27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Vision III of (Scientific) Literacy, (Science) Education and Bildung, and Implications for Teachers’ Didactical Choices
Jesper Sjöström
Malmö University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Sjöström, Jesper
One point of departure in this paper is an awareness that we are living in the Anthropocene era. Based on this, education, including science education, needs to be re-visioned. Since the first use of the term by Hurd in 1958, many different definitions of scientific literacy have been put forward. One and a half decade ago Roberts (2007) suggested two visions of scientific literacy and science education. To simplify, Vision I can be described as science without society (internal view), whereas Vision II is about contextual application of scientific knowledge in life and society (external view). As a complement to the two well-spread visions by Roberts, a Vision III has been suggested (e.g. Aikenhead, 2007; Yore, 2012; Liu, 2013; Sjöström & Eilks, 2018). This paper tries to systemize what different scholars have meant with the three different visions, especially focusing on Vision III. Furthermore, the paper elaborates on different ways in how the three visions relate to each other. The three visions are also discussed in relation to curriculum theory (e.g. Deng, 2020) and different curriculum emphases, educational-philosophical frameworks, and worldview perspectives.
Recently, Valladares (2021) discussed different interpretations of scientific literacy, including Vision III. She started discussing fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy (part 2 of her paper) as well as Vision I and Vision II (part 3). After that follows a part (part 4) about Vision III; it has the heading “A Transformative Vision of Scientific Literacy”. She writes (2021, p. 565): “This new vision integrates three innovative aspects: 4.1: a fusion of the fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy (Yore, 2012); 4.2: an introduction of the notions of science engagement and participation (Liu, 2013); and 4.3: the inclusion of a political and emancipatory agenda aligned with values such as equity and social justice (Santos, 2009).” With reference to Liu (2013, p. 29), Siarova et al. (2019) describe Vision III as: ”Scientific engagement – social, cultural, political, and environmental issues”. According to Tan (2016, p. 6), Yore (2012) interprets a Vision III-scientific literate person as one who: “1) understand core ideas through scientific inquiry, 2) have fundamental scientific principles rooted by critical thinking skills and 3) participates from a scientific perspective in socioscientific issues.” Siarova et al. (2019, p. 15) regard Vision III as “the broadest interpretation of scientific literacy”. It can, according to them, be explained as: science embedded in society and societal issues; action in the form of scientific engagement in various social, cultural, political, and environmental issues and contexts; and means to prepare students to become informed, responsible and active citizens and therefore it is needed by all students.
Recently, Salinas et al. (2022, p. 9) described Vision III as: “Implies a politicized and action-based (e.g., climate change activism) knowledge aiming at promoting the development of critical thinking for dialogic emancipation and socio-eco justice. This vision emphasizes transdisciplinarity and sustainability; is oriented towards praxis and action”. This conference paper asks if this is a exhaustive description of Vision III and, if not, what needs to be added?
“Bildung” is a central concept in central European/Scandinavian educational theory. It has a long and multifaceted history of ideas including for instance humanistic values and the ideas of critical-democratic citizenship. In this paper Vision III of scientific literacy and science education, as it is presented in the international literature, is examined. Furthermore, implications of a Vision III-view on Bildung and teachers’ didactical choices are discussed.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe method used in this paper is a systematic search and review of the literature and those publications referring to key publications, mainly those contributing to conceptualization of Vision III. Based on the found literature, the questions and aims of the paper are discussed and a multifaceted view of Vision III is elaborated on.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsVision I has a structure of science- and/or a scientific skills-emphasis and Vision II an everyday life- and/or a decision making-emphasis. Finally, a reconsidered Vision III can be seen as having an ethico-socio-political- and a relational-existential-emphasis. All three visions have A and B versions. These can be described as: structure of science-emphasis (Vision IA), scientific skills-emphasis (Vision IB), everyday life-emphasis (Vision IIA), decision making-emphasis (Vision IIB), ethico-socio-political-emphasis (Vision IIIA), and relational-existential-emphasis (Vision IIIB).
