27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Fostering Scientific Literacy in Physics Experimenting with an Accessible Online Learning Environment
Martina Graichen, Silke Mikelskis-Seifert
University of Education Freiburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Graichen, Martina
Scientific literacy is one prerequisite for social participation in science education and can be fostered through adaptive learning environments with students conducting scientific experiments independently. To be effective, experimental environments need to be designed in a way to abolish physical, cognitive, linguistic, social, or other barriers to ensure access and participation for all students. The demand for accessibility is oriented towards adequate experimental instructions. We refer to the science for all framework (Stinken-Rösner et al., 2020) and a recently developed instrument to measure accessibility of experimental instructions on three dimensions (action, visibility, language) (Graichen et al., in preparation). Additionally, it is crucial for science learning environments not to foster stereotypes (Brotman & Moore, 2008; Hoffmann, 2002). Against the background that girls and boys have different self-concepts in the natural sciences and thus develop different interests (Brotman & Moore, 2008; OECD, 2016). Gender differences play an important role in the way how girls and boys perceive learning environments. Generally, in science girls have a lower self-concept of ability (Hoffmann, 2002).
Hence, we developed a digital learning environment about magnetism for grades 5 to 6 including accessibility and stereotype-free aspects. Largely, it was designed in comic style, hence by learning through storytelling(Kromka & Goodboy, 2019; Laçin-Şimşek, 2019). Moreover, comics can foster motivation and enhance learning processes (Jee & Anggoro, 2012). The text-picture combination accommodates for the students’ visual thinking abilities, especially for example for pupils with autism spectrum disorders (Schirmer, 2019). Moreover, a suitable text-image combination reduces the cognitive load and further load-reducing aspects can be included, like segmentation, signaling, individualizing, or accommodating pupils’ spatial imagination (Mayer, 2010). To enhance scientific literacy, the developed environment is well-structured, includes videos and two hands-on experiments.
Aim of the present study was to gain insights of the newly developed adaptive learning environment in medium-track secondary schools in Germany. Our research interest was to inquire how students perceive the accessibility and motivating quality of the learning environment with its comic-based storytelling and hands-on experiments. Moreover, we wanted to find out if there were gender-related differences regarding accessibility, interest and competency with comics, cognitive load, and knowledge.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOverall, 71 students (33 female = 46,5%) of three classes participated. In average they were 11.9 (SD = 2,57) years of age and went to grade 5 (n = 23, 32,4%) and grade 6 (n = 46, 64,8%).
On an iPad, the pupils worked themselves through the learning environment which consisted of an introductory comic concerning basics about magnetism and the historical development on the topic Then the pupils conducted two experiments during which they tested objects for magnetism. During experiment 1 pupils tested materials like screws, metal plates, or test tubes, during experiment 2 they tested Euro-coins. Hence, the experiments are conductible with simple, non-dangerous materials and are viable independently at school, homework at home or for distance learning. After the experimental part, pupils received concluding information and were able to print of a summary sheet including each pupils’ own answers given throughout the learning environment. Overall, the pupils worked about 30-45 minutes on the online learning environment.
After the learning environment the pupils answered questions as a follow-up task (self-evaluation), and a week later responded to a knowledge-test (delayed performance test: 7 items, Cronbach α = .58) on the topics covered within the learning environment. The self-evaluation test included items about the comic (comic interest: three items, Cronbach α = .89 and experienced competence: three items, Cronbach α = .79), cognitive load (seven items, Cronbach α = .79), perceived accessibility within three dimensions (action: eight items, Cronbach α = .90, visibility: four items, Cronbach α = .68, language: three items, Cronbach α = .73; Graichen et al., in preparation) for both experiments. Moreover, the pupils answered questions about themselves (e.g., age, gender, …).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary analyses showed significant differences between boys and girls regarding comic interest and comic competence, and their perception of accessibility (dimension: language) in experiment 1, favoring girls. However, we found no gender differences regarding cognitive load, all other accessibility scales, and results of a delayed performance test. It can be regarded as positive, that girls found comic-style instructions more motivating than boys, as this could show one possibility to foster girls’ motivation on science topics.
