Teaching/Studying/Learning Natural Sciences
Oleg Popov Umea University – Sweden
Introductory remarks
<< didactics of science / teaching/studying/learning process / science education >> In English speaking countries, European “continental” meaning of “didactics of natural sciences” (naturvetenskaplig didaktik, in Swedish) corresponds best to an area of knowledge commonly designated as “science education”. Taking into consideration that this electronic textbook is written in English I will generally use this latter expression. The terms “science” and “natural sciences” will be also used as synonyms. I begin by giving a general presentation of the field of science education. Science education as an academic subject and field of research gained recognition in Scandinavian countries as well as in many other European countries in the middle of the 1980s (Gil-Pérez, 1996, Ekstig, 2000). This discipline deals with: justification of natural science as a school subject, the selection of content, sequencing of its presentation, and methods of teaching.
Science education research focuses on teaching/studying/learning and socialisation processes taking place during the study of science and the factors influencing these processes. In the Anglo-American tradition, science education research is very much concentrated on explaining teaching and learning from psychological, sociological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives. This has offered important insights into how students develop scientific concepts and what is going on in science classroom. Another important aspect of science education research concerns provision of concrete recommendations for improving teachability and learnability of science content. The latter was traditionally the focus of German, Russian, French and Scandinavian research in didactics of science. In English language publications, this area of didactical design of teaching/learning situations for specific content can currently be found under the heading “pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)”. The concept of PCK can be described as a synthesis of subject content, pedagogy and context knowledge. It was introduced by Lee Shulman in 1986. Research on PCK is a new and influential trend in Anglo-American science education, especially at secondary and tertiary educational levels. Discussions in this text will be mainly about teaching/studying/leaning science in schools, but nowadays didactics of science has also become an area of interest within university science faculties. In the first section, I will raise the issue of the status of studying science that is currently discussed among science educators and echoed in the broader public debate.
1
Teaching/studying/learning natural sciences in crisis?
<< school science / methods / teaching/studying/learning process / science education >> School science is expected to provide students with the knowledge and tools to make sense of the natural world. This is to help them to act in a meaningful way in real world situations. In science classes, students acquire such basic skills as collecting data, making critical judgement, organising, and presenting information that is very important in modern society. Therefore science education both in the content of included topics and in the methods it teaches, is especially well adapted to train future citizens. However, many European countries are concerned that students find science to be a difficult and unattractive subject at school - especially at secondary level. Riess (2000) summarises the results of some recent survey studies in Germany as follows: “Science (except biology) and mathematics are the most unpopular subjects in German schools, where physics is disliked most. The rejection by girls and young women is particularly high.” The issue of facing “a crisis in science education” is often discussed in professional educational journals and conferences. During the past two decades a visible trend indicates a decrease in the number of young people anticipating future professional careers connected to physical science and technology. In Denmark, for example, the number of new students in science and mathematics at university has decreased by 29% between 1991 and 1995. Scientists and politicians have expressed concern about the decreasing level of scientific literacy of school graduates. For example, project documents of a joint CERN/ESA/ESO program “Physics on stage” indicate that a lack of scientific (in particular, physics) literacy is a widespread problem among European citizens (POS, www). There are several factors that may have lead to this situation. For example, the media might be blamed for informing public opinion that science and technology are environmentally unfriendly. In societies with a high environmental consciousness, such attitudes can hinder student motivation and interest in studying and working within the science fields. Heroes of today for many young people are environmental militants rather than scientist. Results of an international comparative study (“Science and Scientists” – SAS) conducted by the Norwegian researcher Svein Sjöberg (www) show that many European children living in science saturated high-tech societies often have quite negative associations and images of science and scientists. Another reason for the unpopularity of science can probably be found in modern youth cultures. European children are growing up in “entertainment societies” where different media are fighting for their attention. Young people are brought up with remote controls in their hands; a generation of “Homo Zappiens” with short attention span and concentration. They zap eagerly to another channel or activity if they become bored by something. Such attitudes are not conducive to studying science. According to the concise definition endorsed by American Association of Physics Teachers: Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories (AAPT, 1999). Systematic studies of nature demand hard work, patience and concentration, but these traits are not very attractive for many young people. Recently, the area of teaching/studying/learning science is of prime political and social concern. The main item on the agenda of a joint meeting of EU-ministers of education and
2
research in Uppsala (Sweden, 1-3 March, 2001) was a discussion of the problems of science and technology education in European countries. In particular, the focus was on the recruitment of young people to education and research in the natural sciences and technology, and on the interrelations of science, education and the general public (EU, www). As we can see, there are many challenges for science teachers to face, at all educational levels. Study question 5.4.1 What might another reasons be for the low interest of young people in studying natural science subjects at upper secondary and university levels? Attracting young people to study science and technology has become an issue of political concern recently. Why?
