in the 21st
century, as all individuals need to be able to understand and deal with the massive
societal issues and technology advances.
Much of Bruner’s thoughts and ideas have to do with the presentation of
curriculum. Bruner (1977) added to or contributed three important ideas about
curriculum. First, he believed that a child could learn any subject at any age so long as it
was presented in an age-appropriate manner, or as he called it, “the child’s way of
viewing things” (p. 33). He argued that the earlier topics were introduced, the easier it

37. 26
would be to expand on these ideas in later grades. One of the main ideas that Bruner
(1977) emphasized is that subject content should be based on the main concepts that are
essential to an understanding of the subject. By looking at the Texas state curriculum for
science, it becomes apparent that this idea has been implemented as student standards
build from year to year on several main concepts, such as cycles, patterns, systems, and
models (Texas Education Agency, 2010). However, Bruner (1977) also pointed out that
while it is important to present the essential and underlying ideas of a subject, such as
science, it should be done in such a way that a student is able to make the connections for
him- or herself. Bruner (1996) explained this further by declaring that knowledge that
the student has discovered on his/her own is of more use because he or she can apply and
relate the new information to his or her prior experiences. Based on this conclusion,
Bruner (1996) declared that a student could be taught any subject in some form that was
“honest,” although he admitted that he left “honest” undefined (p. xii). It is the struggle
to figure out how to teach these concepts to students in a way that is understandable at the
time and lead to greater learning later that is a primary issue in constructivist teaching.
At the same time, it is important to link the present activities with the students’ prior
knowledge (Berube, 2008).
Bruner (1977) determined that there were three processes involved in learning
that occurred at essentially the same time, and identified these three processes as
“acquisition, transformation, and evaluation” (p. 48). The first, acquisition, is the
acquiring of new information. This new information is often contradicting or overriding
a previously held idea. Transformation is when a person takes learning and modifies it to

38. 27
make it fit new activities. Finally, evaluation is when a person determines if the new
information that comes from the transformation is adequate to meet the need.
Bruner’s (1996) third idea about curriculum, actually education in general, is what
has become known as social constructivism and what he referred to as a “psycho-cultural
approach to education” (p. 13). Bruner (1996) believed that the problems of education
and the underlying psychology of a culture are closely related. He believed that
questions about how a culture determines meaning, how a culture defines the idea of self
and group, how language is acquired and all mental activity is dependent on the culture in
which it occurs. He summed it up thusly, “Learning, remembering, talking, imagining:
all of them are made possible by participating in a culture” (Bruner, 1996, p. xi). Bruner
(1996) put forth nine tenets of his “psycho-cultural approach to education” (p. 13). The
following paragraphs will explain each of these tenets, its role in social constructivism,
and how it fits into the present ideas about K–12 science education.
The first tenet is the perspectival tenet. This principle is the idea that the meaning
of anything “is relative to the perspective or frame of reference in terms of which it is
construed” (Bruner, 1996, p. 13). For example, Halloween has different connotations
depending on family, religious, and cultural views. This principle is a particularly
important one for science and constructivism. For science, it is important because it must
be always kept in mind, as curriculum has to be updated to keep pace with the latest
scientific findings. As for constructivism, it is important because it is a reminder to
educators to be aware of the various perspectives in the classroom that may affect the
information that the students construct.

39. 28
The second tenet is the constraints tenet. Basically this principle points out two
important constraints to making meaning. First, Bruner (1996) contended that as a group
humans have evolved in such a way that an individual cannot think of “Self” in a current
state without being influenced by the past (p. 15). Second, Bruner (1996) believed that
humans are constrained by limits of language and symbol systems that are available to
the mind.
The third tenet is the constructivist tenet. The reality that any person constructs is
in some respect influenced by the traditions and the culture in which he/she is found
(Bruner, 1996). With this tenet, Bruner (1996) emphasized an important objective of
education as a whole. A goal of education should be to aid students in learning the
traditions and culture in which they are located, providing them the ability to adjust to the
world they live in and to provide them tools to be able to create change when needed
(Bruner, 1996).
The fourth tenet is the interactional tenet. This principle is the idea that learning
is passed on through interaction with others in the culture. Bruner (1996) saw the idea of
the classroom being a community of learners as a direct reflection of this particular tenet,
with the teacher as the director. He emphasized with this tenet that whatever else the
cultural–psychological approach is, the concentration is with viewing learning as a
process by which individuals learn from interacting together and only through mutual
involvement rather than just being told information. Bruner (1996) provided a strong
argument for changing the school culture as a whole. On his views of schools that work
as a community of learners, he contended that what was known at the time about learning

