Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 8, Issue 2, Article 11 (Dec., 2007)
Yuan LING & Hong Kwen BOO
Concept mapping and pupils’ learning in primary science in Singapore

Previous Contents Next
Background and introduction

The current method of teaching science in primary schools is often didactic and does not engage pupils' prior knowledge actively (Toh, Ho, Chew & Riley, 2003). It is not surprising that pupils learn science concepts by rote (Songer & Linn, 1991). Instead of understanding the science concepts, pupils tend to view science as pieces of information and do not see the big picture of a unit of learning. As a result, new concepts are not assimilated into the long-term memory of the pupils (Novak, 1993) and there is often a lack of understanding of concepts and principles.

As most of these new concepts learnt soon become irretrievable from long-term memory and even if recalled, the learner utilize the knowledge in new contexts, as in novel problem solving. This inability to transfer knowledge is considered as situated learning.

The trend of science questions in recent Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) requires more application than recollection of knowledge. (Sample PSLE past year questions). Questions no longer test on direct regurgitation of facts. Questions now require pupils to apply and synthesise concepts to offer solutions to problems. Pupils cannot cope with these demands to answer such PSLE science questions confidently. These observations suggest that local primary pupils may not fully understand the science concepts they are supposed to have learnt, much less to be able to link and apply the learnt concepts.

The Singapore primary science syllabus, though thematically and spirally taught to the pupils over four years, is often characterized by lack of coherence. For example, according to the syllabus, the pupils are taught the topic of materials in primary three followed by that on matter in primary four, without the association that materials learnt in primary three can be subsumed under matter. There is anecdotal evidence that many primary four pupils learn aspects of matter as isolated elements of knowledge instead of well structured and integrated domain-specific knowledge structures, as in relating matter to materials. Such pupils do not appear to possess a well-founded basic framework in which newly acquired concepts can be integrated. This lack of integration is suspected to be at the root of pupils' difficulties concerning concept formation and application of acquired knowledge.

Even with the encouraged inclusion of concept mapping as a teaching method in primary science, as documented in the guide to teaching and learning of primary science (CPDD, MOE, 2004) due to its widespread usage in overseas and foreign studies, most instructions in primary science currently still tend to focus on mastery of scientific words and terms, with the usual sequence of instruction “being assign, recite, test and discuss test.” Science instruction remains decidedly didactic. The fact that most science textbooks do not reveal to teachers how to deeply explore content concepts has resulted in no or weak inclusion of concept mapping in science classroom teaching. Even if concept mapping has been used in some primary science classrooms, there has yet to be any systematic research done to gauge its effectiveness in enhancing learning and performance.

In the context of organized systems of education, the impact of time on children's learning is extremely important because the progressive structuring of knowledge and understanding is gradual. For teaching and learning to be successful, we expect learners to acquire not only new knowledge in sufficient depth, but also to retain this knowledge for a long period of time after instruction. There are two reasons for this. First, this concept durability is needed to equip future citizens with the skills and knowledge accumulated over their school lives for use in real-life settings. Second, further learning is to be based on existing prior conceptions of the learner (Bjork, 1996).

 

Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 2, Article 11 (Dec., 2007). All Rights Reserved.