Science education curriculum Science for all on a flexible basis
In all European countries, science is now part of the compulsory curriculum and all students are obliged to study it in some form. Students come to science classes with very different attitudes and motivation towards school studies in general, and science studies in particular. This makes the learning climate in the classroom dramatically different from the time when science was an optional subject chosen only by highly motivated students. Modern youth cultures have also become more diversified. Society in general encourages young people to foster their individual interests and talents. Many Scandinavian students are involved in a variety of different activities and pursuits e.g. informal clubs, circles and movements: music, sport, eastern-spiritualism, environmental, political or feminist issues. A few have a genuine interest in science indicated, for example, by spending their free time reading popular science books, working in youth science clubs or visiting science centres/museums. Science education has thus to be more flexible and adaptable to the conditions and demands of modern life, local socio-cultural contexts and varying interests of the students. Such demand for flexibility, also needs to be reflected in the process of curriculum design and implementation. In most European countries, curriculum development has gradually changed from traditional centralised top-down models towards increased flexibility and more discretion granted to teachers and schools. The new curriculum trend is especially visible in primary and lower secondary schools where science curricula allow a great deal of freedom in the choice of content and methods of teaching/learning and assessment. In most curricula, only a few core topics are defined, while teachers are free to choose other topics as they wish. An active involvement of students is encouraged in this process of local curriculum development. However, this process of curricular decentralisation is not “friction free.” Voices have emerged in the public and political debates which have claimed that decentralisation and local control over learning outcomes have led to a lowering of quality. Advocates of this position, claim that the introduction of a national science curriculum and the strengthening of final examination policy will better secure scientific knowledge in school students. Study question 5.4.2
3
What arguments can you offer in the debate about the balance between local and national science curriculum and examinations?
Selection of content
<< content / curriculum / science curriculum / problem solving / critical thinking / aims >> The selection of curriculum content is an important issue in science education. This choice is related to traditional didactical questions concerning “what?” and “why?” (i.e. what to teach and why to teach this?). It is commonly accepted that science education should provide learning experiences and knowledge essential for developing a scientific understanding of the world. According to recent curriculum perspectives, in addition to a core of scientific knowledge some authentic experiences of scientists‟ work should be available to students. This includes, among other things, designing experiments for fair testing of hypotheses, manipulating apparatus, and recording and communicating findings. Curriculum specialists underline the relevance of developing: process skills (such as observing, classifying, inferring, and communicating), problem solving and creative thinking, investigative techniques, co-operative learning.
There is a Chinese proverb, “If you give a person a fish, you give him (or her) food for a day. If you teach the person how to fish, you give him (or her) food for the rest of his (or her) life.” If we compare fish with scientific knowledge, we find the focus of science teaching should be on the process of knowledge acquisition, i.e. on developing students‟ skills in a systematic and critical study of nature. (Continuing this analogy it is also possible to consider the motivation for science studies. Like fishing, science may be done for fun or have some utilitarian purpose. Both of these motives can be valid in the science classroom.) However, when we compare emphasis on the selection of curricular content between the 1960s and the 1980s, it is possible to see clear changes. These changes are categorised by Fensham as a move from induction ‘into’ science towards learning ‘from’ science (Fensham, 1988).
Using the first perspective, teachers try to reproduce for students their own process of studying science consisting of learning abstract concepts, laws and theories, doing laboratory work and operating with scientific models. Using the second perspective, teachers take the needs and concerns of the students as their point of departure, helping them (the students) find proper scientific tools (skills) for the analysis and solution of practical and social problems - a more pragmatic and utilitarian approach. One of the important aspects of the second perspective is an assumption that science education can contribute to development in students of general reasoning strategies useful across the curriculum and for practical purposes, such as estimations, control of variables, cause-effect relations and probability. Science curricula of West-European countries have increasingly focused on development of general scientific thinking and process skills at the expense of the simple transmission of factual knowledge. Increasing attention is also paid to affective aspects of science learning along with cognitive aspects. The corresponding goals of science curricula may be listed as follows:
4
developing students' critical thinking, developing students' interest and motivation to engage and persevere in tasks, and encouraging the skills and processes needed for successful problem solving.
In progressing through educational stages, goals tend to be fairly general at primary level and more specific at secondary level. Science studies in the lower grades usually start with an introduction in active exploration of objects and phenomena common to everyday life. However, at secondary level, science is still taught in a rather academic way. Abstract models, theories, and algorithmic problem-solving often lose their connections with real life situations and phenomena. The transition between primary and secondary science is thus not always smooth. Some of the problems researchers identify, include curriculum content, that is repetitive at different educational stages and heavily “facts-based” assessment, that defines the selection of content and methods of teaching and studying (known also as the tail wagging the dog). In different countries, projects have been developed which move away from science curricula organised around academic disciplines towards more integrated curricula focusing on applications and relevance. One example of this is an influential Science, Technology and Society (STS) trend in England and Science, Environment and Society (SES) curriculum in Norway. The curriculum goals in these programs have shifted from merely preparing students for future science careers, towards providing them with the insights and skills that allow science to mould them as socially responsible citizen. Students are also expected to make critical judgements about the impact of science and technology on society. The implications of such shifts in aims are that more emphasis is placed on cultural, historical, philosophical, ethical, economical and social aspects of science - relevant to discussions, for example, of such issues of public concern as use of nuclear energy, food safety and genetic modification. Current trends in science education also include more systematic teaching of global and environmental issues such as population growth, climate change, ozone layer depletion, rain forest preservation, pollution and the management of natural resources issues that are of particular interest to many students. In summary, the focus of science curricula is gradually changing to address more adequately a wider range of students‟ interests, aptitudes and abilities. The content chosen is designed to have greater meaning for the lives of the students, and also a closer relationship to the real world. Hence, learning activities in science classes focus on strategies of knowledge acquisition rather than on the reproduction of knowledge. Study question 5.4.3 Give five examples of how a real life context can be brought into the science curriculum. What forms of science curriculum content more likely to be compatible with local community life, practices and needs of learners?