40. 29
was that schools that used student participation, collaboration, and were student-directed
had more successful students (Bruner, 1996).
The fifth tenet is the externalization tenet. The focus of this tenet is the idea that
it is not enough to think about ideas; the ideas need to be expressed as something more
permanent that can be shared with the culture. One of the main ideas behind
constructivism is that students be allowed to work and share ideas. It is the resulting
products from these sessions of working together that give these ideas the permanence
that Bruner (1996) discussed.
The sixth tenet is the instrumentalism tenet. With this principle, Bruner (1996)
discussed the ideas of talent and opportunity. The main point he made is that regardless
of how a person is educated it is going to have consequences in that individual’s later life.
He raised the question of whether or not current educational standards do enough to make
sure that the talents of all students are encouraged. Bruner (1996) also pointed to the
struggle that continues today with providing all students with an equal chance to reach
their full potential and to have the same opportunities to excel and grow.
The seventh tenet is the institutional tenet. Schools act as an institution as they
prepare the students to become productive members of society. The problem is when the
school is at odds regarding the best way to pass along the culture of the society. Bruner
(1996) closed the section on this tenet with an argument that has bearing on any current
educational trends, and one that this dissertation serves to address. In order to improve
education, schools need teachers who are involved in and stand behind the proposed
reforms (Bruner, 1996).

41. 30
The eighth tenet is the tenet of identity and self-esteem. This tenet deals with
education’s role in the development of a person’s self or identity. Bruner (1996) stated
that if school is going to be used as an entry into a culture, then it is important to
constantly be reassessing what the school is doing to help the student gain an
understanding of his/her own abilities, what Bruner described as “his sense of agency”
and at the same time making sure that the student has a realistic view of his/her ability to
cope with his/her world both during the school years and after or, “his self-esteem” (p.
39). This tenet is connected to constructivism because it directly links to helping a
student by encouraging his strengths and helping him to overcome or cope with his
weaknesses by guiding him to construct his learning.
The final tenet is the narrative tenet. This tenet, maybe more than any of the
others, directly addresses the topic of the current study. It is the idea that story can be
used to help with meaning-making and identity-building. Bruner (1996) specifically
referenced science in this section as one area of education that could benefit greatly from
having narratives used to help make science seem more human, more interesting, and
more doable for K–12 students. Bruner (1996) argued for “narrative as a mode of
thinking, as a structure for organizing our knowledge, and as a vehicle in the process of
education, particularly in science education” (p. 119). One of the current objectives in
science education reform addresses the idea of combining literature and science as a way
of enhancing both subjects for students.
Since his early days as the chairman of the 1959 Cape Cod meeting, Bruner
(1996) had made important observations about science education. He was personally
influenced by the ideas of Karplus, who was an important person in the science reform

42. 31
movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Bruner (1996) took inspiration from Karplus because
Bruner believed that Karplus understood that science was not something sitting and
waiting to be found, but rather that science was something that was constructed in the
mind of the individual. Bruner (1996) knew that science could be fun, should be fun, and
that students would enjoy learning science if the proper methods were used. He believed
that science from a young age should be about learning how science is made, rather than
only being drilled on what is already known or, as he called it, finished science (p.127).
He believed that science classes needed to be more like what real scientists do including
humor, the wild questions, the speculations, and the varied and sometimes odd ways of
approaching a problem. In other words, social constructivism should be the norm in
science classes, not the exception.
Bruner contributed much to the field of science education. He provided strong
arguments for the need to view learning through a social constructivist lens. He also
raised important points about curriculum and how it should be taught. However, the
subject of constructivism with regards to science education would not be complete
without including a discussion of von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism.
von Glasersfeld and Radical Constructivism
One of the most recent contributors to science education and constructivism is
von Glasersfeld and his idea of radical constructivism. His contributions to science
education in the 1980s and 1990s served to shine a light on several issues and questioned
the current situation at the time (as cited in Tobin, 2007). Von Glasersfeld (2005)
claimed he first used the term radical constructivism in 1974 because of what he
considered to be the incomplete use of Piaget’s work. He felt that many developmental