There are at least three different ways in how the three visions can be seen as relating to each other: (a) parallel complementary visions, (b) leveled visions – with increased sophistication, and (c) Vision III bridges Vison I and II from critical perspectives.
The Vision III-version suggested by Sjöström and Eilks (2018) can be seen as synonymous to an eco-reflexive Bildung-orientation. It integrates cognitive and affective domains and includes philosophical-moral-existential alternatives (see also: Sjöström, 2018) as well as politicization to address complex socio-scientific issues. From such a perspective Vision III can be seen as synonymous to critical science education for sustainability.
If there is time, some examples of “didaktik models” grounded in European didactics (Ligozat, Klette & Almqvist, 2023) and a Vision III-view will be presented. How these models can support teachers in their didactical choices will also be mentioned.
The paper presentation will be finished with a suggestion of a novel and multifaceted way of viewing Vision III, that is, main elements of a reconsidered Vision III, including not only socio-eco-engagement and participation for transformation and a better world, but also for instance a deep understanding of science and its processes, wonder and appreciation of the living world, indigenous science, transdisciplinarity, intersectionality perspectives, futures thinking, and responsible science knowing-in-action.
ReferencesAikenhead, G. S. (2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. In C. Linder et al. (eds.) Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 64-71). Uppsala University.
Deng, Z. (2020). Knowledge, content, curriculum and Didaktik: beyond social realism. Routledge: London & New York.
Ligozat, F., Klette, K., & Almqvist, J. (eds.) (2023). Didactics in a changing world: European perspectives on teaching, learning and the curriculum. Cham: Springer.
Liu, X. (2013). Expanding notions of scientific literacy: a reconceptualization of aims of science education in the knowledge society. In N. Mansour & R. Wegerif (eds.), Science education for diversity – Theory and practice (pp. 23-39). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Salinas, I., Guerrero, G., Satlov, M., & Hidalgo, P. (2022). Climate change in Chile’s school science curriculum. Sustainability, 14(22), 15212.
Santos, W. L. D. (2009). Scientific literacy: a Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Science Education, 93(2), 361-382.
Siarova, H., Sternadel, D. & Szönyi, E. (2019). Research for CULT Committee – Science and Scientific Literacy as an Educational Challenge. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2019)629188 (visited September 26, 2022)
Sjöström, J. (2018). Science teacher identity and eco-transformation of science education: comparing Western modernism with Confucianism and reflexive Bildung. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(1), 147-161.
Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. In: Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, D. Baker (eds.), Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education – Learning, Teaching and Assessment (pp. 65-88). Cham: Springer.
Tan, P. (2016). Science education: defining the scientifically literate person. SFU Educational Review, 9. https://doi.org/10.21810/sfuer.v9i.307
Valladares, L. (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation. Science & Education, 30(3), 557-587.
Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all: More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research (pp. 5-23). Dordrecht: Springer.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
What We Know About Conceptual Learning in Open Inquiry Settings in Science Education
Elisabeth Hofer, Simone Abels
Leuphana University Luneburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Hofer, Elisabeth
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) has been considered an essential component of science education for several years (e.g., Abrams et al., 2008). A considerable number of studies has shown that IBL positively influences students’ attitudes towards science as well as their learning of science (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2010; Furtak et al., 2012). The skills addressed by IBL meet the requirements stated in science standards and curricula (e.g., NGSS Lead States, 2013) and foster the acquirement of scientific literacy (Roberts & Bybee, 2014). Depending on learning objectives, degree of openness, and instructional support, IBL can be implemented in a variety of forms (e.g., Abrams et al., 2008; Blanchard et al., 2010). Open inquiry settings (OIS) that give students the opportunity to pursue their own questions and design and conduct investigations in a self-determined (but scaffolded) manner seem to be particularly motivating (Jiang & McComas, 2015). Beyond that, OIS do not only foster students’ ability to apply science concepts and methods independently, but also address their diversity by allowing for individual learning paths (e.g., Abels, 2014). However, many science teachers are sceptical about the implementation of OIS, fearing that conceptual learning will be neglected (e.g., Hofer et al., 2018).