Methods of teaching
<< method / teamwork / co-operation / laboratory work / experimental work / individualised instruction / project work / student-centeredness / science education / active learning >> Discussions on methods of teaching are mainly concerned with answering the traditional educational question “how?” (to teach), i.e. how to design situations that promote learning. Answers to this question have varied in different times and in different cultures. I shall focus
5
here on modern European science education practices. It is important to emphasise that research cannot point to a “best universal teaching method” suitable for any subject content, socio-cultural context and audience. However, the professional community of teachers and educational researchers is able to agree on certain general assumptions underlying the selection of teaching approaches. There is general agreement that, on the one hand, we cannot simply transmit information to be stored in a child‟s brain and, on the other hand, that children cannot simply discover science for themselves unaided (Adey, 2001). During the past twenty years, the role of the teacher has gradually changed from a traditional disseminator of information to that of a mentor/tutor. In this role the teacher assists students with sources of information and provides them with guidance on analysis, interpretation, and reporting of findings. The teacher becomes rather a facilitator of learning than a “sage-on-thestage” (“possessor and communicator of ultimate scientific wisdom”). Here, it is also important not to underestimate the vital role of the teacher in shaping the learning process. Children usually need adult support to find the means and the confidence to produce and test their ideas. In Swedish primary schools, for example, the lecture style has almost disappeared from the science classroom. Yet, in secondary schools, changes in traditional teaching methods are much slower. However, in secondary school science lessons there is nevertheless a clear shift from lecturing toward creation of an interactive learning environment with a focus on teamwork. The features of cooperative group work (team-work) are highly valued in modern society, and have thus gained more emphasis in science classrooms. The difficulty here is that teachers cannot take for granted that students know how to work co-operatively. Students have to learn to collaborate and not compete in group work. Further, following this approach, groups of students and individuals are expected to take more responsibility for their own actions and learning - if a person is not engaged or interested in a learning activity, it is difficult for anyone to teach him or her. One important feature of science that distinguishes it from other disciplines is its practical nature. „Hands-on‟ activities and experiments are considered to be catalysts in the learning process. The high potential of laboratory work for promoting science learning is well recognised and justified in the educational literature (Klainin, 1988). However, currently some researchers argue that only through laboratory activities which include students‟ reflection at each stage of practical work can the quality of learning be positive and „cost effective‟ (Hodson, 1990). I share the view of psychologist Donald Norman (1994), that “there is an important difference between playing and practising, doing an activity and learning that activity. Just doing something does not necessarily lead to learning.” The ability to reflect on tasks has to be purposefully developed in science laboratory work. For this purpose, many teachers use open laboratory tasks, demanding deeper analysis of the problem situation and reflection upon conclusions (in contrast to “cook-book recipe” style laboratory work). In natural science classes, students are introduced to systematic observation, and practical experiences of the real world. They observe, for example, how the phases of the moon change during one month, how plants grow, how conditions for making and controlling fire changes with weather, etc. Therefore an important part of natural science teaching takes place outdoors. This is a common teaching approach in Swedish primary schools and in Swedish teacher education. Most Swedish children thus know how to behave in the forest. They feel comfortable building a hut, or picking wild berries or mushrooms. Popularity of outdoors activities in Swedish schools, can be explained by the easy access to the countryside granted by the
6
“Allemansrätten” (literally: Everyman‟s right). This is unique Swedish law that give every person free access to the forests and lakes regardless of ownership. The nationwide project “Forest in school” has attracted students of all ages. It is organised by the Swedish Ministry of Education in cooperation with the forest industry. Students from primary schools have study activities in the forest during several weeks per year in each of the four seasons. They learn how to measure tree height and forest area, plant a new forest, identify birds and plants, and do environmental studies. Many activities are organised in form of play or competitions. The project has its own newspaper and web page which are developed with active participation of the children (see http://www.skogeniskolan.se/). Research reports from different countries show that a broadening of the range of learning activities helps more students to find science interesting (Black, Atkin, 1996). The use of toys, drama, story telling, thematic studies, museums and other informal centres for learning are examples of new initiatives. For example, Dutch science educators have developed a number of very interesting games and role-plays for secondary school students to work with issues of health and diseases (such as drug abuse or aids). At primary level, students do many sorting and classifying exercises with everyday materials according to their shape, colour, whether floating or not, magnetic, electrical and other properties. Work is often organised around applied themes rather than the conceptual structure of traditional academic subjects. I can give an example of teaching on environment protection in Västangård primary school in Umeå (North Sweden) for children between 6 and 13 years old. The school organises thematic work around different integrated issues every year. For the academic year 2001/2002 the theme was “champions of environment”, chosen jointly by the children and the teachers. During the first meeting, students watched a short film about recycling of cans and PET flasks. They found out that Sweden is one of the best in the world in recycling this material, but that there are many more things can be done to protect the environment. Students work in five workshops (sculpture, painting, creative writing, drama, nature) on Thursdays for five consecutive weeks in each. The work takes place in small, mixed-age groups and is based on ideas and responsibility coming form the students. Information, knowledge and skills from different subjects are brought together. The final products include sculptures made from waste materials and litter, articles based on literature studies and interviews with local administrators on waste management, short theatre performance, essays and reports. Thematic work that integrates different subject areas and forms of work is currently very popular in Swedish schools. A powerful new trend across countries is the rapidly expanding use of information and communication technology (ICT) into education and schools. Science education is gradually changing because of it. Computer programs, CD-Rom, and TV channels dedicated to learning or educational games also provide a broad repertoire of teaching methods which are available to classes and individuals. The key characteristic of many of these new tools is interactivity which allows the process of learning to become more and more individualised. Students‟ oral and written communication skills can be effective means of individualising science learning. Activities using these skills include presentations involving a variety of media, story telling and free writing on scientific topics. These activities thus enable students to bring a freshness into the classroom from science research frontiers, and to use new technologies and new materials in discussing and presenting their work. Many science educators consider project work to be an effective realisation of a studentcentred approach that takes into account students' interests, aptitudes, and abilities. Science courses can include different projects such as reductions in school or household energy consumption, model-building of a bridge or rocket, or currying out a food investigation.
