Problem Supermarket and Thinking Toolkit: Constructing the “Self-Directed Inquiry Cycle” Model in Singapore Primary Science Lessons

Dr. Siti Binte Abdullah  [Singapore]

Abstract

The core of Singapore's ‘less teaching, more learning’ educational philosophy lies in cultivating pupils' autonomous learning abilities, which is particularly crucial in primary science education. However, a practical dilemma arises: when teachers reduce direct instruction, pupils often fall into the trap of ‘not knowing where to begin’ or ‘inquiry becoming merely a formality’. To address this challenge, this study developed and implemented an innovative teaching model termed the ‘Autonomous Inquiry Cycle’. This model is underpinned by two core metaphors – the ‘Question Supermarket’ and the ‘Thinking Toolkit’ – systematically transferring classroom agency to pupils while providing essential cognitive scaffolding. The ‘Question Supermarket’ functions as a dynamic repository of student-generated questions, where all genuine, phenomenon-inspired queries about the natural world are valued and ‘shelved’ for inquiry selection. The ‘Thinking Toolkit’ comprises a visual, card-based set of cognitive strategy guides covering the entire scientific inquiry process—from ‘Variable Control Cards’ to ‘Data Pattern Magnifying Glasses’—guiding pupils to think like scientists. Within a complete cycle, pupils select questions from the ‘Supermarket,’ self-direct their inquiry using the ‘Toolkit,’ and ultimately feed newly generated questions back into the ‘Supermarket.’ Through a year-long action research study in primary school science lessons spanning Years 3 to 5, this paper demonstrates that the model significantly enhances the quality of students' inquiry-worthy questions, deepens their understanding and application of scientific process skills, and effectively cultivates their metacognitive abilities and learning autonomy. The model provides a concrete, actionable classroom framework for implementing the ‘less teaching, more learning’ philosophy, reshaping the roles and relationships between teachers and students in science lessons.

Keywords: Less teaching, more learning; autonomous inquiry; scientific process skills; thinking scaffolding; metacognition; Singaporean science education; formative assessment

Introduction

Background: The Practical Gap Between ‘Less Teaching, More Learning’ and ‘Mutual Growth Through Learning and Teaching’ Since the Singapore Ministry of Education proposed the ‘less teaching, more learning’ philosophy, its objective—cultivating students into autonomous, enthusiastic, lifelong learners—has become an educational consensus. In primary science education, this signifies a paradigm shift from ‘knowledge transmission’ to ‘scientific inquiry.’ However, frontline teachers face tangible challenges: how to utilise classroom time effectively after reducing lecturing? Student inquiry often remains at the level of hands-on ‘activism,’ lacking depth in scientific thinking; pupils either fail to formulate questions of investigative value or pose queries too broad to resolve within the classroom. Consequently, ‘less teaching’ may devolve into ‘letting go,’ paradoxically diminishing learning quality. Thus, the critical challenge lies in building a bridge between “teaching” and ‘learning’—enabling students to engage in purposeful, deep, and reflective independent inquiry with reduced direct instruction.

Theoretical Foundations: Metacognitive Scaffolding and Autonomy Support

This model is rooted in ‘scaffolding theory’ and ‘self-determination theory.’ Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theory posits that effective learning occurs with assistance from competent others or tools. Traditional science inquiry teaching often lacks such systematic support. The design of the “Thinking Toolkit” explicitly externalises implicit scientific thinking processes—such as controlling variables, identifying patterns, and constructing arguments—into concrete, visual, actionable step-by-step guidance, thereby constructing scaffolding for students' journey towards independent inquiry. Concurrently, Self-Determination Theory emphasises that autonomy, competence, and relatedness constitute the three core psychological needs for intrinsic motivation. The “Problem Supermarket” empowers students by granting them autonomy to investigate genuinely intriguing questions; the “Thinking Toolkit” fosters competence, equipping them with the confidence and capability to complete their inquiry; while group collaboration and whole-class sharing satisfy the need for relatedness. This model systematically addresses these needs, thereby transforming external requirements into internal motivation.

