‘Question Drift Bottle’: A Practical Study on Cultivating Inquiry-Based Dialogue in Primary Science Lessons

Tan Wei Jie  [Singapore]

Abstract

Traditional dialogue patterns in primary science classrooms are often teacher-dominated, with pupils responding passively, thereby limiting the development of deep scientific thinking. To address this, this study designed the ‘Question Drift Bottle’ teaching strategy, aiming to restore classroom discourse authority to pupils, transforming them from ‘respondents’ into “questioners” and ‘problem solvers’. Taking the Year 4 unit ‘States of Matter’ as a case study, this research constructed a novel classroom dialogue structure driven by authentic student questions through four stages: ‘Anonymous Questioning – Group Drifting – Collaborative Inquiry – Argumentation and Defence’. Practice demonstrated that this strategy effectively enhances the quality of students' scientific questioning, fosters evidence-based argumentation skills, and cultivates a scientific inquiry culture characterised by courageous questioning and collaborative research. It provides an actionable pathway for implementing core scientific literacy.

Keywords: scientific inquiry; classroom dialogue; question-driven; argumentation skills; learning community

Introduction

The Singapore Science Curriculum emphasises that science is not merely a body of knowledge but a mode of inquiry, prioritising the development of students' abilities to pose questions, conduct investigations, and communicate evidence-based findings. However, in actual teaching practice, students' questions are often overlooked or treated merely as decorative elements in lesson introductions, hindering the emergence of deep, sustained inquiry-based dialogue. Classroom dialogue predominantly follows a triangular structure of ‘teacher initiates – student responds – teacher evaluates,’ resulting in underdeveloped critical questioning and argumentation skills among pupils. Drawing upon sociocultural theory, which posits that knowledge is constructed through social interaction with dialogue as its core medium, transforming classroom dialogue structures is pivotal to deepening scientific learning. Drawing upon the concept of the ‘community of inquiry,’ this study innovatively introduces the ‘question drift bottle’ mechanism. By anonymising and task-orienting student questions, it seeks to establish a novel classroom model centred on student-initiated queries and peer-to-peer dialogue, exploring its efficacy in stimulating scientific thinking and cultivating scientific communication skills.

I. Teaching Case Design: The ‘Three States of Matter’ as an Example

1. Participants: 32 Year 4 Express Stream pupils from a Singaporean primary school, possessing foundational observation and recording skills.

2. Content: Science (Year 4) – ‘States of Matter’ unit, focusing on melting, solidification, evaporation, and condensation phenomena.

3. Preparations:

Materials: Ice cubes, table salt, thermometers, beakers, damp cloths, electronic balances, experiment record sheets.

Teaching aids: ‘Question Drift Bottle’ (a physical box), ‘Question Cards’ and ‘Response Cards’.

4. Teaching sequence (two lessons, 70 minutes):

Phase One: Experimental observation and anonymous questioning (20 minutes). Students conduct two guided experiments in groups: ‘Cooling of ice-salt mixtures’ and ‘Evaporation of moisture from damp cloths’. After recording observations, the teacher refrains from summarising. Instead, each student anonymously writes their most perplexing or intriguing question from the experiment on a ‘Question Card’ and places it in the ‘Drift Bottle’. Examples include: ‘Why does ice cool when salt is added?’ or ‘Where does the water “disappear” to?’. This phase fosters a safe environment encouraging any questions, whether seemingly naive or profound.

Phase Two: Question Drifting and Group Adoption (10 minutes). The teacher randomly selects and reads aloud 5–7 question cards. After discussion, each group adopts one question they most wish to investigate. The rule is: groups cannot adopt a question posed by one of their own members (ensuring genuine ‘drifting’). Groups must transcribe their adopted question at the top of their ‘Response Card’, making it their core research task for the next 20 minutes.

