Teaching science using hands on, storytelling and thinking process[1].

– Experience is Worth a Thousand Pictures

Teaching science using hands-on storytelling and thinking process.

Over the last 15 years, I have been developing science programs and using
those programs working in different frameworks, including gifted programs. The
programs, developed together with my father, Dr. Rami Kallir, emphasize hands-on
science, use stories and specialized thinking tools called the theory of constraints
(TOC). I hear all the time from my students that the way they study science in my
class does not resemble the way they study at school. When I ask them to tell about
the difference, the answer I get is that “your science lessons are much more fun!”
When I ask if they think they study this way more, they are very definite that
experiments and stories are the best way to study. One student told me that “you
cannot not comprehend something that way” (("‫."אתה לא יכול שלא לקלוט ככה משהו‬
My typical science lesson starts with storytelling. For example, in a lesson on
specific weight I tell about Archimedes who looked for a way to identity the king
crown’s metal ingredients. The second part is based on inquiry and experiments,
performed by each one of the pupils. The experiment can explain something in the
story, lead to solution or present a concept. The thinking tools are integrated into both
parts. The story contains a conflict or continuous events and requires inventive
thinking. The experiments are presented in a way that we can change a parameter and
learn more from the consequences. The explanation use cause-effect logic.
The goal of this review is to determine whether my understanding of science
teaching, developed through practical experience, is supported by research
scholarship. I deal with each of the factors that make up our approach – TOC,
storytelling, experimentation – separately, summarizing the relevant literature and
discussing it in the context of our own work.

The Theory Of Constraints (TOC) thinking tools
Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a management philosophy developed by Dr.
Eliyahu M. Goldratt. The TOC management problem solving tools are used by
thousands of companies and government organizations and are taught in hundreds of
colleges, universities and business schools (Kim et al.; 2008). TOC takes a
progressive approach to improve a system (Goldratt, 1990). The TOC method for
brining desired improvements is developed through the answers to three questions: 1)
what to change, 2) what to change to, 3) how to cause the change?
In 1995, Dr. Goldratt established a non profit foundation called TOC for
Education. He modified the original generic tools into three specific thinking tools -
the Cloud, the Branch and the Ambitious target tree, and applied them in the field of
education worldwide. At the moment, millions of children in over 17 countries are
applying these generic tools.
The cloud analyses the details of a conflict, meaningful action or decision in a
concise and non provocative way. It is a diagram with five statements that describe
the “wants”, the “needs” and the “common objective”. The cloud is appropriate for
dealing with tough personal decisions, interpersonal conflict or negotiation.
The Branch is used to understand cause-effect links between actions and
consequences, make predictions, and create new and better solutions.
The Ambitious Target Tree (ATT) supports the need to describe how to make the
change happen and based on simple, "if-then" links.

All rights reserved to Dr. Rami Kallir Ltd ©
Tel 972-4-6380422, Fax: 972-4-6380374, Kallir@netvision.net.il


The major applications for the TOC thinking tools are behavior performing and
contents teaching. Practical examples can be seen in the official website of TOC for
Education organization at: http://www.tocforeducation.com/caseteach.html

Little research has been done into the effectiveness of the TOC thinking tools in
education. Kim et al. (2008) provide a review of TOC developments as reported in the
public domain. According to this review, a total of 114 papers have been published
between 1994 and early 2006. Among them there are three that deal with education
and none of these addresses the teaching of science.
Hatcher & Yen (2005) introduces the application of TOC tools in E-learning.
They claim that E-learning method requires that instructors and students adapt a new
way of communicating and interacting. The false sense of freedom may lead to
degraded education and non-essential learning. They provide some examples for
using the TOC tools in and conclude that “TOC offers critical thinking and visual
communication tools in identification of the critical constraints. Instructors as well as
students benefit from TOC in the design and planning of E-learning courses,
including conflict resolution”.
In the years 2000-2001 35,000 teachers in Malaysia were trained through
curriculum development centers, and 650,000 students learned curriculum through
TOC. The TOC has been introduced in all primary and secondary schools throughout
the different subject matter.
Balakrishnan (2007) demonstrate the use of TOC in teaching moral education
in Malaysia. The article detailed the benefits of using the three tools, for students and
teachers. The conclusion is that “The application of TOC in Moral Education enables
students to identify the key ideas or moral dilemmas within a lesson or text. They are
able to sequence what they have learned into a logical order for improved
understanding... They can resolve their moral dilemmas and know how to predict the
consequences of their own actions and therefore be able to control their own negative
behavior. All these enable them to be moral students in the future.”
Since there is no literature on the effectiveness of the TOC thinking tools in
science teaching, I did not find the written proof I was looking for. Yet, both articles
indicate that TOC is beneficial.