7
One exciting educational strategy is the use of science competitions. An excellent example of such a competition at European level is “Life in the Universe” (www.lifeinuniverse.org) organised by CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) and ESA (European Space Agency). Teams of young people between 14 and 19 years of age are encouraged to present a scientific or an artistic contribution in form of a newspaper, scientific paper, factual website, interactive CD-ROM, scientific essay, video documentary, theatrical performance, musical performance, work of art (painting, sculpture, photography, etc…), fictional essay of script, or poetry. Project work in science education has demonstrated its pedagogical effectiveness in that it, reinforces and creates social links between students and teachers, allows good coverage of a problem in the exciting conditions of an inquiry, provides an opportunity to learn how to display a study‟s results using different forms of presentation.
In my opinion, project-oriented pedagogy is an excellent approach to helping students to discover their own creative potential and to learn how to learn. However, classroom teaching is defined not only by the desire, will and skills of the teacher but is also conditioned by traditions and cultures that exist in schools and local communities. In other words, teaching and learning are influenced by the socio-cultural context in which they take place. This issue will be discussed in the next section. Study question 5.4.4 Should the goals and methods of teaching science be different in the different cultural contexts of Europe, or should we strive to use universal models of science education across Europe?
Theoretical perspectives in science education Constructivism
<< personal constructivism / social constructivism / meaning / active learning >> The view that knowledge cannot be transmitted but must be constructed by the mental activity of learners underpins contemporary perspectives on science education. The roots of these ideas can be traced to the ancient Greek philosophers. However, modern constructivist thinking in science education has its origins in the studies of Swiss researcher Jean Piaget (1896-1980), in particular his foundational work, The Child’s Conceptions of the World, 1929. Constructivist theories of learning were initially elaborated on by psychologists and philosophers and later picked up and further developed by science educators. It is possible to distinguish two major traditions in explaining the process of learning science: personal and social constructivism. According to the personal constructivist perspective, children develop individual constructions of meanings and ideas to explain natural phenomena. Learning is perceived as a process of active construction of understanding, based on prior knowledge possessed by a student. Students bring into the science classroom beliefs and ideas about the causes and mechanisms of natural phenomena, which they have developed as a consequence of their everyday life and previous educational experiences. These ideas or pre-conceptions are often highly resistant to change. According to individual constructivist perspectives, learning is supposed to come about when „wrong‟ conceptions are replaced by „correct‟ scientific ones.
8
Physical experiences of external reality and meaning-making processes stimulated by peer interactions are considered to be pre-conditions for individual construction of knowledge. An implication for teaching of personal constructivism is the need for the teacher to determine, clarify and ameliorate learners‟ erroneous conceptions of natural phenomena, thereby inducing a process of conceptual change resulting in scientific understanding. The recommendations for designing such a teaching strategy (for instance, developed within the “Science Processes and Concept Exploration” SPACE-project, in the UK, see Science coordinators‟ handbook, 1996) include the following steps: finding out children‟s ideas, providing opportunities for testing ideas, thereby possibly changing these into the scientific alternatives, stimulating a process of conceptual change through developing process skills allowing scientific testing, assessing how much children‟s ideas and process skills may have changed.
Application of personal constructivism ideas to science education leads to a model of science education that has student discovery activity at its heart. The discovery activity assumes the active thinking process. Students first get an opportunity to reveal their prior scientific ideas by making predictions or generating hypotheses to explain new phenomena and then undertake practical exploration and reflection upon results. The origins of social constructivist ideas can be traced to the works of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). Here, learning is seen as a process of novice introduction into ideas, conventions and tools of the scientific community. Science consists of socially constructed concepts and theories, such as atom, force, energy, evolution, etc. Children cannot discover these ideas on their own. For example, students might see that a ball falls on the ground, but teachers cannot expect them to derive a law of universal gravitation from this observation. Understanding meaning of scientific concepts and acquisition of scientific tools takes place through different forms of communication with more experienced people, usually the teacher. To reach understanding, students need to be actively involved in thinking. This requires use of different symbolic/cultural tools, of which the main one is a language. From this perspective, knowledge is considered to develop mainly through communication. Ideas of scaffolding (guided practice) and enculturation are related to this theoretical perspective. The ideas of social constructivism have been further developed and extended by sociocultural perspectives, presented in the next section. Here, I emphasise the democratic value of constructivist ideas to teaching and learning. Constructivism places the learner in the centre of the educational process. The importance of respect for the child and for the child‟s own ideas is stressed as a main condition of learning. Constructivist ideas reflect humanistic and democratic views on learners and learning, which are of enormous value to modern society. These are probably the main reasons why constructivism become an official educational paradigm, influential on school policy documents and curricula in many countries.