43. 32
psychologists were using Piaget’s ideas on constructivism, but were not delving into the
epistemological connections.
According to von Glasersfeld (2004), constructivism serves to view knowledge
not as what may or may not exist, but instead on what has been proven. In other words, it
is based on the idea that all thinking, language, and learning are developed for an
individual from his/her experiences and that anything outside these experiences cannot be
included (von Glasersfeld, 2004). In his opinion, this view of constructivism has four
important implications for education. First, he contended there is a major distinction in
certain educational procedures (2004). Some are geared to what he referred to as training
and others towards teaching. Training is when students are asked to memorize and learn
through repetition. Teaching, on the other hand, is geared to eliciting understanding. He
acknowledged that both have their place in education (2001). However, training should
be used selectively and only for the appropriate tasks, such as learning the days of the
week or the correct order of the months of the year (von Glasersfeld, 2001).
Next, von Glasersfeld (2001) further stated that research and education should be
focused on trying to figure out what is going on in the students’ heads rather than what
they are actually saying. For example, many words in any particular subject may have
specialized meanings about which, while the teacher may understand, the students often
have different ideas. It is important to uncover these ideas in order to avoid
misconceptions and to find ways to guide the students to the accepted scientific
definitions and understandings (von Glasersfeld, 2001).
Moreover, the teachers will know that they cannot recite the information and
expect students to learn. There is an understanding students have to build their own

44. 33
knowledge and, as such, language is not the means of transmitting information, but rather
a tool to help direct the students’ construction of knowledge. Teaching a concept should
not be the teacher presenting the facts; rather, it should involve activities that will get
students doing their own thinking about the particular concept (von Glasersfeld, 2001). It
is important that teachers encourage students to talk about their thinking as a way of
reflection and as a way of clarifying understanding. At the same time, it is important that
teachers know the subject matter well enough that they can produce a number of
situations so that the desired concepts can be evolved.
Finally, students’ mistakes and answers that are unexpected should be regarded as
ways to glean how, at that point in their learning, they are organizing the information.
Teachers should avoid saying that a student’s work is wrong. Any effort by students
needs to be acknowledged in an effort to maintain interest and motivation. Most children
have put some thought into an answer and it is a reflection of their thinking at the time,
even if it is not the correct answer (von Glasersfeld, 2001).
Overall, these four implications, when considered in science classrooms, have the
ability to change for the science education of all students for the better. While some
would argue that there is no time to conduct the kind of learning considered by von
Glasersfeld (2001) to be true teaching, he contended that time spent on a few worthwhile
experiments can lead students to greater learning, provide better experiences for them to
relate to in the future, and “they will have learned to think” (p. 12). Future learning will
be more productive, students will have more motivation, and they will be able to apply
what they have learned about learning to all subjects, thereby improving overall learning.

45. 34
In summary, Dewey introduced the idea that learning is personal and should be
student-centered. Piaget added to this understanding through his developmental stages
and genetic epistemology. Vygotsky then provided the ideas of zone of proximal
development and scaffolding. Bruner provided deeper understanding of the social aspect
of learning that the earlier theorists had alluded to. Finally, von Glasersfeld explained
what are the most important implications of constructivist thought as applied to education.
The next section includes specifics of how their views have been combined to apply
constructivism to the field of science education.
Constructivism in Science Education
Berube (2008) believed that science was a subject that for students to truly learn it
required teachers to use methods that would enable students to be independent thinkers,
able to question ideas and construct their own knowledge. In today’s science classroom,
the standards provided by different organizations all point to constructivism as a
necessary component for science education (NRC, 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990).
Peters and Stout (2006) summarized the use of constructivism as the teacher’s ability to
know the standards, her individual students, and then being able to construct lessons that
meet the needs of all of them. Berube (2008) pointed out that those who teach using
constructivist methods do so because they believe that in order for a child to truly
understand something the child must create his/her own cognitive, mental, moral, and
social knowledge.
In order to help students with developing this new knowledge, it is vital to take
into account their prior experiences in order to build new science knowledge (Cobern,
1993). So, in constructivism, learning occurs when a student makes a change to his prior

46. 35
knowledge by replacing it, adding to it or modifying it (Cobern 1993). As Tobin and
Tippins (1993) pointed out, science knowledge cannot exist without the individuals who
believe it. Rather, science is explanations mutually agreed upon about the events and
phenomena found in the world.
Brooks and Brooks (1999) proposed several “guiding principles of constructivism”
(p. 33). These include finding problems of importance to students, designing learning
around a set of key concepts, including and valuing the students’ viewpoints, and using
assessment to improve learning. Berube (2008) expanded and added to this list with the
main components of constructivism as applied to science education. These principles and
components are as follows:
• Concept formation: The process through which individuals develop
understandings. It is a constant process and using students’ prior experiences
helps them to relate the concepts from school to their home and cultural
concepts.
• Cooperative learning: Based on the ideas from Dewey (1932/1990) about
social learning; its use in the subject of science allows for various opinions
and ideas to help with solving problems, making hypotheses, and making new
discoveries.
• Alternative assessment: Using assessment to address the higher-level thinking
skills. These include performance-based testing and project-based
assignments as well as use of rubrics, journals, portfolios, advanced
questioning, and concept maps.