In the field of science education, conceptual learning is traditionally determined by assessing which and how many concepts students have acquired during a certain period of time or by a certain point in time, how elaborated these concepts are, and how they are related to each other (Amin et al., 2014). This perspective on conceptual learning is what Scott et al. (2007) call acquisition metaphor. According to this, conceptual learning is a process of acquiring and accumulating “basic units of knowledge [concepts] that can be accumulated, gradually refined, and combined to form ever richer cognitive structures” (Scott et al., 2007, p. 5).
In OIS, however, science concepts are not presented in an isolated way, detached from the context, but are developed by the students as part of the inquiry process. Learning in OIS is therefore rather a process of developing participation in the practices of a specific community (participation metaphor) than acquiring and accumulating concepts. Consequently, established assessment tools and methods for investigating conceptual learning are only applicable to a limited extent (Cowie, 2012) resulting in challenges concerning educational research.
Data from PISA 2015 indicate that IBL and especially OIS still rarely find their way into European science classrooms. Beyond that, there seems to be a negative correlation between the frequency of implementing rather open instructional approaches, such as OIS, and students’ level of scientific literacy (e.g., Forbes et al., 2020). To put it in a nutshell: The more often students learn in OIS, the lower their scientific literacy. These results, however, are based on students’ self-reports and do not consider any further information concerning the implementation of OIS. Other studies investigating students’ outcomes in IBL (see e.g., meta-studies by Furtak et al., 2012; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016) do either focus on procedural and epistemic skills or are limited to IBL with lower degrees of openness. Yet, there seems to be only little empirical evidence about students’ conceptual learning in open inquiry settings.
Hence, this study aims at identifying empirical studies on OIS in science education and synthesising what science education research actually knows about students’ conceptual learning in OIS. In so doing, the following research question is to be answered:
What are the findings on conceptual learning of primary and secondary science students in OIS that have been obtained from empirical studies so far?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer the research question, we conducted a systematic literature review according to the procedure suggested by Fink (2019). For this purpose, we started with a keyword-based search on ERIC database and Web of Science (WoS), as these two databases represent a full indexing system focused on education (ERIC) and the most “recognized”, high-ranking papers (WoS). To determine the keywords, we derived central terms from relevant literature, searched literature databases for synonymous terms, and discussed the list of keywords with experts in the field. Finally, the keywords were organised in three components: (1) conceptual learning, (2) IBL / OIS and (3) science education. For example, we entered the following input for the component conceptual learning into ERIC database using Boolean logic: (concept* OR content* OR subject*) AND (learn* OR develop* OR understand* OR construct* OR build*).
The keyword-based search (for titles and abstracts) resulted in a number of N = 596 records. To be considered in the further review process, papers were required to meet the following eligibility criteria (Rethlefsen et al., 2021):
• Level of science education: primary or secondary school
• Publication date: since 2003 (last 20 years)
• Publication language: English
• Publication type: only peer reviewed original research papers
• Accessibility: online accessible
By applying these criteria as filters to the databases, the number of records was limited to N = 163. To prove the content-related eligibility, the remained records were screened by title and abstract in a first step (resulting in N = 30 records) and by full-text read in a second step (resulting in N = 8 records).
The finally selected papers were then analysed in terms of study context, design and methodology (descriptive analysis) and study results and findings (qualitative analysis). As we were interested in both the WHAT and the HOW, the qualitative analysis was guided by the following questions:
• What do students learn (limited to the conceptual domain)?
• Is it possible to identify relationships between students’ conceptual learning and the way of how OIS are implemented in a particular case?
• What are the theoretical models and frameworks (regarding conceptual learning and OIS) these studies rely on?