Socio-cultural perspective
<>
9
Lev Vygotsky can be considered as one of the founding fathers of the socio-cultural analytical approach towards science teaching. A central assumption of this perspective is that mind and culture co-constitute each other and develop into a close interrelationship. According to Vygotsky, personal development is conditioned by learning. To learn and to develop means to appropriate and master artefacts within meaningful social activities. The nature of the cultural artefacts and their appropriation is not uniform across cultures and societies. Socio-cultural contexts influences why, what kind and how cultural artefacts are developed, selected and used. In recent years, the role of social and cultural contexts in teaching, studying and learning science has become the focus of didactical research. Research results show that children‟s learning has deep roots in, and dependence on, cultural traditions and social contexts in which the learning process takes place (Lave, Wenger 1991, Cole 1996, Popov 2000, Valsiner 2000). In different parts of the world and using this perspective, science educators have worked on the development of more appropriate teaching/studying/learning models for schools in the context of their local communities (Coben 1998, Aikenhead, www, Popov & Jasso 1996, Aikenhead & Jegede 1999). The relationship between the culture of society in general and scientific and technological subcultures as introduced by schools is quite complex. Western science uses mechanistic reductionist rationalism to construct the meanings of natural phenomena. Meanwhile, students are often guided by spirituality and even mysticism in their search for understanding relationships between the natural and social worlds. Peer groups, local cultural communities and families can possess cultural worldviews different from those which dominate the school curriculum. Aikenhead has conceptualised the transition between a student‟s life-world and school science curriculum as a „cultural border crossing‟. So, teaching science can be considered as an introduction into a new culture with its own language, rules, logic, values and traditions. This is no less valid in hi-tech and science-based societies, than in developing countries. For most people in modern societies, science is a alien cultural artefact. The majority are not familiar either with the conceptual structure of science or with the values, methods, processes and ways of argument often found in science. This is something that should not be ignored, rather it should be considered as a challenge to be met. Europe‟s population has become more culturally diversified during recent decades. In many European countries twenty per cent or more of the population may have immigrant backgrounds. Thus some students have a home culture and language that are different from the culture and language that are dominant in society. This means that for such students „cultural border crossing‟ from their daily culture into the culture of school science becomes yet more complicated. The results of cross-cultural studies suggest that to help students acquire new knowledge and cultural values, teachers need to depart from existing cultural traditions and make explicit the differences between "local cultural knowledge" and “scientific knowledge”. They need to show students the possibilities for development of new ideas alongside old ones. This implies the need to preserve respect for so-called traditional values alongside the development of modern scientific and technological worldviews that are essential for professional careers in modern society. Evidence indicates that paying tribute to the socio-cultural context in organising learning situations in science classes is also justified on affective and motivational grounds. Students are more likely to respond positively to science when it is presented in contexts which are meaningful to them. Motivation to study science is likely to be higher where learners can
10
bridge a problem discussed in the classroom with current socio-scientific issues debated in their everyday lives. Historical changes taking place in a cultural context can also influence conditions for teaching, studying and learning science. Experienced science teachers in Sweden often comment that students today have less technical and manipulative skills and knowledge about how technical things work than previous generations. Industry does not encourage people to attempt to repair broken domestic items but encourages them to be thrown away and new ones bought. It is more difficult for an average person to fix or alter anything. New generation of Volvo cars are not built to be repaired at home. I call this for a “black box construction” tendency. My interviews with prospective science teachers in Umeå, North Sweden show that most of them have never had experience of breaking a lamp and looking at its inner structure. They have never seen how a battery looks inside. I seems that parents seldom allow their children to examine how broken technical devices structured or organised. Students now tend not have the same technical experience as before. They have less experience in taking things apart as children. They have less experience with basic tools like screwdrivers, tongs or spanners. Does it matter for science education and general life-skills development? Recent introduction of compulsory technology education into primary schools in many European countries reflects that it does. Another contextual aspect to consider in organising science teaching is ethos, values and traditions in individual schools. Educational innovations tend to have a short life because they do not fit into the particular school context and they do not have sufficient „social weight‟ to change the context. Discussions presented in this section show the importance of social, cultural and historical factors that influence teaching, studying and learning natural sciences. Study question 5.4.5 What kind of cultural conflicts exist between school science and everyday culture? Are these conflicts reflected in classroom practices and teacher education? How might we form an interface between school science and the wisdom of local cultures? Do you think there is a relationship between “local” technical skills and knowledge, and success in science? Do skills with “local technology” (e.g. making wire cars) transfer to science practicals?
