Teaching the Control of Variables Strategy in Fourth Grade Classrooms

1
Teaching the Control of Variables Strategy in
Fourth Grade Classrooms Robert F. Lorch, Jr.,
William J. Calderhead, Emily E. Dunlap, Emily C.
Hodell, Benjamin Dunham Freer, Elizabeth P.
Lorch University of Kentucky

• METHOD
• Participants
• Participants included in analyses were 543
  children from 36, 4th grade classrooms. Students
  were from high achieving (n 269) and low
  achieving schools (n 274) in the Fayette County
  school district, Lexington, KY.
• Design
• The experimental design included three factors
  
• Students attended schools that were either high
  or low scoring on a statewide test of science
  achievement (Kentucky Core Content Test).
• Classrooms were assigned at random to one of
  three instructional interventions (a) CVS
  instruction (Instruct), (b) hands-on manipulation
  (Manipulate), or (c) CVS instruction hands-on
  manipulation (Both).
• Students were tested at three points (a) the day
  before instruction (i.e., Pretest), (b) the day
  after instruction (Posttest), and (c) 4-5 months
  after instruction (Delayed Test).
• Materials

• Comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows several
  similarities between the performances of
• students in the higher- vs. lower-achieving
  schools
• Students in both environments improve from
  pretest to posttest
• Students in both environments maintain their
  gains at the delayed test.
• The pattern of relative performance as a function
  of instructional condition is the same for
  students in both environments.
• However, comparison of Figures 2 and 3 also shows
  some differences between the
• performances of students in the higher- vs.
  lower-achieving schools
• The same instruction produced greater gains in
  the higher-achieving schools than in the
  lower-achieving schools.
• The Manipulate condition produced significant
  learning only in the higher-achieving schools.
• The addition of hands-on experience to the direct
  instruction produced significant gains relative
  to direct instruction alone for the
  higher-achieving schools, but not for the
  lower-achieving schools (compare Both vs.
  Instruct in each graph).
• CONCLUSIONS
• The teaching intervention developed by Klahr and
  his associates was successfully translated into
  4th-grade classrooms on a relatively large scale.
  Instruction in the Both condition resulted in
  substantial improvement from the pretest to the
  posttest. Further, the gains were maintained
  several months later on the delayed test.

• RESULTS
• Figure 1 displays mean performance on the paper
  pencil tests of CVS understanding.
• The data are averaged across high- and
  low-achieving schools.

• ABSTRACT
• We investigated an intervention (Chen Klahr,
  1999) that was designed to teach the control of
  variables strategy (CVS) to young students.
  Four questions were addressed by the study (1)
  Can the teaching intervention be successfully
  translated to the classroom? (2) Is the
  intervention effective with students from
  lower-achieving schools, as well as
  higher-achieving schools? (3) Is direct
  instruction sufficient for teaching CVS in
  4th-grade classrooms? (4) Does hands-on
  experience conducting experiments contribute to
  learning CVS beyond the gains produced by direct
  instruction in CVS? Students from high- and
  low-achieving schools were taught CVS by direct
  instruction, or hands-on experimentation, or
  both. The results demonstrate that the basic
  intervention can be successfully translated to
  the classroom, but it is relatively less
  effective in lower-achieving classrooms.
  Further, direct instruction alone was effective
  in teaching CVS, but it was more effective when
  combined with hands-on manipulation. Hands-on
  manipulation unaccompanied by direct instruction
  was relatively ineffective.
• INTRODUCTION
• The experimental method is based on the logic
  that in order to demonstrate a causal
  relationship between two variables, the
  experimenter must manipulate the independent
  variable and find corresponding variation in the
  dependent variable while holding constant all
  other variables. Chen and Klahr (1999) developed
  a brief instructional intervention that they
  showed to be very effective at teaching CVS to
  4th-grade students . Klahr and his associates
  (Klahr Nigram, 2004 Toth, Klahr Chen, 2000)
  have successfully applied the teaching
  intervention in the classroom, albeit on a
  limited basis. The current study scales up the
  intervention by both applying the intervention in
  many 4th-grade classrooms (i.e., 36) and by
  testing its effectiveness in two, very distinct
  environments (i.e., high-achieving classrooms vs.
  lower-achieving classrooms).
• In addition to examining whether Chen and
  Klahrs teaching intervention can be scaled up,
  the study addressed basic theoretical questions
  about the conditions necessary for successful
  teaching of CVS. The teaching intervention is
  comprised of both direct instruction in the logic
  of CVS, and a discovery component involving
  hands-on manipulation of the experimental
  apparatus. Klahr and associates have already
  demonstrated that relatively little learning
  results if students conduct hands-on manipulation
  in the absence of any direct instruction. Based
  on their results, they have argued that direct
  instruction is a necessary component of teaching
  of CVS. However, they have not demonstrated that
  direct instruction is sufficient for learning of
  CVS, nor have they shown that the hands-on
  component of their intervention produces no
  benefits beyond the gains of direct instruction.
• Our study addresses four questions concerning
  the basic teaching intervention first developed
  by Chen and Klahr
• Can we successfully translate the basic teaching
  intervention into 4th-grade classrooms on a
  relatively large scale (i.e., more than 1 or 2
  classrooms)?
• Will the intervention be successful in both high-
  and low-achieving classrooms?