A window for a purpose: developing a framework for describing effective science teaching and learning

This paper describes the development of a framework – the SIS Components – for describing effective teaching and learning in science, to support a system wide change initiative. The methodology used and the analysis that led to their refinement, is traced to expose the different issues involved in constructing the notion of lsquoeffective practice.rsquo These issues have to do with purpose, politics and audience. They determine features of the framework such as specificity, elements focused on, and the support structures that are put in place to establish the particular discourse being promoted. The paper describes the different research methods used to establish, to promote and to validate the components, and outlines the different senses in which this and any framework can be seen as contingent on the setting for which it is intended.

The advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ASELL) project : the next chapter

Most researchers agree that the laboratory experience ranks as a significant factor that influences students’ attitudes to their science courses. Consequently, good laboratory programs should play a major role in influencing student learning and performance. The laboratory program can be pivotal in defining a student's experience in the sciences, and if done poorly, can be a major contributing factor in causing disengagement from the subject area. The challenge remains to provide students with laboratory activities that are relevant, engaging and offer effective learning opportunities. The Advancing Science by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory (ASELL) project has developed over the last 10 years with the aim of improving the quality of learning in undergraduate laboratories, providing a validated means of evaluating the laboratory experience of students and effective professional development for academic staff. After successful development in chemistry and trials using the developed principles in physics and biology, the project has now expanded to include those disciplines. This paper will discuss the activities of ASELL and provide a report about the first ASELL science workshop held at the University of Adelaide in April 2010.

The advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory (ASELL) project : the first Australian multidisciplinary workshop

Most science educators and researchers will agree that the laboratory experience ranks as a major factor that influences students’ attitudes to their science courses. Consequently, good laboratory programs should play a major role in influencing student learning and performance. The laboratory program can be pivotal in defining a student's experience in the sciences, and if done poorly, can be a major contributing factor in causing disengagement from the subject area. The challenge remains to provide students with laboratory activities that are relevant, engaging and offer effective learning opportunities.

The Advancing Science by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory (ASELL) project has developed over the last 10 years with the aim of improving the quality of learning in undergraduate laboratories, providing a validated means of evaluating the laboratory experience of students and effective professional development for academic staff. After successful development in chemistry and trials using the developed principles in physics and biology, the project has now expanded to include those disciplines. This paper will discuss the activities of ASELL and provide a report about the first ASELL science workshop held at the University of Adelaide in April 2010, present some views of academic and student delegates, and make comparisons with other workshops.
Introduction

ASELL : the advancing science by enhancing learning in the laboratory project

Most science educators and researchers will agree that the laboratory experience ranks as a major factor that influences students’ attitudes to their science courses. Consequently, good laboratory programs should play a major role in influencing student learning and performance. The laboratory program can be pivotal in defining a student's experience in the sciences, and if done poorly, can be a major contributing factor in causing disengagement from the subject area. The challenge remains to provide students with laboratory activities that are relevant, engaging and offer effective learning opportunities.

Learning through constructing representations in science : a framework of representational construction affordances

Compared with research on the role of student engagement with expert representations in learning science, investigation of the use and theoretical justification of student-generated representations to learn science is less common. In this paper, we present a framework that aims to integrate three perspectives to explain how and why representational construction supports learning in science. The first or semiotic perspective focuses on student use of particular features of symbolic and material tools to make meanings in science. The second or epistemic perspective focuses on how this representational construction relates to the broader picture of knowledge-building practices of inquiry in this disciplinary field, and the third or epistemological perspective focuses on how and what students can know through engaging in the challenge of representing causal accounts through these semiotic tools. We argue that each perspective entails productive constraints on students’ meaning-making as they construct and interpret their own representations. Our framework seeks to take into account the interplay of diverse cultural and cognitive resources students use in these meaning-making processes. We outline the basis for this framework before illustrating its explanatory value through a sequence of lessons on the topic of evaporation.

Executive functions predict conceptual learning of science

Peer reviewed

Science learning in the outdoors to support primary-secondary transition

This study provides additional insight into how outdoor learning can be used as a vehicle to address transition issues. This study analyses the benefits of outdoor learning through the use of shared learning days with young people in the primary-secondary transition phase. This paper argues that a carefully designed programme of outdoor ‘shared learning days’ with young people in both phases working together is a sound model to help address the recommendations arising from specific transition issues (Mullan, 2014; Rose, 2009) through the delivery of aligned outcomes (cognitive, affective, interpersonal/social and physical/behavioural) and impact from learning science outdoors (Rickinson et al., 2004).

The link between policy and practice in science education : the role of research

Policy has been a much neglected area for research in science education. In their neglect of policy studies, researchers have maintained an ongoing naivete about the politics of science education. In doing so, they often overestimate the implications of their research findings about practice and ignore the interplay between the stakeholders beyond and in-school who determine the nature of the curriculum for science education and its enacted character. Policies for education (and science education in particular) always involve authority and values, both of which raise sets of fascinating questions for research. The location of authority for science education differs across educational systems in ways that affect the role teachers are expected to play. Policies very often value some groups in society over others, as the long history of attempts to provide science for all students testifies. As research on teaching/learning science identifies pedagogies that have widespread effectiveness, the policy issue of mandating these becomes important. Illustrations of successful policy to practice suggest that establishing conditions that will facilitate the intended implementation is critically important. The responsibility of researchers for critiquing and establishing policy for improving the practice of science education is discussed, together with the role research associations could play if they are to claim their place as key stakeholders in science education.