Language dimension
<< language / communication>> Language is one of the most important components of human culture. Cognitive psychology has shown a close link between language and consciousness in general. As Lev Vygotsky put it: “Consciousness is reflected in a word as the sun in a drop of water. A word relates to consciousness as a living cell relates to a whole organism, as an atom relates to the universe. A word is a microcosm of human consciousness.” (Vygotsky, 1987/1934) To organise effective science teaching we need, on the one hand, an adequate understanding of the thought processes leading to the desired student achievement/learning and, on the other, knowledge about what skills „thinking science‟ students already possess. In order to interpret scientific concepts and principles properly and to describe knowledge effectively certain cognitive and language skills are needed.
11
Teachers in all countries experience conflicts in the classroom between everyday language and „science vernacular‟. Learning science also means that students have to relearn their own language and to acquire the ability to use technical terms without needing translation into everyday language. The situation has its special peculiarities for students from cultural minorities, who may be learning science in their second or third language. These students need specially designed reinforcement activities to assist them in understanding scientific terminology. Science uses a large technical vocabulary that involves words that in everyday life have less precise or even contradictory meanings, as for example terms model, work, energy, etc. Thus, science students need the ability to discriminate between the use of these words in different contexts. Moreover, we often use terms and symbols in different branches of science that change their meanings with context. For example, concepts of „strong‟ and „weak‟ forces have different meanings in chemistry and physics. This makes it very difficult, even for more advanced students, to decipher science terminology and eventually learn to use it properly in scientific discourse. Another conflict related to language use is the contrast between everyday communication patterns (oral tools and means of communication) and „scientific communication‟ (written, precise, symbolic and diagrammatic tools). Students (and teachers) often have difficulties in „reading, writing and talking science‟ and therefore in „thinking science‟ (Koch 2001, Popov et al 2000). Graphical representations of phenomena and data are used widely in science education. This “language for the eyes” has a purpose of storing, interpreting and communicating scientific information. Graphical representations often assume quantification ability, that is, ability to work with scale, proportionality and comparison. In modern society, the acceptance of symbolisation and quantification (i.e. measuring and ascribing values) is deeply embedded. All citizens need skills of reading and interpreting information given in graphical, tabular and symbolic form. If language grows through function, the same may be said for visual language. In science classes, students have to learn different kind of conventions for visual scientific language and also to separate them from symbolic conventions used in everyday life. Science teachers are generally aware that learning to think in terms of scientific concepts is different from doing experiments. Yet specialists often discuss the importance of experiments but neglect the importance of scientific communication and discussions in the science education classroom. It is therefore imperatively for teachers to allocate increased time for science-talk in the classroom. Study question 5.4.6 Some science educators consider that to learn ideas and concepts of science is more like learning a foreign language than learning facts in history (Osborne, 1996). Is this analogy valid in your opinion? Elaborate on the implication of this analogy for teaching science.
Gender perspective
<< gender / recruitment / female students>> This section focuses on the didactical question “whom?” (whom we teach) and calls for a diversity of approaches in teaching different categories of students.
12
Enrolment and performance of girls in science courses is an issue of concern in many countries. A recent study in Scotland, for example, shows that there has been a persistent under-representation of girls in school science and technology subjects since the mid 1980s and before (Roger, Duffield, 2000). In almost all Western European countries initiatives have been taken aimed at increasing the numbers of female students studying science. Systematic efforts have been made to encourage more girls to choose science in school and to continue their study of science at higher education level. This is also true in the recruitment of young women for science teacher education, especially for teaching physics. Many modern companies are concerned about the difficulties in recruiting new gifted female engineers. For example, Ericsson Erisoft, a company producing computer software for Swedish Ericsson, has only 19% female staff. Likewise among Swedish university graduates with relevant qualifications only 14-15% are female students. This makes a policy of female recruitment very problematic for Ericsson. There are different explanations as to why gender differences exist in achievements, experiences, interests and attitudes when it concerns the study of natural sciences as girls tend to be over represented in most other academic subjects. It seems to be clear that the socialisation process of children influences gender differences. This includes, for example, explicit and implicit assumptions which exist in different societies about rules of behaviour corresponding to male and female cultures (Popov, 2000). Gender is a fundamental attribute of human culture in general, and school culture in particular. The more segregated the culture, the greater the difference in performance between the sexes. In a typical cross-national study, the 1991 International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) Mathematics and Science comparative study, it was found that 13 year old boys outperformed girls most markedly in Israel, Ireland and Spain, and girls outperformed boys in Scotland and Hungary (Brusselmans-Dehairs et al, 1997). Gender patterns and academic performance may differ significantly between countries. Research results show that boys and girls are treated differently in the classroom. Moreover, they face different levels of expectations and demands in science teaching and assessment. Teachers tend to be keener to use examples related to boys‟ interests and everyday activities (e.g. playing hockey, shooting an air gun, building a model car or boat), and develop their science teaching taking into account the practical experiences of boys rather than girls. Active discussions have taken place on how to make science more attractive to girls through, for example, the use of themes and problems of relevance to their daily lives. Girls are in general more interested in subject matter related to health, nutrition and the human body, when content is presented in the context of daily life and has relevance for society. Female students appreciate and prefer to discuss the aesthetic aspects and ethical values of science content. The following recommendations for developing Girl-Friendly Science (Smail, 1984) offer a starting point for gender-fair science education: Provide background context for experiments. Let the students know where they are going and why Humanise since e.g. by linking physical science principles to the human body Stress safety precautions rather than dangers Discuss scientific issues in their political, cultural and social contexts Use imaginative writing as an aid to assimilating scientific principles
13
Praise girls for good ideas as well as neat work. Praise boys for neat work as well as good ideas. Encourage girls to be self-reliant and think things out Avoid encouraging girls to be „feminine‟ and boys to be „masculine‟ Show women as scientists.