Research Objectives and Innovation

This study aims to develop and validate the feasibility and effectiveness of the ‘Autonomous Inquiry Cycle’ model. Specific objectives are:

1. Structural Development: Establish concrete operational procedures and tangible resources for the ‘Question Supermarket’ and ‘Thinking Toolkit’.

2. Competency Enhancement: Evaluate the model's impact on improving students' questioning skills, scientific process competencies, and metacognitive abilities.

3. Cultural Transformation: Investigate how the model facilitates a shift in classroom culture from teacher-centred to learner-centred communities.

The innovation of this research lies in: Firstly, proposing the ‘Question Supermarket’ mechanism, elevating “questioning” from a random classroom occurrence to a core driving resource and organisational principle of the curriculum; Secondly, developing a systematic ‘Thinking Toolkit’ that integrates disparate inquiry skills into a ‘cognitive toolbox’ readily accessible to students; Third, it constructs a complete ‘inquiry cycle,’ transforming autonomous learning into a sustainable, iterative system rather than an isolated activity.

Construction of the Innovative ‘Autonomous Inquiry Cycle’ Model

Core Philosophy and Model Overview

The core of the ‘Autonomous Inquiry Cycle’ model is to reconstruct the science classroom as a dynamic learning ecosystem driven by student questions, supported by thinking tools, and continuously generating new questions. Teachers no longer serve as the sole source of knowledge but rather as ‘supermarket managers’ (curating and enriching question resources), “toolmakers” (designing and refining cognitive tools), and ‘inquiry coaches’ at pivotal moments. Students become ‘inquisitive customers’ and ‘focused researchers’.

Establishing and Operating the ‘Question Supermarket’

· Stocking the ‘shelves’: Prior to, during, and after any new unit, students are encouraged to pose any topic-related questions. Questions are recorded on standardised ‘Question Cards’, with space reserved for noting the ‘Questioner’, “Date”, and subsequent ‘Investigation Status’ (Pending/In Progress/Resolved/Sparked New Questions). All cards are displayed on the classroom's ‘Question Supermarket’ wall, organised by theme (e.g., ‘Plant Kingdom’, ‘Force and Motion’).

· Categorisation and Optimisation of “Items”: Regularly organise students to sort questions within the “market”. Guide pupils to use colour-coded labels to distinguish question types: investigable (solvable through classroom experiments/observations, e.g. “Which paper bridge bears the greatest weight?”), research-based (requiring reference materials, e.g. “What is the tallest plant in the world?”), and philosophical (open to discussion, e.g. “Do plants feel pain?”). For ambiguous or overly broad questions, teachers guide students to refine them into more specific, actionable research questions (e.g., transforming ‘How can we make bean sprouts grow faster?’ into ‘Does light exposure duration affect bean sprout height?’).

· ‘Selection’ mechanism: During dedicated ‘Independent Inquiry Sessions’ or unit project time, student groups (3-4 members) collaboratively choose one question from the ‘Exploration Zone’ of the ‘Supermarket’ that most interests them as their research topic. This process itself constitutes vital learning—assessing a question's value, feasibility, and appeal.

Design and Use of the ‘Thinking Toolkit’

The ‘Thinking Toolkit’ comprises a set of A5 laminated cards stored in each group's classroom ‘toolbox’. Each card addresses a specific scientific thinking step, featuring concise prompts, questions, or graphic templates. Core cards include:

1. ‘My Question’ Card: Guides groups to formulate their chosen question clearly, e.g., ‘We wish to investigate the effect of...’ or ‘We aim to compare the differences between and in terms of ______’.

2. ‘Variable Detective’ Card: Lists three columns: What to change? (independent variable), What to observe/measure? (dependent variable), What to keep constant? (control variable). Assists pupils in designing fair experiments.

3. ‘Experiment Design Diagram’ Card: Provides a simple flowchart framework for pupils to outline steps, required materials, and schematic diagrams using text and images.

4. ‘Data Recording Sheet’ card:​ Offers several blank templates and graph outlines for students to select or trace as needed.

