Piaget‐based sequences of instruction in science

A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching

“…They suggested that due to the complexity of the mental operations involved in correlational reasoning, instruction may be more effective for students who are farther along in their development of formal stage reasoning. Bass and Montague (1972) drew the educational implication from Piaget's theory that, where feasible, an instructional sequence should parallel the sequence of development of the child's ideas. Noting that Piaget and his collaborators have identified the sequence of development of a number of principles and relationships commonly taught in science courses, they attempted to test the effectiveness of two such sequences.…”

Student misconceptions in chemical equilibrium

“…In addition to requiring certain prerequisite concepts and skills in chemistry, high school treatments of chemical equilibrium, e.g., CHEM Study, tend to call for considerable abstraction and propositional thinking by the student. Studies in science teaching based on Piaget's theory of intellectual development [ 1,2] suggest that many students do not always function at the cognitive level of which they are presumed capable. Some of the learning problems encountered by students in an area such as chemical equilibrium may be better understood in relation to their ability to deal with certain cognitive transformations associated with formal operational thought.…”

Effect of a Piagetian mini‐laboratory on the acquisition of typical formal operational schemata

“…The child must discover it for himself.' (Hall 1970) Nevertheless, there are different investigations, which support a positive answer to the question (Bass and Montague 1972, Case and Fry 1973, Bredderman 1973, Bredderman 1974b, Linn and Thier 1975, Boulanger 1976, Lawson and Wollman 1976, Linn et al 1977, Howe and Mierzwa 1977, Shyers and Cox 1978, Wollman and Lawson 1978, Linn 1980. Moreover, new interpretations of the Piagetian model of cognitive development (Case 1978, Gauld 1979 seem to attribute the failure of training to promote the acquisition of schemata to the inability of the students to process information more than to their inability to master the schemata (at least at the intuitive level).…”