The whole review process was documented following the reporting guidelines stated by the PRISMA group (Rethlefsen et al., 2021).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe eight studies included in the full-text analysis were conducted in six countries (three European) and were published between 2011 and 2020. Five of them were quasi-experimental studies (three with control group), two design-based studies and one case study. In the quantitative studies, conceptual learning was considered exclusively from the perspective of acquisition, whereas the qualitative studies also included aspects referring to the participation perspective (Scott et al., 2007). This was also reflected in the data collection methods – pre-post-test questionnaires vs. triangulation of diverse data material.
In general, it can be stated that OIS have a high amount of “active learning time” and positively influence students’ conceptual learning. Well-structured and scaffolded OIS were proved to result in significant gains in conceptual knowledge, being even more effective than instructional lectures. However, it was emphasised in all studies that the need for scaffolding in OIS increases with the complexity of both concepts and the learning product (e.g., portfolio, poster) – particularly for students with little prior knowledge. Introducing tiered scaffolds and providing feedback enable students to deal with new concepts and embed them in their existing conceptual knowledge, hence, contribute to increasing and stabilising learning effects. Beyond that, in-depth analyses of qualitative data showed that OIS might allow for individual learning paths whilst still creating a common knowledge base.
The results of this review study show that there is still a lack of empirical data on conceptual learning in OIS. The study findings partly agree with the PISA data, but also contradict them in several aspects. Additionally, the complexity of OIS comes with methodological challenges: loss of multilayeredness and multiperspectivity in quantitative studies vs. limited feasibility and comparability in qualitative studies. Thus, to allow profound conclusions about conceptual learning in OIS, more and methodologically diverse studies are required.
ReferencesAbels, S. (2014). Inquiry-based science education and special needs – Teachers’ reflections on an inclusive setting. Sisyphus, 2(2), 124–154.
Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Evans, C. (2008). Introduction: Inquiry in the Classroom: Identifying Necessary Components of a Useful Definition. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Classroom: Realities and Opportunities (pp. xi–xlii). IAP.
Amin, T., Smith, C., & Wiser, M. (2014). Student conceptions and conceptual change: Three overlapping phases of research. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education Volume II (pp. 71–95). Routledge.
Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.
Cowie, B. (2012). Focusing on the Classroom: Assessment for Learning. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 679–690). Springer Netherlands.
Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage.
Forbes, C., Neumann, K., & Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2020). Patterns of inquiry-based science instruction and student science achievement in PISA 2015. International Journal of Science Education, 42(5), 783–806.
Furtak, E., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
Hofer, E., Abels, S., & Lembens, A. (2018). Inquiry-based learning and secondary chemistry education—A contradiction? Research in Subject-Matter Teaching and Learning, 1, 51–65.
Jiang, F., & McComas, W. (2015). The effects of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 554–576.
Lazonder, A., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. NAP.
Rethlefsen, M., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A., Moher, D., Page, M., & Koffel, J. (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews, 10(1), 1-19.
Roberts, D., & Bybee, R. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 545–558). Routledge.
Scott, P., Asoko, H. & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. A. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 31-56). Routledge.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Out-of-school Science Teaching and Teachers' Use of Their Textbook: A Mixed-method Study Among Norwegian Secondary School Teachers
Marianne Isaksen
UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway
Presenting Author: Isaksen, Marianne
Opportunities to learn science outside the classroom form an important contribution to science education (Rennie, 2014). Arenas outside the school provide authentic contexts for teaching, which complement teaching in the classroom and in the science laboratory (Braund & Reiss, 2006). Various terms, such as field trips, outdoor education, education outside the classroom and udeskole/uteskole (Denmark/Norway) are used to address utilising nature and local environments as an educational approach. In this article, I use the term "out-of-school education", and by this I mean using physical settings outside the classroom in a learning context. Examples of such settings include museums, science centres, universities, local companies, farms and fisheries, school grounds and natural landscapes as forest and riparian habitats. This definition is in line with Frøyland and Remmen (2019), and includes arenas that are designed for educational purposes and those that are not. There are several arguments for making use of nature and local environments in school science education. Braund and Reiss (2006) highlight how out-of-school settings can improve science learning through:
1. Improved development and integration of concepts.
2. Extended and authentic practical work.
3. Access to rare material and to 'big' science.
4. Attitudes to school science: stimulating further learning.
5. Social outcomes: collaborative work and responsibility for learning. (p. 1376)
In addition, the health benefits of being physically active in nature are often highlighted when using out-of-school settings (Morag & Tal, 2012).