5. ‘Pattern Magnifier’ card:​ Poses a series of questions to guide data analysis: ‘What trend do the data show? (Increasing/Decreasing/Unchanged)’, ‘Are there any outlier data points?’, ‘Is your data sufficient to support conclusions?’.

6. ‘Scientific Argumentation’ Card:​ Provides sentence stems: ‘Our evidence is that this supports/does not support our prediction because. We therefore conclude that. This raises new questions:’.

7. ‘Peer Feedback’ Card:​ Offers a ‘Stars and Steps’ feedback framework: identify one strength (star) and suggest one specific improvement (step).

Four-stage process of the ‘Independent Inquiry Cycle’

Stage One: Initiation and Planning (1-2 lessons)

· Groups select a question from the ‘Question Supermarket’.

· Collect ‘My Question’ cards and ‘Variable Detective’ cards to clarify research questions and variables.

· Use ‘Experiment Design Diagram’ cards and ‘Data Recording Sheet’ cards to plan the inquiry protocol.

· Present a brief plan to the teacher to obtain ‘Toolkit Usage Authorisation’.

Stage Two: Implementation and Recording (2-3 lessons)

· Groups conduct hands-on investigations according to their plan, recording data in real-time.

· Teachers circulate, refraining from direct guidance on answers. Instead, they ask: ‘Which card did you use? Which one do you plan to use next? Have you encountered issues not covered by the cards?’ Encourage students to independently utilise the toolkit for problem-solving.

Stage Three: Analysis and Argumentation (1–2 lessons)

• Use the ‘Pattern Magnifier’ card to analyse data and identify patterns.

• Employ the ‘Scientific Argumentation’ card to organise evidence, form preliminary conclusions, and reflect on emerging questions.

• Prepare presentation materials (posters, brief reports, etc.).

Stage Four: Sharing, Feedback and ‘Restocking’ (1 lesson)

• Groups share their inquiry process and findings with the whole class, emphasising how the ‘toolkit’ was used to solve problems.

• Audience members provide structured feedback using the ‘Peer Feedback’ cards.

• Groups ‘restock’ the ‘Question Supermarket’ with new questions arising from this inquiry (written on new question cards), completing a cycle. Transfer previously researched question cards to the ‘Resolved’ section, accompanied by brief conclusions.

Teaching Practice and Effectiveness Analysis

Research Context and Methodology This action research spanned one academic year across six science classes (approximately 180 pupils) in Years 3, 4, and 5 at a typical primary school in Singapore. A predominantly qualitative research approach was employed, with data comprising: pre- and post-test analyses of student question quality; records of ‘toolkit’ usage and inquiry reports from each group's successive cycles; classroom video analysis (focusing on teacher-student dialogue and peer interactions); teacher reflection logs; and student interviews.

Core Findings

1. Leap in Question Quality: From ‘What is it?’ to ‘What if...?’ At the outset, student questions were predominantly factual (‘Do snails have teeth?’). By the end of the academic year, the proportion of questions in the ‘Question Supermarket’ that were inquiry-based and involved variable relationships rose from under 20% to over 65%. For example: ‘If we alter the soil's pH level, would it affect the flowering time of morning glories?’ This indicates students began viewing the world through a scientific, testable lens.

2. Deepening the inquiry process from ‘hands-on’ to ‘mind-on’. Following the introduction of ‘Variable Detective’ cards, the rigour of students' experimental designs markedly improved. They proactively discussed: ‘When comparing two fertilisers, we must keep watering, sunlight, and seeds identical!’ ‘This data point seems odd—did we measure incorrectly? Shall we retest?’ The toolkit externalises implicit scientific thinking, rendering thought processes manageable, discussable, and improvable.

3. Significant enhancement in metacognition and learning autonomy. Students progressively internalised the toolkit's questions. Senior pupils remarked in interviews: ‘Now, even without the cards, I automatically run through the “Variable Detective” questions in my mind during experiments.’ They transitioned from ‘reliance on teacher instructions’ to ‘reliance on thinking tools,’ ultimately progressing towards ‘internalised thinking habits.’ They gained greater clarity in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their own learning processes.