Phase Three: Collaborative Inquiry and Preliminary Argumentation (25 minutes). Groups conduct research on their adopted question. They may: ① Reproduce or design simple experiments for verification (e.g., testing varying salt quantities); ② Consult textbooks and teacher-provided resource cards; ③ Engage in group reasoning and debate. The objective is to formulate a preliminary ‘group explanation’ and record it on the Response Card. The explanation must include: 1) Our hypothesis; 2) Our designed (or referenced) verification method and observed results; 3) Our conclusion/explanation. The teacher circulates, participating as a ‘high-level learner’ in discussions. Through probing questions (e.g., ‘Is your evidence sufficiently robust?’ ‘How did you rule out other possibilities?’), they guide students towards deeper thinking.

Phase Four: Class Presentation and Consensus Building (15 minutes). Each group sends a representative to the front to present their question and explanation. The original questioner (who may remain anonymous) holds the ‘first right of inquiry,’ able to challenge, probe, or express agreement. Other groups may supplement, refute, or propose alternative solutions. For instance, regarding ‘Where did the water go?’, debates might arise between ‘It evaporated into the air’ and ‘It was absorbed by the cloth.’ The teacher guides all parties to present evidence, introducing scientific terminology (e.g., evaporation, water vapour) as appropriate, but the focus remains on the reasoning process rather than hastily providing a ‘standard answer’. Ultimately, teachers and students collectively synthesise the discussions to form a class-wide consensus understanding.

II. Analysis and Reflection on Teaching Outcomes

1. Analysis of Outcomes:

Significant improvement in question depth: The anonymity mechanism alleviated students' inhibitions about posing questions. Questions evolved from ‘What is evaporation?’ (memorisation-based) to ‘Why does the damp cloth dry faster under the fan?’ (causality-based) and ‘If we place the damp cloth in a sealed bag, will it still dry?’ (predictive and experimental design), demonstrating higher-order thinking.

Preliminary Development of Argumentation Skills: When responding to peers' questions, students spontaneously adopted the role of ‘scientists’. To explain ‘rock salt cooling,’ one group proactively designed a controlled experiment (ice alone vs. ice-salt mixture) and attempted to support their view with quantitative data (thermometer readings), demonstrating nascent empirical awareness.

Positive Transformation of Classroom Culture: The classroom evolved from teacher-dominated monologue to an exchange of ideas. Phrases like ‘I disagree...’ and ‘Our evidence is...’ became frequent dialogue patterns. One typically introverted student gained a strong sense of recognition and participation when their unique question sparked lively peer discussion.

2. Reflections and Challenges:

Teacher Role Transformation: Educators must evolve from ‘knowledge disseminators’ into dialogue ‘designers,’ inquiry ‘facilitators,’ and thinking ‘catalysts.’ This demands heightened subject expertise and classroom management skills.

Time Management: Inquiry-based dialogue possesses generative and unpredictable qualities, necessitating a balance between pre-planning and emergent processes to ensure core learning objectives are met.

3. Evaluation Innovation: A corresponding formative assessment system must be established, focusing on the quality of students' questions, the logic of their arguments, and their collaborative contributions—not merely the correctness of final conclusions.

Conclusion: By structurally granting students both the “right to question” and the “responsibility to answer”, the “Question Drift Bottle” strategy successfully transforms science classrooms from terminals of knowledge transmission into origins of inquiry and arenas for intellectual exchange. It renders Singapore's educational ethos of “science as inquiry” not merely a slogan, but a tangible, actionable classroom practice. This model demonstrates unique value in cultivating students' curiosity, critical thinking, and scientific communication skills, providing frontline science teachers with an effective tool for integrating core competencies into daily instruction. Future practice may further explore integrating “drifting” questions with long-term project-based learning, and leveraging information technology platforms to expand the scope and depth of the “drift”.

References

[1]. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through student questioning: A case study in science classrooms. Journal of Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284.

[2]. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and engagement among fourth-grade students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.

[3].Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

[4].Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2014). Science Curriculum (Primary). Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.

[5]. Zhang, Jianwei, & Sun, Yanqing. (2005). Constructive learning: An integrated exploration of learning science. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.

[6]. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Scientific discourse: Language, learning, and value. Newark, NJ: Ablex Publishing.