Making use of nature in teaching science has been central to Norwegian curriculum since 1939 (Normalplan for byfolkeskolen, 1939), and is also prevalent in today's National Curriculum (Kunnskapsløftet 2020 (LK20)) (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). In Norway, textbooks are designed in line with the official curriculum's (see Cuban, 1995) aims. Still, teachers have freedom of choice in terms of which materials or other teaching resources to use and are not obligated to use a science textbook. Hence, textbooks are not a part of the official curriculum, but are an interpretation of the official curriculum by the textbook author(s). The fact that the textbooks are designed in line with current curricula, in addition to being adapted to teaching in school and offering progression in a subject that is adapted to a secondary-level course, makes textbooks valuable for teachers (McDonald, 2016). Although teachers combine their textbook use with other teaching and learning resources, the textbook is often a first choice in planning and plays an essential role as a structuring element in teaching lessons (McDonald, 2016; Trygstad et al., 2013). Recent studies also show that textbooks are central as an idea bank for science teachers, especially for finding practical and inquiry activities for teaching (Isaksen et al., 2022).
Moving science teaching out of the classroom can be one type of practical activity. Despite the many positive aspects of using out-of-school settings in education (e.g. Braund & Reiss, 2006; Morag & Tal, 2012), it appears that using out-of-school settings is often de-prioritised; teachers experience a number of obstacles when using out-of-school settings, such as it being more time consuming than classroom teaching, more economic constraints and poor curriculum fit (Anderson et al., 2006).
This study's purpose is to contribute knowledge about the relationship between science teachers' use of and orientation towards textbooks, and the utilisation of local actors and the local environment in teaching. I ask the following research questions:
- To what extent are out-of-school settings utilised in secondary school science teaching?
- In what ways can using science textbooks be an obstacle or a driving force for utilising out-of-school settings?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper reports a mixed method study among secondary school science teachers in Norway. An 'explanatory (sequential) design' is used (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 72), where a teacher survey formed the basis for subsequent interviews with respondents. A pilot study has been carried out.
To gain an overview of trends regarding teachers' use of textbooks and out-of-school teaching in science, a digital survey was conducted in 2018 and 2020 among science teachers at secondary schools in two counties, one in south Norway and one in north Norway (N = 108 or 47% response rate). It was designed with science textbooks and practical activities as a starting point. Constructs have been developed to determine the teachers' affiliation with their textbook (Textbook orientation, six items) (Isaksen & Thorvaldsen, 2022), their use of nature (two items) and local actors (five items), as well as the extent to which the teachers perceived that their textbook stimulated using given arenas in teaching (Textbook nature, two items and Textbook local actors, four items, respectively). Response options were given on 5- and 6-point Likert scales. The reliability of the constructs were tested using the reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha (CA). The recommended CA should be between 0.7 and 0.9 (Streiner, 2003). The strength of covariation between variables is measured using Pearson's correlation coefficient r (Cohen & Holliday, 1982). Survey data has been analysed with the help of SPSS Statistics 26 for Windows.