ANOVAs with repeated measures (experiment 1 vs. 2), one for each accessibility dimension (action, visibility, language), and gender as between-factor revealed significant effects for the repetition-factor. This indicates that experiment 2 was perceived more accessible than experiment 1. This could be either due to training effects, because of the repeated experimental process (Greene, 2008; Wiggins et al., 2021), or due to the Euro-coins of experiment 2 being more familiar to the pupils. However, the descriptive values indicate a high accessibility of both experiments.
These results of the present study highlight that magnetism as a topic of science can effectively be support by accessible online learning environments and can be communicated in a motivating way, especially to girls. Online learning environments are thus an accessible tool to introduce basic concepts of scientific literary in a way that pupils can conduct experiments independently.
ReferencesBrotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241
Graichen, M., Oettle, M., Mikelskis-Seifert, S., Rollet, W., & Scharenberg, K. (in preparation). Evaluating the Accessibility of Experimental Instructions in Inclusive Science Classrooms – Developing and Validating a Measurement Instrument.
Greene, R. L. (2008). Repetition and Spacing Effects. In J. H. Byrne (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference. Cognitive Psychology of Memory. (1st ed, Vol. 2, pp. 65–78). Elsevier.
Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00010-X
Jee, B. D., & Anggoro, F. K. (2012). Comic Cognition: Exploring the Potential Cognitive Impacts of Science Comics. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.11.2.196
Kromka, S. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2019). Classroom storytelling: Using instructor narratives to increase student recall, affect, and attention. Communication Education, 68(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1529330
Laçin-Şimşek, C. (2019). What Can Stories on History of Science Give to Students? Thoughts of Science Teachers Candidates. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1217a
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (Ed.). (2016). PISA 2015 results. OECD.
Schirmer, B. (2019). Nur dabei zu sein reicht nicht: Lernen im inklusiven schulischen Setting [Just being there is not enough: learning in an inclusive school setting] (V. Bernard-Opitz, Ed.; 1. Auflage). Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
Stinken-Rösner, L., Rott, L., Hundertmark, S., Baumann, T., Menthe, J., Hoffmann, T., Nehring, A., & Abels, S. (2020). Thinking Inclusive Science Education from two Perspectives: Inclusive Pedagogy and Science Education. RISTAL, 3, 30. https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1831
Wiggins, B. L., Sefi-Cyr, H., Lily, L. S., & Dahlberg, C. L. (2021). Repetition Is Important to Students and Their Understanding during Laboratory Courses That Include Research. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(2), e00158-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00158-21
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Mastering Online Searches: How students Find Science Information
Anna Lodén, Johanna Lönngren, Christina Ottander
Umeå University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Lodén, Anna
Introduction and background
Young people spend a large part of their time in digital environments, for example searching for information using search engines. Search engines have also been used in to facilitate fact-finding in school teaching but learning to use search engines to increase one's understanding has received less attention (Haider & Sundin, 2019). Easy access to information online can also affect our ability to remember information and Kang (2022) has shown that many people are more likely to remember how to access information online (e.g., remembering keywords used in a search engine) than detailed content they retrieved through online searches. Different types of online search activities present different challenges to the searcher: simple searches, so-called lookup searches, can be successful without high levels of subject expertise, but more extensive searches may require more formalized approaches employing subject-specific concepts (Marchionini, 2006). Unfortunately, many policy documents and teaching practices have been slow to adapt to the rapidly changing internet landscape (McGrew, 2020).
In Sweden, just under half of all school students do not know how to use keywords for online searches or the information provided under links displayed in search results (OECD, 2021). These findings are worrying since we know that certain online search practices can lead to selective exposure where users only encounter information that aligns with their beliefs (Flaxman. 2016, Sunstein, 2009), leading to filter bubbles (Pariser, 2011) or echo chambers (Gescheke, 2019). Research has also shown that many secondary school students have insufficient knowledge about algorithms, filter bubbles and echo chambers and their effects on search results (Otrel-Cass & Fasching, 2021).