As research results show (Tveita, 1999), use of drama, creative writing, cartoons and other non-traditional teaching tools can help girls to become more interested and achieve more in science. Arrangement of learning activities is another sensitive issue, when viewed from a gender perspective. Several studies report, for example, that mixed gender groups are less productive and collaborative than groups composed only of girls, mainly because the boys are often more competitive in unhelpful ways (Black, Atkin, 1996). In mixed groups girls are often put into the position of passive observers. However, these results cannot be taken as a universal argument for organising practical work in gender segregated groups. Division of the class along sex lines can be justified in some situations but may be highly undesirable in others. As in all teaching situations in the classroom, the role of teacher is crucial in making science education more gender inclusive. It is therefore important that teachers reflect upon their own behaviour and assumptions about gender. Self-awareness is an important condition for improving teaching, and for studying and learning in general, and it is this I tern to in the next section. Study question 5.4.7 Why is it important to introduce gender sensitive science education at all levels in school? How might you explain the interest of modern technological companies in recruiting female specialists?
Reflection and meta-cognition in teaching and learning
<< reflection / meta-cognition / critical thinking / reflective teaching >> We know, then, that we learn essentially through activity, experience and reflection. Reflection is an important part and condition of learning. Science education provides an important means by which teachers and students can develop critical and reflective thinking. The development of a scientific way of reasoning demands analysis of information critically, while recognising the limitations of scientific knowledge and one‟s own actions. The philosophy of science provides a theoretical base for this critical reflective approach that can be summarised as follows: scientific knowledge cannot guarantee absolute truth; it is of a temporary nature and can be wrong. Thus it must be an object of reflection; scientific discoveries must be seen in their historical and cultural context. The history of science (how science developed as a discipline) helps us to understand this; science is not objective, impersonal and problem-free. Rather it is closely related developments and ideas in society and technology.
14
In some countries, for example Finland, Germany and France, prospective science teachers are offered courses in the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Here, understanding the nature of science provides a basis for science teachers to develop as critical intellectuals and reflective practitioners. Student teachers are encouraged to critically reflect not only upon the content of teaching but on their own actions as teachers. As research shows, this can have a positive influence on future classroom strategies and can promote effective and conscious changes in teaching (Black, Atkin, 1996, Van Zee, Roberts 2001). Student teachers thus become more capable and motivated to contribute to the curriculum development process in their schools. In schools, innovative science teachers also invite students to critically reflect on their own learning and how their understandings of different natural phenomena have changed (Blank, 2000). Students are challenged to compare their thinking at the beginning and end of learning sequences. They are encouraged to reflect upon what activities contribute most effectively to their own progress in learning science. This awareness of one‟s own cognitive processes or actions is known as „meta-cognition‟. Significantly, there appears to be a growing consensus among science education researchers and teachers that teaching students metacognitive skills is highly beneficial to science learning/understanding (Baird, Northfield, 1995, Koch, 2001)). From this perspective, teachers should encourage students‟ reflection on content, process, and tools of learning science topics by asking some of the following questions: How did your prior knowledge affect your approach to learning science? What are the three most important things that you learnt about the topic? Why do you consider them important? What did you learn that you can apply to other problems or situations? Describe how that learning might be applied? What did you learn about your ability to learn? What did you learn that will make you a more efficient and effective learner in future? What kinds of problems did you encounter while working on the topic? Did you overcome them, and if so, how? What will you do differently next time?
Well-organised science education thus provides opportunities not only for developing awareness about the world but for deepening and broadening students‟ awareness of themselves. In the open learning environments, students are given the chance to examine their interests and abilities, to reflect upon their own performance and progress, and to develop the capacity to think for oneself. In other words, students are encouraged to become self-directed learners – an ability that is extremely important in modern knowledge-based societies. Writing essays, keeping a study logbook, formulating and solving problems, responding to questions from peers and taking part in self-assessment can all be forms of such training in self-monitoring. These activities can thus help students to judge their own understanding and learn how to learn. Study question 5.4.8 . Teachers‟ collaborative reflection on their teaching practices can be an effective way to improve their students‟ learning. What kind of forums could be used for such collaborative reflection by science teachers in schools? How would you judge your own metacognitive skills? What skills do you need to develop further?
15
Science education as a dynamic discipline
In this short essay I have presented a brief overview of some of the main trends and innovations in teaching/studying/learning natural sciences. The overview has been drawn from an analysis of relevant literature and my personal experience of work as a science educator in different countries (e.g. Mozambique, Russia, Sweden). In my view, to teach science you need the following a solid foundation of academic subjects, ideas from philosophy of science, theories of learning, knowledge of practice, i.e. of the creative work and valuable experience of generations of teachers.