In autumn 2020, six survey respondents were selected by quota sampling (Gobo, 2004), based on their score on the construct textbook orientation, to participate in digital interviews via Zoom or Teams. Each interview lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Two central themes discussed were out-of-school activities in science teaching and the teachers' use of and views on their textbook. The teachers were shown three examples of out-of-school activities from two different textbooks. Interview data has been coded and analysed by the author using NVivo, where a reflexive thematic analysis has been carried out (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The analysis aims for an open approach where the analysis process started with transcribing the data material and conducting inductive coding. Data material was read through several times where codes were further developed, and finally developed into some central themes that represent key aspects in the interview material.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsQuantitative findings show that teachers make little use of out-of-school settings in science teaching. The local environment is used, on average, 2-3 times per six months (mean = 2.73, SD = 0.82), while local actors are not used annually (mean = 1.32, SD = 0.39). Less use of the latter may be because schools in northern Norway (often rural schools) have limited access to science centres, museums, etc. There are no significant correlations between science teachers' orientation towards their textbook and whether they utilise settings outside school. This implies that teachers' orientation towards their textbook is not a central factor to their using out-of-school settings. Explanations of limited teaching out of school must therefore be other than the use of textbooks. Preliminary analysis of interview data supports this, as time constraints and financing costs for transport are highlighted as key obstacles to making use of out-of-school settings. These have been obstacles in other countries as well (Anderson et al., 2006).
The teachers reported that their textbook, to a small extent, encourages using local actors in teaching (Textbook local actors, mean = 1.70, SD = 1.00, scale 1–6), and to a somewhat greater extent, to use the local environment in teaching (Textbook nature, mean = 2.82, SD = 1.18, scale 1–6). In the interviews, this is explained by that textbooks have few suggestions for activities outside of school and should have a greater focus on out-of-school education if it is to have a stimulating impact on teaching.
Science textbooks are a central resource for teachers, especially for inspiring practical activities (Isaksen et al., 2022). They can be a tool with the potential to inspire science teachers to use out-of-school settings. It is therefore important that textbooks contain a selection of suggestions for activities outside of school.
ReferencesAnderson, D., Kisiel, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding Teachers' Perspectives on Field Trips: Discovering Common Ground in Three Countries. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(3), 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00229.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International journal of science education, 28(12), 1373-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419
Cohen, L., & Holliday, M. (1982). Statistics for Social Scientists. Harper & Row.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE.
Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into practice, 34(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543651
Frøyland, M., & Remmen, K. B. (2019). Utvidet klasserom i naturfag. Universitetsforlaget.
Gobo, G. (2004). Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. SAGE Publications, Limited.
Isaksen, M., & Thorvaldsen, S. (2022). Hva stimulerer utforskende undervisning i naturfag? Et studium av rollen for læreboken i noen norske ungdomsskoler. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18(3), 337 - 352. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.9350
Isaksen, M., Ødegaard, M., & Utsi, T. A. (2022). The science textbook - an aid or obstacle for inquiry-based science teaching? [Manuscrips submitted for publication]. Department of Education, UiT The Arctic University of Norway
McDonald, C. V. (2016). Evaluating Junior Secondary Science Textbook Usage in Australian Schools. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 481-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9468-8
Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Læreplan i naturfag [Natural science subject curriculum] (NAT01 04). Laid down as regulations. National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion in Primary and Secondary Education and Training (LK20). https://www.udir.no/lk20/nat01-04?lang=nob
Morag, O., & Tal, T. (2012). Assessing Learning in the Outdoors with the Field Trip in Natural Environments (FiNE) Framework. International journal of science education, 34(5), 745-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.599046
Normalplan for byfolkeskolen. (1939). https://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/a772fcd5e1bbbfb3dcb3b7e43d6ccc60?lang=no#113
Rennie, L. J. (2014). Learning Science Outside of School. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 120-144). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267-15
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. J Pers Assess, 80(1), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
Trygstad, P. J., Smith, S. P., Banilower, E. R., & Nelson, M. M. (2013). The Status of Elementary Science Education: Are We Ready for the Next Generation Science Standards? Horizon Research, Inc. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED548249.pdf
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Development of the Skill of Interpreting Data and Applying Scientific Evidence in Adolescents Aged 15-16 Using the PBL Method
Inna Axyonova1, Irina Issayeva2
1Branch "Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Physics and Mathematics of the city of Taraz" AEO "NIS"; 2Municipal state institution "Secondary school 2 of Arshaly settlement of the education department in the Arshaly district of the education department of the Akmola region"
Presenting Author: Axyonova, Inna;
Issayeva, Irina
National and international standards of science education require the transformation of modern approaches and teaching methods. Researchers of the Autonomous Organization of Education "Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools" (2022) determined that only 53% of students aged 15-16 can complete assignments in the field of scientific interpretation of evidence data, requiring developed skills in interpreting data and applying scientific evidence, reasoning based on scientific data and theories.