47. 36
• Hands-on/active learning: In science education, this involves students
performing experiments and working with the tools and objects of the
different science topics.
• Student-centered learning: “Research shows that students learn more when
they have some ownership in the learning process: the basis of constructivism”
(Berube, 2008, p. 30).
In order for a science classroom to be considered a constructivist classroom, all of these
components and principles must be incorporated as often as possible.
For over 100 years, the learning of science meant the learning of facts. However,
according to Good, Wandersee, and St. Julien (1993), there are several reasons why this
rote learning of facts is not effective. For starters, memorization is not very useful or
lasting, scientific information is not concrete and often changes—sometimes even
contradicting early learning—and learning facts is a lower level of knowledge than
understanding the overarching big ideas. In addition, teaching should not be the delivery
of knowledge. Rather, it should be a sharing between the teacher and the learner that is
beneficial to both and that activates the growing of knowledge and understanding (Good
et al., 1993). Also, facts by themselves may be too separated or unconnected and cannot
by themselves allow the learner to actually gain science understanding (Good et al.,
1993).
Furthermore, facts are only the concepts or labels used by individuals to think
about science (Good et al., 1993), but deep learning only occurs when these new concepts
are connected to those concepts already contained in memory. From these concepts are
derived constructions. Constructions come from taking a number of concepts that are

48. 37
related through embedded connections (Good et al., 1993). From these constructions, a
learner can begin to understand the principles of science that can then be grouped into
theories, which are the highest ranking. Using theories is how individuals “describe,
predict, and explain large ‘chunks’ of the natural world” (Good et al., 1993, p. 76).
In constructivist classrooms, teachers are still in charge. However, instead of
providing all the answers, the teachers present the students with problems, asking them to
work out a solution, which then places the importance on the process rather than the final
answer and helps to make the learning clear in the students’ minds. The emphasis is on
students working out their own understandings rather than the teacher simply giving them
information to memorize (Berube, 2008). This does not, however, mean that teachers are
allowing students to continue to believe wrong theories or information. As Tobin and
Tippins (1993) pointed out, it is still the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that students
are learning what is considered by society at the time to be credible and appropriate.
By applying the theories of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and von
Glasersfeld, a constructivist science classroom is one that is centered on the students and
allows them to explore different ideas. According to Berube (2008), constructivism does
not provide what to teach or how to teach, but rather serves as encouragement to
educators to guide students’ learning through their instructional practices and classroom
environment. In addition, the teacher provides a wide range of activities centered on
helping the students to expand and develop the language and understanding of scientific
concepts (Peters & Stout, 2006). These activities include the use of real-world problems
and situations that allow the students to use their prior experiences to construct their own

49. 38
learning through interaction with other students (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2000).
According to Yore (2004),
The pedagogical structure for learning in an interactive-constructivist model is
shared by the learner and the teacher. The basic constructivist assumptions about
the role of prior knowledge, the plausibility of alternative ideas, and the resiliency
of these ideas are preserved in an interactive-constructivist perspective; however
professional wisdom, the accountability of public education, and the priorities of
schools mediate decisions about what and how to teach in the science classroom.
(p. 85)
While constructivism is considered to be the current best practice for teaching science,
there are other important issues being addressed in the research as to exactly how
students, particularly elementary students, are best able to learn sciences. The following
section serves as an overview of the most prevalent trends and issues in teaching science
to elementary students. These ideas include cooperative learning as an essential teaching
practice, understanding and building on students’ misconceptions, the use of simulations
and/or models, the growing research about the connections between science and literacy,
and questions about what should be taught and when.
Current Research on Science Education of Elementary Students
Since near the beginning of the American public education system, there have
been those arguing for science instruction as an important component of the curriculum.
In addition, many have long pointed out that PK–5 science is necessary for laying the
foundation of science knowledge necessary for future science learning that is essential for
success in the 21st century (Century et al., 2008). From the beginning, the focus for what
kind of science curriculum should be included was focused on student-centered, hands-on,
real-life experiences. However, what actually occurs in most public schools is far from
these expectations (Century et al., 2008).