4. Successful transformation of the teacher's role and shift in classroom culture.

Teachers evolved from ‘sages at the lectern’ to ‘guides at the side.’ Classroom discourse shifted towards students, filling the space with scientific language such as ‘Based on our data...’ and 'Our evidence indicates...“. The classroom becomes a marketplace and workshop of ideas, with the responsibility for learning squarely placed upon the students” shoulders.

Discussion and Reflection

Key to Success: The Delicate Balance of Structure and Autonomy

The success of this model lies in its avoidance of a binary choice between “teacher control” and “student abandonment”. Instead, it forges a third path: supporting autonomy through structured tools. The ‘Problem Supermarket’ and ‘Thinking Toolkit’ provide clear ‘rules of engagement’ and ‘equipment.’ Within these boundaries, students enjoy considerable freedom and initiative. This approach avoids both the chaos and superficiality of laissez-faire, and the dependency and rigidity of excessive control.

Challenges and Responses: Differentiation and the Time Constraint

·Student Ability Variation: Different groups exhibit varying proficiency with the toolkit. The solution permits differentiated pacing and establishes a ‘Toolkit Expert’ role, where quicker learners assist peers. The toolkit itself is tiered: foundational cards are mandatory, while advanced cards (e.g., ‘Error Analysis Cards’) are optional.

·Time Pressure: A complete inquiry cycle consumes more time than traditional lectures. Our countermeasures are:

1. Embed the model as the core framework of science lessons, interwoven with traditional unit teaching;

2. Emphasise that ‘slow is fast’ – the value of deep inquiry into one problem far exceeds skimming multiple experiments;

3. Integrate some planning and recording tasks into regular lesson time.

· Toolkit ‘de-tooling’: The ultimate goal is for students to internalise the thinking and no longer rely on physical cards. Teachers must consciously encourage students, after a period, to ‘attempt certain steps without cards, thinking through them mentally,’ gradually dismantling the scaffolding.

Deepening Contributions to Singapore's ‘Less Teaching, More Learning’ Philosophy

The ‘Autonomous Inquiry Cycle’ model provides a micro-level, highly operational answer for ‘Less Teaching, More Learning.’ It clarifies how “learning” occurs after ‘less teaching’ and how ‘more learning’ is achieved. It demonstrates that, with appropriate cognitive scaffolding, primary pupils possess the capacity for high-level independent inquiry. This represents not only an innovation in science education but also a pedagogical approach whose core principles – problem-driven learning and tool-supported inquiry – can be transferred to mathematics, humanities, and other disciplines. It provides robust methodological support for cultivating the profile advocated by Singapore's Ministry of Education: ‘confident individuals, independent learners, active contributors, and patriotic citizens’.

Conclusion

The “Independent Inquiry Cycle” model, underpinned by the “Problem Supermarket” and “Thinking Toolkit”, has successfully translated Singapore's “less teaching, more learning” philosophy into a vibrant, orderly, and efficient classroom reality. It has created an autonomous learning ecosystem fuelled by student questions and driven by scientific thinking. Within this system, pupils not only acquire scientific knowledge but also master meta-skills – the ability to question, reason, and solve problems like scientists. Teachers, in turn, evolve from mere content conveyors into architects of a culture of thinking and designers of learning environments. This model reshapes the ecology of science classrooms, transforming learning into a genuine journey of discovery guided by curiosity and safeguarded by reason. Its value and significance will increasingly manifest as students carry these thinking habits into their future studies and lives.

References

[1]. Singapore Ministry of Education. (2020). Science Syllabus Primary. Curriculum Planning and Development Division.

[2]. Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2018). The teaching of science in primary schools (7th ed.). Routledge.

[3]. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.

[4]. Barell, J. (2003). Developing more curious minds. ASCD.

[5]. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.

[6]. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

[7]. Tan, A. L., & Wong, H. M. (2010). “Didn’t get expected answer, rectify it.”: Teaching science content in an elementary science classroom using hands-on activities. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 213-229.

[8].National Research Council (U.S.). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.