Storytelling in science class
Storytelling has long been used in the classroom. In fact, during almost all the
history of Humankind, knowledge on all subjects has been passed on by storytelling.
Aristotle and his peers used the spoken word to teach all that they knew and thus
science was being developed and passed along.
A narrative or story, in its broadest sense, is anything told or recounted; more
narrowly, and more usually, something told or recounted in the form of a causally-
linked set of events or connected series of happenings, whether true or fictitious.
Green (2004) adds that "stories are a structure for organizing and transmitting
information, and for creating meaning in our lives and environments. A story requires
raising unanswered questions or unresolved conflicts; characters may encounter and
then resolve a crisis or crises".
Papadimitriou (2003) argues that “Stories are in a certain intrinsic sense interesting, in
that they are attractive, high-priority memory fodder. Everything else being equal, we
are much more likely to remember a story than a logical argument.”



Stories can create interest in students. This idea has been substantiated by
trials at the University of Buffalo, where attendance in science classes has been
boosted from 50–65 % to 95 % by the use of stories and case studies in teaching
(Goldbaum, 2000). The same study concluded that, as a result of the story approach,
students who had appeared tired and disinterested during lectures were suddenly
animated and involved.
Kelleher (2006) in her thesis describes Storytelling Alice, a programming
environment that gives middle school girls a positive first experience with computer
programming. Participants who used Storytelling Alice and Generic Alice were
equally successful at learning basic programming concepts. However, users of
Storytelling Alice show more evidence of engagement with programming.
Storytelling Alice users spent 42% more time programming and were more than three
times as likely to sneak extra time to continue working on their programs.
Relevance of the material to student's lives is often cited as an important
motivational factor in teaching. Campbell (1998) suggests that pupils can be
encouraged to view physics as relevant to their lives, rather than as a mere collection
of facts, by teaching with stories culled from the media. Goldbaum (2000) adds that
stories get pupils involved in science, not as spectators but as participants
Although I have never used quantitive measures of achievement to assess my
work, research shows that stories can improve students' achievement. Casey et al
(2008) investigated the effects of a storytelling-context for teaching geometry skills to
kindergarten kids compared two types of spatial interventions: one with a story
context and one without. The findings showed that storytelling-contexts were more
effective than de-contextualized formats for learning geometry across both near- and
far-transfer tasks.
Although many science teachers make use of anecdotes and stories in their
lessons, storytelling is not a formally accepted teaching skill. However, Cooper et al.
(1983) provides some formal basis. They analyzed the complex teaching behaviors of
a distinguished professor at a large university, reputed to be a gifted instructor. His
teaching was investigated to determine specifically how he accomplished his teaching
goals. A major finding was that the instructor incorporated a storytelling technique to
impart information and to involve students.
Stories provide a structure for remembering. Because stories provide natural
connections between events and concepts, mentioning one part of the story may help
evoke the other parts of the story. Weber (1993) has shown that stories are easily
incorporated into the memory as chains of events, and thus storytelling may help
children to link cause and effect; hence, illustrating a scientific concept in the form of
a story improves pupils’ science learning.
My practical experience shows that when I say “once upon a time” I get full
attention of the class and students tend to relate scientific concepts to the relevant
story. The literature’s findings give consistent evidence on the successful use of
storytelling in class and strengthen my claim.

Hands-on science
A major element in my classes is the hands-on science. I believe that “If one
picture equals a thousand words, then one experience equals a thousand pictures”.
This concept is combined in our programs with a constructivist teaching method that
enables every student to conduct the experiment by himself.



Research on the effectiveness of activity-based science programs is extensive and
there have been many measures of its effect on student performance.
Rissing & Cogan (2008) measured the performance of college biology
students. They compared an inquiry-based, hands-on laboratory exercise with a
standard exercise. The result showed that student performance increased significantly
after completion of the inquiry exercise, and did not increase after completion of the
control, standard exercise.
Stohr-Hunt (1996) examines the relationship between frequency of hands-on
experiences and standardized science achievement scores. The research studies a
sample of 24,599 eighth-grade students. A cognitive test battery was used to measure
student achievement. Results from a self administered teacher questionnaire provided
information regarding the frequency of hands-on experience. Teachers were asked
“How often do students conduct science experiments in class?’ To ensure that
teachers did not confuse student hands-on experience with teacher experience,
teachers were also asked “How often do you demonstrate a science experiment in
class?’ Students who experienced hands-on activities frequently had significantly ( p
< .OOl) higher scores of science achievement than those students who experienced
hands-on science infrequently.
Roberts & Wassersug (2009) evaluated the effect of early exposure to original
scientific research on producing career scientists. They examined a hands-on summer
science research program for high school students and compared participants in that
program with science students that only began their hands-on research experience
once in university. The data indicated that students who participated in original
scientific research while in high school were significantly more likely (p<.005) to
both enter and maintain a career in science compared to students whose first research
experience didn’t occur until university. Their conclusion was that more hands-on
high school science research programs could help increase the number of students
entering and maintaining scientific careers.
Yet, Roberts & Wassersug also argue that: "… it is patently absurd to believe
that an infant could understand a null hypothesis or what it would mean to design and
execute a controlled experiment. Starting in science young could inspire children to a
career in the field. However, starting in science too young might lead students to
reject science as a career because of the monotony of the methodology or the tedium
of its execution".
The literature’s findings give evidence on the effectiveness of activity-based
science. The conclusions of Stohr-Hunt (1996) strongly support my approach.
I disagree with Roberts & Wassersug (2009) stand regard starting in science young.
I believe that using the right methods can prevent this monotony in every age.