50. 39
The current research on science education of elementary students is wide and, at
times, somewhat limited. For example, in a review of effective programs for elementary
science, Slavin, Lake, Hanley, and Thurston (2012) found that only 17 studies met their
criteria, one of which was that it had to take place in an elementary school. Slavin et al.
reported that studies of experiments with alternative science programs were almost non-
existent. Research in science education for past 20 years has focused on how students
conceive of science, and been too focused on the individual and not taken into account
“factors such as sociocultural context and the nature of language” (Feldman, 2004, p.
141). While much research occurred in the 1990s, the research of the past several years
has been more on specific case studies or reviews of older literature.
However, there has been some research done on several key components of
constructivist concepts, as well as in the area of combining science and literacy. The
following section begins by an examination of the research about science learning in
general, and then a review of the following key areas: the idea of a learning cycle,
research on cooperative learning in science classes, students’ science misconceptions, use
of technology, depth of understanding of elementary students, and findings on the
science–literacy connection.
The How and Why of Science Learning
The current ideas about science learning are centered on a growing need for a
scientifically literate society. According to Bencze and Alsop (2009), scientific literacy
involves four broad categories:
1. Products education, which means to develop a working understanding of the
important principles of science and technology.

51. 40
2. HPSST education, which means to develop a working understanding of the
history, philosophy, and sociology of science and technology.
3. Knowledge building, which means learning through student-directed inquiry.
4. WISE activism, which means being able to address the wellbeing of
individuals, societies, and environments.
Bencze and Alsop (2009) claimed it was apparent that in most North American schools
the focus was on only one of the categories—products education—to the great detriment
of the other three. Furthermore, Conderman and Woods (2008) presented a compelling
argument when they questioned the lack of science being taught in school, particularly in
elementary school. They argued that science is much more than memorizing facts or
passing multiple-choice tests; it is not even just experiments (Conderman & Woods,
2008).
However, as reported by the NRC (2012), a number of organizations are working
to change the course of science education in the United States. This report is considered
the first step in what is hoped to eventually bring about changes to state standards that
will focus on fewer concepts and a more complete sequence of learning for K–12 science.
As a precursor to the framework, Michaels et al. (2008) organized the idea of becoming
scientifically literate around four “strands” (p. 19). These strands are as follows:
• Strand 1: Understanding scientific explanations. In order to be proficient in
science, students need to know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of
the natural world. Within this strand is the understanding that students will
have to learn certain facts, laws, principles, and theories.

52. 41
• Strand 2: Generating scientific evidence. Proficiency in science entails
generating and evaluating evidence as part of building and refining models
and explanations of the natural world. This strand includes students being
able to design investigations and models, as well as use the appropriate tools
to conduct and evaluate the information. Students need opportunities to
observe and use models and representations in science.
• Strand 3: Reflecting on scientific knowledge. This strand includes gaining an
understanding of the history of science and also how new scientific
knowledge is generated and revised.
• Strand 4: Participating productively in science. According to Michaels et al.
(2008), “Science is a social enterprise governed by a core set of values and
norms for participation” (p. 21). This strand is often overlooked in education,
but considered a vital component, especially in the attempts to get
underrepresented groups of students more involved in advanced science
learning. In order to advance science learning, teachers need to provide
science investigations that are based on meaningful issues, and through which
students are provided ongoing support and instruction from the teachers
(Michaels et al., 2008).
However, effective learning requires that students take control of their learning (Pratt &
Pratt, 2004). Students must be able to use scientific knowledge in their day-to-day lives.
They also must be able to do science. This means being able to participate in activities
comparable to the activities of actual scientists (Feldman, 2004). The importance of

53. 42
learning science has been established and currently, the concern is more about how to
teach science.
The NRC (as cited in Pratt & Pratt, 2004) summarized what is currently known
about how students learn science:
1. Students build new knowledge and understanding on what they already know
and believe. This concept is further expanded on in the section about
misconceptions.
2. Students formulate new knowledge by modifying and refining their current
concepts and adding new concepts to what they already know.
3. Understanding science is more than knowing facts; it involves placing and
retrieving them in a conceptual framework. In order to advance student
learning, it is important to scaffold new ideas in a way that helps students to
increase their scientific understandings. It is also important to involve the
children both with what is being learned and in tracking their progress.
4. Learning is mediated by the social environment in which learners interact with
others.
5. The ability to apply knowledge to novel situations (transfer of learning) is
affected by the degree to which students learn with understanding in a variety
of contexts.
In addition, Harlen, Elstgeest, and Jelly (2001) provided several general strategies to use
with children to improve science learning. These strategies are providing motivation,
asking the right questions, use of and expanding from children’s ideas, using
investigations, helping children to learn the basic science process skills of observation