Didactic research has further shown that subject knowledge plays an important role in online information retrieval (Nygren, 2019). For example, to be able to assimilate scientific subject content, one needs to be able to read, write and talk about the content (Lemke, 1998). To demonstrate an understanding of a scientific concept, one also needs to be able to describe the concept in one’s own words, find a metaphor for it, or translate it into a mental or physical model (Kampourakis, 2018, Konicek-Moran, 2015). In the Swedish school context, educational policy documents for the natural sciences do not mandate teachers to work with online search strategies (The Swedish National Agency for Education2011), but researchers have argued that school teaching should develop students’ abilities to search (Haider & Sundin, 2022), communicate and produce information online, as well as students' critical awareness of, for example, how algorithms work, selective exposure, filter bubbles, and the ways in which conspiration theories spread online (Haider & Sundin, 2016, Otrel-Cass & Fasching, 2021, Sundin, Lewandowski & Haider, 2022).
Acknowledging the importance of teaching online search strategies in all school subjects, this study focused specifically on natural science education, where digital competencies in general have received less attention than in the social sciences. The aim of the study was to explore what upper secondary school students' search strategies looked like, how students and teachers reasoned about students’ search strategies, and how search strategies could be linked to scientific subject knowledge.
The following research questions were addressed:
1. What do secondary school students' search strategies look like when they search for scientific information online?
2. How do the students reason about subject-specific search strategies?
3. How do pedagogues reason about students’ search strategies?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
To generate data for this study, the first author collaborated with a science teacher and an educator in information technology (we will refer to this constellation of teacher-researchers as “pedagogues”). Together, they developed an intervention on online search strategies, based on their own experiences of science teaching and their previous insights into students' search strategies. For example, the pedagogues discussed situations during which students demonstrated low persistence in online searches and how this lack in persistence has led students to prioritizing simple and superficial information in search results. They also discussed how the intervention could be directly connected to the Swedish natural science curriculum. The resulting intervention was then carried out in two classes over a period of seven weeks, again in collaboration between the three pedagogues.
The following data types were collected: (1) video recordings of pairs of students searching for information online during a collaborative online search exercise focusing on specific science concepts (protein synthesis, body-building, resilience, biodiversity); filming the students from behind made it possible to record both what the students did (i.e., what happened on the screen) and their verbal reflections on their search processes; (2) students’ written reflections collected during a teacher-led lesson about online search strategies linked to scientific content, and (3) written notes and audio-recordings from discussions between the pedagogues as they were planning the intervention. The intervention and data collection were carried out in two natural science classrooms in different upper secondary school programs (one vocational program and one higher education preparatory program) in Sweden. Altogether, 30 students provided informed consent and participated in the study.
All data was analysed using abductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, Kvale, 2014). The aim of the analysis was to identify prominent themes in students’ and pedagogues’ reasoning about search strategies in science.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary Result and Discussion
The preliminary results indicate that students used different strategies to search for scientific information online. In our first analysis, we identified three themes focusing on (1) search processes, (2) science content, and (3) students’ reactions to search results. The first theme related to students’ search processes. We could observe many messy and unsystematic processes and how some students seemed to have difficulties keeping track of their what they were doing. Other students, however, were able to navigate more easily by keeping tabs with results from previous searches open in their browsers, which allowed them to revisit specific pages several times. We could also see how students often returned to familiar, easily understandable pages. The second theme was about ways in which students discussed science concepts during their searches. Overall, most students expressed a belief that scientific knowledge is necessary for conducting more precise online searches. They also suggested that using several similar concepts ¬or synonymous concepts – may help. The third theme focused on students' reactions to search results, where many students did not persist for a long time if they struggled to find results they are satisfied with. Rather, they often chose the first option that appeared on their screens, leading to rather superficial information retrieval.
These preliminary findings support the need to improve teaching to develop students’ search strategies in general and in science education in particular. Our analysis is still ongoing, and during the conference we will also present the findings based on data from the in-class lesson on search strategies (research question 2) and findings about educators' experiences of students' search strategies (research question 3). We will also present conclusions regarding how teachers can help students develop the abilities and attitudes they need to manage the ever-increasing amounts of science-related information online through effective search strategies.