Following the basic principles of equal rights for all to receive quality education and access to education (Law on Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan) and the fourth goal in the field of sustainable development to ensure quality education (United Nations), the authors of the study focused on data on the level of development of skills in interpreting data in adolescents 15-16 years old from urban and rural areas.
Most teenagers aged 15-16 in Kazakhstan study in mainstream schools with standardized curricula, 50% of which live in rural areas (UNICEF, 2020). However, there are schools in the country where education is carried out according to their own programs, for example, the network of the Autonomous Organization of Education "NIS". Despite significant differences in learning conditions, as the results of PISA show (Irsaliyeva S.A., 2020), all students in Kazakhstan have difficulties in completing tasks that require the skill of analyzing and interpreting data.
In 2022, for the first time, the authors used an evaluation sheet in the form of an experiment protocol, which made it possible to determine that 75% of the students of the NIS FMN in Taraz and 25% of the students of the secondary school in the village of Arshaly are able to manage the evidence of the experiment, which is 50% on average. 70% of NIS students and 35% of Arshaly village are able to create explanations in the form of discussion of results, planning ways to improve the experiment and formulating conclusions, which is 52.5% on average.
An analysis of educational programs used in public schools and NIS showed that the amount of practical work required for data interpretation and quantitative analysis increases from grade to grade: from 6% in grade 8 to 40% in grade 10. Accordingly, the success of learning and mastering the educational goals of the educational program depend on the level of development of skills in interpreting data and applying scientific evidence in adolescents aged 15-16. In addition, the analysis of interviews with students showed that most of them do not understand the practical application of the knowledge and skills acquired in the course of laboratory work at school. The authors also noticed that the results of achieving learning goals in practical work are much higher if students work in a team. All this contributed to the choice of teaching method, which should be focused on the connection of students' research activities with real life, creating conditions for data collection and interpretation, teamwork. All these requirements are met by the method of problem-based learning (PBL), which is confirmed by the results of research by Conway, J. and Little, P. (2000).
Thus, the research question was formulated: to what extent the method of problem-based learning (PBL) can contribute to the development of data interpretation skills and the application of scientific evidence in adolescents 15-16 years old. The main goal of our study is to develop the skills of interpreting data and applying scientific evidence before and after using the PBL method in the lessons of chemistry, biology and physics among students of 15-16 years old of the NIS FMN in Taraz and secondary school No. 2 in the village of Arshaly.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study was conducted on the basis of the Branch "Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Physics and Mathematics of the city of Taraz" AEO "NIS" and Municipal state institution "Secondary school 2 of Arshaly settlement of the education department in the Arshaly district of the education department of the Akmola region from 2022 to 2023. As research tools, we used an evaluation sheet in the form of an experiment protocol, which allows you to determine the level of development of research skills: setting research projects (the skill of formulating a research question, the skill of formulating a hypothesis), research planning (defining variables, the skill of experiment planning), evidence management (distribution variables, correct presentation of data), creating explanations (discussing the results, planning ways to improve the experiment, formulating conclusions), evaluation procedure (discussing the hypothesis, assessing the reliability of the results, planning the next stage of the study). The protocol completed by students is evaluated on the following scale: 0 points - difficult, 1 point - performs with errors, 2 points - coped.