54. 43
and communication, and finally, assessing students through formative assessment,
feedback, and self-assessment. One way to meet all of these criteria is through the use of
a learning cycle.
In the 21st century, the development of learning cycles most often used in science
has been developed from the original three- and five-phase cycles. The current cycles
have only elaborated on or extended from these two earlier cycles (Marek, 2009). The
theoretical foundations of the learning cycle currently consist of “(a) nature of science,
(b) purposes and standards of school science, and (c) constructivist learning theory”
(Marek, 2009, p. 141). According to Yore (2004), many of the common science
programs in K–12 are based on “an interactive-constructivist modified learning cycle
(engage, explore, consolidate, and assess)” (p. 84).
A research-based instructional model includes five phases: engagement,
exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation (Pratt & Pratt, 2004). This is known
as the 5E model. In the district used for this current study, STEMscopes, an online
science curriculum for K–12 that provides hands-on activities, evaluations, tools for
correct misunderstandings, activities for expanding learning, and many teacher resources
(Rice University, 2012) is being used in the district’s Title I schools and is based in the
5E instructional model. In addition, the district’s curriculum scope and sequence utilize
the same model for science instruction.
Additionally, a new framework has emerged that places emphasis on the
integration of science content and processes. This integration is a move away from the
previous distinction that had been made about keeping science content and science
processes separate (Michaels et al., 2008). It has been discovered that true science

55. 44
learning includes learning the content and the appropriate processes at the same time
(Michaels et al., 2008). The fact that concepts and processes are co-dependent has
significance for the types of activities children need to have in school and the role that the
teacher has in these activities (Harlen et al., 2001).
The most recent research in science deals with identifying core concepts (NRC,
2012), and then using learning progressions to build on these concepts through the school
years (Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009; Michaels et al., 2008; NRC, 2012; Pratt, 2012).
While still in the research stages, the idea of the learning progressions is that students
need to work with these core concepts for an extended period of time, building onto the
knowledge base progressively through a number of years (NRC, 2012). While Texas is
not a state that has adopted the Common Core Standards, it can be seen that the most
recent research has been applied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) as
it has students moving through each grade to increasingly more complicated information
with a limited number of overarching concepts, such as matter and energy and earth and
space (Texas Education Agency, 2010).
In summary, in order for children to learn science, it is important for them to have
opportunities to develop ideas based on evidence and that are shared by the world they
live in (Harlen et al., 2001). Through ongoing work with the Framework for K-12 (NRC,
2012) and continued research on learning progressions, the future of science education
for K–12 students has the potential to be vastly improved. However, the research from
the past several years has also provided several other key components to effective science
teaching.

56. 45
Cooperative Learning and Collaboration
One way to best facilitate learning is through cooperative groups. Cooperative
learning has long been regarded as an effective learning method for students (Dewey,
1990). According to Berube (2008), students involved in cooperative learning gain better
critical thinking skills, have better attitudes about science, can collaborate more
successfully, have a healthier mental attitude, and perceive grades to be more just.
According to Michaels et al. (2008), communication and collaboration are
important components of effective science teaching and learning. However, with science
terminology, it is important to make sure students are clear on the scientific use of words
as opposed to the everyday usage. One example is the use of scientific argumentation in
the classroom, a concept that is vastly different than what is generally thought of by
argumentation. Science argumentation is used to gain understanding and involves mutual
participation.
It is also important that the teacher allow time for talk in different settings
including group, small group, and partners and that the teacher is able to guide student
talk through a variety of methods such as restating a response, asking students to add to
responses, encouraging further information and explanations, and allowing wait-time
between responses and answers (Michaels et al., 2008). Group discussions can also play
an important role in helping students learn by providing talk-time with their peers in
order to answer questions, gain clear meanings of science concepts, discuss and clarify
misunderstandings and differences of opinion, create new questions and find ways to
investigate them, and find solutions to problems (Tobin & Tippins, 1993).
Discussions in science classrooms are important as a means for discovering