Abstract: The structure of a lesson is a decisive, essential prerequisite for students’ acquisition of procedural and declarative knowledge. Oser and Baeriswyl (2001) describe 14 basis models as possible lesson structures. To enable successful learning processes, it is assumed that key teaching steps need to be taken within a lesson. Three basis models have been found to be most important for science teaching: learning through experience, problem solving and concept building (Reyer, 2004). Which basis model suits a particular lesson depends on the respective teaching goal. Recent studies show that science lessons in German primary schools lack such structures.  
In order to evaluate the effects of a learning-process oriented teaching style in primary science lessons, an intervention based on Oser’s basis models has been planned. A teaching unit in which all three basis models are implemented will be developed and taught in five primary school classes (Grade 4). The implementation of basis model steps on the class- and individual levels will be evaluated using video analysis. Changes in the students’ procedural- and declarative knowledge will be measured with a pre-post test. Cognitive abilities, reading competence, motivation and interest will be controlled.

1. Introduction

The aim of science lessons at primary school is to impart both declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge to students. How these two types of knowledge can be acquired in an efficient way, particularly in science, is still, however, uncertain and has not yet been empirically proven. The specific conditions in primary school also have to be kept in mind. For example, primary school teachers, especially in physics, tend to lack content knowledge and self-confidence (Möller, 2004; Hackling, 2006). On the other hand primary school students begin constructing scientific concepts, which demands sophisticated, matter-of-fact, correct teaching. Certainly, one decisive and essential aspect of the acquisition of procedural and declarative knowledge is the structure of a lesson (e.g. Helmke, 2008; Oser, 2001). There are different possibilities of structuring a lesson. Generally, the phases consist of a kind of introduction, development or performance (of a content, experiment, etc.) and reflection. How these phases appear in detail depends on the model or theory they refer to. The method we focused on in this study is structuring a lesson according to patterns of knowledge-constructions (Oser, 2001).  
In a preliminary investigation we analysed science lessons in primary schools. It suggests that these lessons are not entirely structured according to epistemological perceptions or psychological learning scripts (e.g., patterns of knowledge-constructions, Oser, 2001; Sodian, 1997; structure of experiments, Reinhold, 1996).  
 
Learning Process Sequences  
 
Oser and Baeriswyl (2001) describe 14 basis models of teaching as possible ways of structuring a lesson. Initially developed to help teachers plan their lessons, these models are based on the assumption that to enable successful learning processes, key steps need to be taken (ibid.). All basis models are composed of a number of steps that depend on the teaching goal of the lesson. Three of these models are important for physics teaching (Reyer, 2004; Wackermann, 2007): learning through experience, problem solving and concept development (Fig. 1). Which basis model suits a particular lesson depends on the respective teaching goal. One important quality of the basis models can be found in the reflective phases, as these phases allow students deeper cognitive involvement with the content/topic/concept of the lesson and prevent so-called “hands-on, minds-off”-situations.  
 

The basis models of Oser and Baeriswyl (2001) include reflective steps (e.g., generalization and abstraction of experiences), so they suggest planning experiments – “laboratory” activities in particular (here meant as primary laboratory activities). Furthermore, they suggest implementing different kinds of experiments: explorative experiments (learning through experience), hypothesis testing experiments, and so on (even “thought experiments” are possible, though not actually suitable for the primary school).  
Although the basis models have a lot of pros also for primary school, it has not yet been empirically proven if the basis models are suitable for planning primary school science lessons.  
   

2. Aims and Research Questions

The goal of the study is to evaluate how a learning-process oriented teaching style affects individual students’ procedural and declarative knowledge.  

 

1. How the correlation between the sequencing of the learning process and the usage of the offer by the students can be described?
 

2. To what extent do students’ actions quality, which conform to Oser’s basis models, correlate with students’ procedural and declarative learning achievement?
 

3. Method

Design  
The effects of structuring a lesson in terms of Osers’ basis models will be analysed in an intervention study. A teaching unit has been developed and will be taught in five primary school classes (Grade 4, n = 125 students). This unit on the topic of “evaporation and condensation“ will consist of six 90-minute lessons in which all three basis models will be implemented two times (Fig. 2). In every lesson an experiment is planned: The basis-model “Learning through Experience” concerns explorative experiments, the “Problem Solving” is about evaluating hypothesis (in this case, in primary school, it is more about evaluating “ideas” than “hypothesis”), the “Concept Building” includes experiments which demonstrates or clarifies a concept. The intervention group will be taught by the researchers.  
 

To ensure the basis models are implemented on the class level, teacher actions will be videotaped and analysed. Even if the teacher offers the steps of the basis models in the lessons, it is not guaranteed that the students will act basis-model-conform. It is possible that some students are not able to follow all steps, especially in the reflective phases. Another possibility is that students might skip a step. Since there may be several reasons for those non-model-conform actions, students’ motivation, cognitive abilities and reading skills are assessed as control variables. In order to assess the students’ individual implementation of basis models, groups of students are videotaped as well, so that the learning process can be described, problems in particular steps can be identified and correlations between the individual level of the students and their learning achievement can be analysed. To correlate individual learning achievement with any students’ basis-model conforming actions, the individual student level (i.e., the steps they have taken) will be analysed. For that, extreme groups will be established using the results of the paper-and-pencil tests and analysed separately. Changes in the students’ achievement (procedural- and declarative knowledge) will be measured with a pre- and a post-test. The following table gives an overview of the design:  
 

4. Instruments

Analysis of the lessons  
 
Class Level  
A manual has been developed to analyse how the teachers implement the basis models. It is applied to ensure that the students are given the opportunity to act basis-model-conform; in other words that the teacher “offers” the steps of the basis models in the lessons. The video analysis instrument has already been developed and evaluated for use in primary school science classes (Ohle, 2010).  
 
Individual Student Level  
The manual for the analysis of the individual level of the students’ basis-model-conform actions embraces two coding schemes: The first coding examines whether a single student’s actions conform to a basis model and step. In a second coding, the “intensity” of the action is assessed, meaning if the students’ act independently or if they just follow the teachers’ tasks. The individual student level will only be analysed in the extreme groups. These groups will be established by the cognitive and procedural knowledge tests: The students with the highest and the lowest learning achievement will be analysed.  
 
Students´ achievement tests and control variables  
 
Procedural knowledge  
As already mentioned, this test helps to categorize the students in extreme groups. Procedural knowledge, in this case, means knowledge about the different kinds of activities one needs to conduct experiments. Not every domain of knowledge of experiments is mentioned, however. Only a small group relating to the basis models and suitable for primary school students is noted. The construction model makes no claim to be complete (related to experimental knowledge or the basis models), but it provides an overview of procedural knowledge learning achievement according to the basis models that are implemented in the teaching unit.  
This test was developed based on the test construction model (Fig. 4), which divides the three basis models into 1) single step, 2) lower- and 3) higher sequence of steps. The reason for this classification is that some of the steps (see Fig. 1) cannot be examined as single steps (e.g., the reflection steps, because a reflection has to take place in a context).  
The test will be evaluated and standardised in a multi-matrix design and is planned to be validated in an interview study.  
 
Figure 4. Model for the test construction  

5. Contributions  

A theoretical contribution of this study is that it further evaluates Oser’s basis models in the early years of science teaching and learning. Furthermore, learning processes in primary school science lessons can be described, and possible problems can be identified. A possible practical benefit is that it may provide helpful information for improving continued pre-service and in-service teacher education.  
 

6. References