ReferencesReferences
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psycology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., Rao, J. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298-320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006
Geschke, D., Lorenz, J., Holtz, P. (2019). The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework fort he emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 129-149. doi:10.1111/bjso.12286
Haider, J., Sundin, O. (2016). Algoritmer i samhället. Regeringskansliet
Haider, J., Sundin, O. (2019). Invisible Search and Online Search Engines: The Ubiquity of Search in Everyday Life. doi:10.4324/9780429448546
Haider, J., Sundin, O. (2022). Paradoxes of media and information literacy: The Crises of Information. doi:10.4324/9781003163237
Kampourakis, K. (2018). On the Meaning of Concepts in Science Education. Science & Education, 27,591–592. doi:10.1007/s11191-018-0004-x
Kang, E. (2022). Easily accessible but easily forgettable: How ease of access to information online affects cognitive miserliness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Doi:10.1037/xap0000412
Konicek-Moran, R. a. (2015). Teaching for Conceptual Understanding in Science. National science teachers association. Virginia
Kvale, S., Brinkman, S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. Reading Scinece.
Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 41-46.
McGrew, S. (2020). Leraning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning. Computers & Education. 145. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711
Nygren, T. (2019). Fakta, fejk, fiktion, källkritik, ämnesdidaktik, digital kompetens. Stockholm
OECD (2021), 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en.
Otrel-Cass, K., & Fasching, M. (2021). Postdigital Truths: Educational Reflections on Fake News and Digital Identities. Postdigital Humans: Transitions, Transformations and Transcendence (pp. 89-108). Savin-Baden
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.
Schwarts, D. L., Tsang, J., & Blair, K. P. (2016). The ABCs of how we learn: 26 scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them. London
Sundin, O. Lewandowski, D., Haider, J. (2022). Whose relevance? Web search engines as multisided relevance machines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(5), 637-642
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. New Jersey
The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Science Student Teachers’ Assignments for Special Education Needs Students
Kari Sormunen, Anu Hartikainen-Ahia
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Presenting Author: Sormunen, Kari
Science learning is the right of every child and young person. This right is particularly emphasised today, with school education in almost all European countries being inclusive. Students who participate in science education may have different Special Education Needs (SEN; cf. Villanueva, Taylor, Therrien & Hand 2012).
In science education, students may find it difficult to understand the relationship between theoretical and conceptual knowledge or between practical knowledge and the processes of producing knowledge. The students may also experience difficulties in writing, written and spoken language used in science. The mathematical and numerical presentations are characteristic in science, and they can cause problems for some students. Academic performance is also influenced, for example, by the limitations of working memory, socio-emotional challenges, or mental symptoms (Authors 2021). We must remember that there are Highly Able Students (HAS, cf. Ireland, Bowles, Brindle & Nikakis 2020) in science classrooms who need teachers’ attention, too. It is also important to identify the need for supporting students who come from different social, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds. Challenges can then relate, for example, to differences in world views, a new study language or cultural backgrounds (Authors 2021).
The learning of pupils in need of support in science has been studied relatively little and the changes required by an inclusive school have not been adequately considered in the teaching of science in teacher education. This has become increasingly necessary in Europe and worldwide as teaching of SEN students in inclusive science classroom settings has become more preliminary in many educational contexts (cf. Kang & Martin 2018).
Science education has been considered to be beneficial for improving functioning in specific disability areas (Taylor & Villenueva 2017). For instance, inquiry-based science education is considered suiting very well for the diversity of learners: “Science taps into a different way of thinking and exploring — an excellent way for students who may struggle with other academic subjects to experience success” (Melber 2004).
One solution to adjust the various needs of diverse science learners is differentiated instruction. This kind of instruction means changes in content, product, and process: taking into account “how students respond to information presented, and the choice of particular methods, strategies, or approaches to teach content/skills” (Tobin & Tippet 2014). Intentional differentiated instruction for SEN or diverse students has mostly seemed to take place in reading, writing and mathematics classrooms and is seldom applied, for instance, to science (cf. Pablico, Diack & Lawson 2017).
The need for differentiated science instruction has led us to include the topic in science teacher education. We have implemented a course of 3 ECTS on inclusive practices in science education in which one task for student teacher teams of 3-4 participants was to differentiate one textbook and one inquiry-based assignment to SEN students in two different ways. At an earlier phase of the course, the student teachers familiarised themselves with the following special needs: dyslexia, spatial learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and problems with executive functions. Our research question in this study is: What kinds of assignments did the science student teachers design for SEN students?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe context of our study consists of a course (3 ECTS) belonging to Subject Teachers Pedagogical Studies (60 ECTS) at University of Eastern Finland. There were altogether 28 Master Level science student teachers (SSTs) of whom 26 students gave permission for using their products in this study. The target group were formed into ten teams of 2-3 students: students in five teams (altogether 13 students) were majoring in biology or geography and five teams majoring in chemistry or physics (13). All of them had experiences from at least one teaching practice period at University Training School.