Conclusion
It is generally accepted that in order to teach effectively, a wide range of
methods can be used. This approach comes from the belief that traditional teaching
methods do not help students understand scientific concepts or transfer the principles
learned in the classroom to other situations.
Each aspect of our pedagogical approach – TOC, story telling, and active learning,
provides, on its own, an enriched learning experience. Research supports my own
practical experience: storytelling and hands-on experience improve science learning.



Although initial studies indicate that TOC is also beneficial, there is not enough
research on this question to conclude that TOC really is helpful.
But, in my experience, the strength of our method is not that in the individual
methods but in the synergy. The storytelling is a stimulus for experiments; the
experiments lead to solution or present a concept in the story. The TOC tools, a
powerful thinking tool in themselves, naturally support hands-on experiments and
storytelling.
Hypothesis
A: Using the combination of the three factors (hands-on learning, storytelling and
TOC thinking tools) to teach can increase children’s performance on assessment tests
compared with standard or cookbook formats.
B: Using the combination of the three factors (hands-on learning, storytelling and
TOC thinking tools) to teach is better than using them serially.

Research Questions
To examine whether children learn science better when they study through inquiry
and storytelling approach:
• Do they remember the material longer?
• Do they improve their achievements in science?
• Are they more able to transfer knowledge or ways of thinking and apply them
in different contexts?
• Are they more motivated to learning?
• Do they improve their ability to analyze problems and solve them?



REFERENCES
Balakrishnan V, The Use of Theory of Constraints (TOC) in Teaching of Moral Education: Malaysia, Conference
.Presentation, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, 2007

Campbell, P. (1998) Using stories to enrich the physics curriculum. Physics Education, 33(6), 356–359.

Casey B, Erkut S, Ceder I, Mercer Young J, Use of a storytelling context to improve girls' and boys' geometry
skills in kindergarten, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 29 No.1 p29-48 Jan-Feb 2008.

Cooper C, Orban D, Henry R, Townsend J, Teaching and storytelling: An ethnographic study of the instructional
process in the college classroom, Instructional Science, Vol.12, No. 2, July 1983.

Goldbaum, E. (2000) Grant to advance case study approach. University of Buffalo Reporter, 31(21), 1.

Goldratt, E.M. (1990), What is This Thing Called Theory of Constraints and How Should it be
Implemented?, North River Press, New York, NY.

Green M, Storytelling in Teaching, Observer, vol. 17, No. 4, April 2004.

Hatcher M, Yen M, Using theory of constraints in E-Learning for overcoming internal, external, cultural, and
international constraints, Journal of the academy of Business and Economics, March 2005.

Kelleher C, Motivating programming: using storytelling to make computer programming attractive to middle
school girls, Carnegie Mellon University, 2006.

Kim S, Mabin VJ, Davies J, The theory of constraints thinking processes: retrospect and prospect, international
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume 28, Issue 2, 2008

Papadimitriou, Christos H., MythematiCS: In Praise of Storytelling in the Teaching of Computer Science and
Math, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Volume 35, Issue 3, Sept. 2003.

Rissing SW, Cogan JG, Can an Inquiry Approach Improve College Student Learning in a Teaching Laboratory?
The Ohio State University, Columbus, 2008

Roberts L, Wassersug R, Does Doing Scientific Research in High School Correlate with Students Staying in
Science? A Half-Century Retrospective Study, Research in Science Education, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 251-256, March
2009.

Stohr-Hunt PM, An Analysis of Frequency of Hands-on Experience and Science Achievement, Journal of
research in science teaching Vol. 33, No. 1, PP. 101-109, 1996.

Weber, S. (1993) The narrative anecdote in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(1), 71–82.


Teaching science using hands on, storytelling and thinking process[1].

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Teaching science using hands on, storytelling and thinking process[1]. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Teaching science using hands on, storytelling and thinking process[1].