To establish the effectiveness of the use of the PBL method in the lessons of chemistry, physics and biology, a “Lesson Observation Sheet” was developed.
To analyze the reasons causing difficulties in the process of interpreting the research data, a conversation was conducted with the students, which was recorded on video.
The study involved 90 students aged 15-16 studying in Russian. The study was conducted at the lessons of chemistry, biology and physics by two teachers - the authors of this study.
The study was conducted in strict accordance with all ethical principles and standards. Students took part in the study voluntarily and could end their participation at any time. The school administration gave its consent to conduct the study. The names of the study participants are not disclosed and are confidential.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs a result of the two-year use of the method of problem-based learning in the lessons of chemistry, physics and biology in the NIS FMN in Taraz and the secondary school No. 2 in the village of Arshaly, significant results were achieved. The level of ability to manage the evidence of the experiment in students of the NIS FMN in Taraz increased by 15% (from 75 to 90%) and by 10% in students of the general education school in the village of Arshaly (from 25 to 35%). The skill of creating explanations in the form of discussing the results, planning ways to improve the experiment and formulating conclusions among NIS students increased by 15% (from 70 to 95%) and by 15% (from 35 to 50%) among students from the Arshaly village.
The results indicate the possibility of developing this skill in students using the method of problem-based learning (PBL), regardless of the place of residence and the level of complexity of the educational program.
This is because the structure of the PBL method focuses on solving the learning problem. The problem presented to students allows them to see the connection between learning and life and motivates students to find a solution. In the process of developing an understanding of the problem, students develop the skills of analyzing facts, generating ideas and planning their research activities. The development of skills in the interpretation of data and the application of scientific evidence, argumentation based on scientific data and theories occurs at the stage of solving a problem through research, data analysis and processing of results.
Thus, the study demonstrates for the first time the effectiveness of using the method of problem-based learning in the classroom when conducting practical and laboratory work.
ReferencesReport on the results of the Monitoring "Science Literacy" (2022) TUSFGU AEO "NIS"
Agenda for sustainable development. Official website of the UN https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ru/
Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Education (with amendments and additions as of 01/12/2023), Article 3. Principles of state policy in the field of education.
Analytical report "The results of Kazakhstan in international studies of the quality of education: a study of the reasons for the backlog." - Center for Analysis and Strategy "Beles", ed. Irsalieva S.A., 2020. - 308 p.
Statistical collection "Children of Kazakhstan" Children of Kazakhstan: Statistical collection. Astana 2017. Statistics Committee of the Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
Conway, J. and Little, P. (2000) “From Practice to Theory: Reconceptualising Curriculum Development for Problem-based Learning,” in Problem-based Learning: Educational Innovations across Disciplines. Selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-based Learning, Singapore.
Davydov, V. (1996) Developmental Learning Theory / Ros. acad. Education, Psychological Institute, Intern. Association "Developing Education" - M.: INTOR.
Vygotsky L. (1935) Mental development of children. M.; L.: GIZ.
Vygotsky L. (2005) Psychology of human development. - M.: EKSMO.
Brown, A.L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakaguwa, K., Gordon, A., and Campione, J.C. (1993). Dissemination of knowledge in the classroom. In G. Saloman (Ed.), Distributed Cognition: Psychological and Educational Considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Barrett Terry (2013) Learning about the problem in problem-based learning (PBL) by listening to students’ talk in tutorials: a critical discourse analysis study, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37:4, 519-535.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore (2019) Inventing ourselves the secret life of the teenage brain. Black Swan.
Wells, S., Warelow, P., & Jackson, K. (2009). Problem based learning (PBL): A conundrum. Contemporary Nurse, 33(2), 191-201.
Yehle, Karen S. and Plake, Kimberly, "Self-Efficacy and Educational Interventions in Heart Failure: A review of the Literature" (2010). School of Nursing Faculty Publications. Paper 19.
Zimmerman Barry J. (2002) Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 41. 64-70.
|