There were five meetings of 2-3 hours (totally 12 hours) and around 50 hours for independent teamwork. During the course, the SST teams got acquainted with the concept of inclusion by pondering the diversity of students there are in general science classes and what kinds of demands it is causing for science teaching at lower and upper secondary schools. Then they familiarised themselves with the following special needs: dyslexia, spatial learning disabilities, ADHD, and problems with executive functions. Each team also interviewed two teachers, preferably a science teacher and a special teacher on the inclusive practices in their schools. Furthermore, there was an online lecture given by a special education researcher who spoke about equity in education and the basis of inclusion in Finnish schools. She emphasised the meaning of instructional planning for implementing teaching in inclusive classes.
In the final part of the course, the SST teams were given a task to differentiate one textbook and one inquiry-based assignment to SEN students in two different ways; the original assignments were chosen for the most used science textbooks by each team. The teams created altogether 40 variated assignments, of which 20 were textbook-like and 20 instructions for inquiries. The teams were asked to describe what kind of special needs were the assignments differentiated for and how they had modified the original ones.
Based on the inductive content analysis, we first read through all the differentiated assignments with the modification descriptions. Then looked for the different ways to modify the assignments and categorised them. Finally, we compared the modifications to the needs of diverse learners.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn the descriptions of ten SST teams, it was found that 7 of the textbook-like assignments (TLAs) were differentiated for the students with executive function problems, 5 for supporting students with dyslexia, and 3 for spatial learning disabilities. Furthermore, 5 TLAs were differentiated for HAS, to whom was not paid attention during the course instruction. Within inquiry instructions (IIs) there were 7 modified instructions for supporting the students with executive function problems, 6 instructions differentiated for HAS, 4 for the support with dyslexia, 3 for spatial learning disability support, and 2 for the students with ADHD. One chemistry/physics team described that the same modification suits well for both students with executive function problems and ADHD, and another, biology/geography team wrote that the same differentiated instruction supports the students with dyslexia and problems with executive functions.
The differentiation means within TLAs were classified into the following categories regarding SEN: visualisation, clarification, text resolution, segmentation, closed questions, and ICT-support. For HAS, the differentiation categories: more (applied) tasks, more advanced context, and supporting free time interest in science. The categories for supporting SEN in the ILLs: text resolution, clarifying learning environments, more closed inquiry instructions, precise steps for inquiry, oral instructions, visualisation, use of videos, safety precautions, and personal support. For HAS, the teams differentiated the IIs to be more open in their nature.
Our results show that the SSTs took into their account various special education needs in differentiating both TLAs and IIs in many ways. They deliberately paid attention to HAS needs, too, showing that there is a need to extend curricular differentiation for gifted students in science classrooms (Ireland et al. 2020). Some teams recognised that the same modification of assignments may support different kinds of SEN, giving an important message of the usefulness of curricular differentiation for all students.
ReferencesAuthors. (2021).
Ireland, C., Bowles, T. V., Brindle, K. A., & Nikakis, S. (2020). Curriculum differentiation’s capacity to extend gifted students in secondary mixed-ability science classes. Talent, 10, 40-61
.
Kang, D. Y., & Martin, S. (2018). Improving learning opportunities for special education needs (SEN) students by engaging pre-service science teachers in an informal experiential learning course. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38, 319-347.
Pablico, J., Diack, M. & Lawson, A. (2017). Differentiated Instruction in the High School Science Classroom: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16, 30-54.
Melber, L. (2004). Inquiry for everyone: Authentic science experiences for students with special needs. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1, Article 4.
Taylor, J. C. & Villenueva, M., G. (2017). Research in Science Education for Students with Special Education Needs. In M. Tejero Hughes & E. Talbott (Eds.) The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Education, (pp. 231-252). London: Wiley.
Tobin, R. & Tippet, C., D. (2014). Possibilities and Potential Barriers: Learning to Plan for Differentiated Instruction in Elementary Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 423-443.
Villanueva, M.G., Taylor, J., Therrien, W. & Hand, B. (2012). Science education for students with special needs. Studies in Science Education,48, 187–215.
|