In the end, it is always an individual science teacher who transforms theories and ideas into the classroom practice. The teacher‟s role in helping children to develop their understanding of science has been recently recognised in research and policy. Attempts have thus been made to create possibilities of continuing professional development for science teachers. However, as experience shows, stories of success in science education are based not only on teacher knowledge, pedagogical skills and experience, but to some extent, on the personality of the teacher. Is the teacher an interested, motivated and creative person? Has he/she a genuine appreciation of discovery and critical thinking? Is he/she able to share the joy of learning with students? At the heart of didactics lies the relationships between the teacher and learners. Well developed teacher-learner interactions can open new communication channels and good communication, we know, is an important condition for interesting, exciting and effective learning. Science education is a dynamic discipline. Its development may properly be regarded as a never-ending search for the truth. Professional discourses often swing between stereotypes of traditional versus progressive teaching, content versus process, depth versus breadth, collective versus individual work, academic versus applied content, teachers teaching versus learners‟ activity, and so on. Good teaching is probably always a balance between these polar opposites. A teacher‟s communicative abilities in formal instruction of content and skills is no less important than the ability to step back and give young people the freedom of to inquire, question, experiment and express their own thoughts and ideas. Contemporary tools for practical work, modelling and communication provide powerful new opportunities for teaching/studying/learning natural sciences. Science teachers should become pioneers of life-long learning in school communities. They are ought to follow modern science developments, which are often complex and diversified human enterprises. It is not an individual genius which drives scientific progress today, but rather the collective teamwork of talented colleagues. The same principle of teamwork is valid in studying science and science education. After you have read this, you might like to discuss some of the issues raised with fellow students, or colleagues, face-to-face or in virtual space. Your discussions may lead to new ideas about how to teach/study/learn different topics in science. References AAPT (1999). What is science? Am. J. Phys. 67 (8), 659.
16
Adey, P. (2001). 160 Years of science education: an uncertain link between theory and practice. School Science Review, 82 (300), 41-48. Aikenhead, G. (www) http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/index.htm Aikenhgead, G. & Jegede, O. (1999). Cross-cultural science education. A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (269-287). Black, P. & Atkin, J. (eds.) (1996). Changing the Subject. Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. OECD. Routledge. Blank, L. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education. 84, 486-506. Baird, J. R,. Northfield, J. R (1995) Learning from the PEEL Experience. The Monash University Printing Services. Brusselmans-Dehairs, C., Henry, G.F., Beller, M., & Gafni, N. (1997) Gender differences in learning achievement: evidence from cross-national surveys. Educational studies and documents 65, Paris, UNESCO. Coben, W. (1998). Socio-cultural perspectives on science education: An international dialogue. Dortrecht: Academic Publishers. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ekstig, B. (2000). Didaktik och naturvetenskap. In C.A. Säfström, P.O. Svedner (red.) Didaktik – perspektiv och problem. Studentliteratur. Sweden. (144-157). EU. http://www.eu2001.se/education/eng/docs/uppsala_programme.asp Gibbs, D., Fox, D. (1999) The false crisis in science education. Scientific American, Oct. Gil-Pérez, D. (1996). New trends in science education. Int. J. Sci. Educ., Vol. 18, no.8, 889901. Fensham, P. (1988). Familiar but Different: Some Dilemmas and New Directions in Science Education. In P. Fensham, (ed.) Development and Dilemmas in Science Education. London: Falmer Press. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School science review, 70, (256), 33-40. Klainin, S. (1988) Practical work and science education. In P. Fensham (ed.) Development and Dilemmas in Science Education, London: Falmer Press, 169- 188. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758-768. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norman, D. (1994). Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Osborne, J. (1996). Untying the Gordian knot: diminishing the role of practical work. In Physics Education 31 (271-278). Popov, O. (2000). Learning from the everyday environment: Upper primary school students‟ understanding of nature and technology in Mozambique. In. Basic education for all: A global
17
concern for quality. L-E Malmberg, S-E Hansén and K. Heino (eds.) Åbo Akademi University Press, Finland. Popov, O. (2001). Lokala kulturella artefakter som didaktiska verktyg i NO undervisningen i Moçambikiska grundskola. NCM (Vänbok till Wiggo Kilborn), Gothenburg University Press. Sweden, 137-146. Popov, O. & Jasso, M. (1996) From Labour Activities Towards Technology Education/The case study of Mozambican primary schooling. Paper presented at Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology conference (PATT-Sweden). Linköping. Sweden. May 1996. Popov, O, Zackrisson, I. and Olofsson, K-U. How student teachers ”think physics”. A case study of three group of primary student teachers with science specialism. European Conference: Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000, Barcelona, Spain, August 27September 1, 2000. POS: http://www.estec.esa.nl/outreach/pos/ Riess, K. (2000). Problems with German Science Education. Science and Education, 9, pp. 327-331. Roger A. & Duffield J., (2000). Factors Underlying Persistent Gendered Option Choices in School Science and Technology in Scotland, Gender and Education, 12, 3, 367-383. Science co-ordinator‟s handbook (1996). Nuffield Primary Science. Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust. Collins Educational. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2); 4-14. Sjöberg, S. (www) http://www.uio.no/~sveinsj/SASweb.htm Smail B., (1984). Girl-friendly science: avoiding sex bias in the curriculum, York, Longman. Tveita, J. (1999). Can untraditional learning methods used in physics help girls to be more interested and achieve more in this subject? In M. Bandiera, S. Caravita, at all (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe, (pp.133-140). Rome: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. An introduction. London: Sage Publications. Van Zee, E. & Roberts, D. (2001) Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach: prospective teachers‟ reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science education, 85, 733-757. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) Thinking and speech. NY: Plenum (original work published 1934).
18