Humanistic science education : moves from within and challenges from without

For a number of years now it has been evident that the major issue facing science educators in the more developed countries of the world is the quantitative decline in enrolments in the senior secondary sciences, particularly the physical sciences, and in the number of higher achieving students applying for places in universities to undertake further studies in science. The deep malaise in school science to which these quantitative measures point has been elucidated by more qualitative studies of the students’ experience of studying science in secondary school in several of these countries (Sweden, Lindahl (2003); England, Simon and Osborne (2002); and Australia, Lyons (2005)). Remarkably concordant descriptions of these experiences can be summarized as: School science is: • transmission of knowledge from the teacher or the textbook to the students. • about content that is irrelevant and boring to our lives. • difficult to learn in comparison with other subjects Incidentally, the Australian study only involved consistently high achieving students; but even so, most of them found science more difficult than other more interesting subjects, and concluded that further science studies should be avoided unless they were needed for some career purpose. Other more representative confirmations of negative evaluations of the science curricula across Australia (and in particular states) are now available in Australia, from the large scale reviews of Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2001) and from the TIMSS (2002). The former reported that well under half of secondary students find the science at school relevant to my future, useful ion everyday life, deals with things I am concerned with and helps me make decisions about my health.. TIMSS found that 62 and 65 % of females and males in Year 4 agree with I like learning science, but by Year 8 only 26 and 33 % still agree. Students in Japan have been doubly notably because of (a) their high performance in international measures of science achievement like TIMSS and PISA and (b) their very low response to items in these studies which relate to interest in science. Ogura (2003) reported an intra-national study of students across Years 6-9 (upper primary through Junior High); interest in a range of their subjects (including science) that make up that country’s national curriculum. There was a steady decline in interest in all these subjects which might have indicated an adolescent reaction against schooling generally. However, this study went on to ask the students a further question that is very meaningful in the Japanese context, If you discount the importance of this subject for university entrance, is it worth studying? Science and mathematics remained in decline while all the other subjects were seen more positively. It is thus ironic, at a time when some innovations in curriculum and other research-based findings are suggesting ways that these failures of school science might be corrected, to find school science under a new demands that come from quite outside science education, and which certainly do not have the correction of this malaise as a priority. The positive curricular and research findings can be characterized as moves from within science education, whereas the new demands are moves that come from without science education. In this paper I set out these two rather contrary challenges to the teaching of science as it is currently practised, and go on to suggest a way forward that could fruitfully combine the two.

Fusing curricula : science, technology and ICT

Curriculum demands continue to increase on school education systems with teachers at the forefront of implementing syllabus requirements. Education is reported frequently as a solution to most societal problems and, as a result of the world’s information explosion, teachers are expected to cover more and more within teaching programs. How can teachers combine subjects in order to capitalise on the competing educational agendas within school timeframes? Fusing curricula requires the bonding of standards from two or more syllabuses. Both technology and ICT complement the learning of science. This study analyses selected examples of preservice teachers’ overviews for fusing science, technology and ICT. These program overviews focused on primary students and the achievement of two standards (one from science and one from either technology or ICT). These primary preservice teachers’ fused-curricula overviews included scientific concepts and related technology and/or ICT skills and knowledge. Findings indicated a range of innovative curriculum plans for teaching primary science through technology and ICT, demonstrating that these subjects can form cohesive links towards achieving the respective learning standards. Teachers can work more astutely by fusing curricula; however further professional development may be required to advance thinking about these processes. Bonding subjects through their learning standards can extend beyond previous integration or thematic work where standards may not have been assessed. Education systems need to articulate through syllabus documents how effective fusing of curricula can be achieved. It appears that education is a key avenue for addressing societal needs, problems and issues. Education is promoted as a universal solution, which has resulted in curriculum overload (Dare, Durand, Moeller, & Washington, 1997; Vinson, 2001). Societal and curriculum demands have placed added pressure on teachers with many extenuating education issues increasing teachers’ workloads (Mobilise for Public Education, 2002). For example, as Australia has weather conducive for outdoor activities, social problems and issues arise that are reported through the media calling for action; consequently schools have been involved in swimming programs, road and bicycle safety programs, and a wide range of activities that had been considered a parental responsibility in the past. Teachers are expected to plan, implement and assess these extra-curricula activities within their already overcrowded timetables. At the same stage, key learning areas (KLAs) such as science and technology are mandatory requirements within all Australian education systems. These systems have syllabuses outlining levels of content and the anticipated learning outcomes (also known as standards, essential learnings, and frameworks). Time allocated for teaching science in obviously an issue. In 2001, it was estimated that on average the time spent in teaching science in Australian Primary Schools was almost an hour per week (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). More recently, a study undertaken in the U.S. reported a similar finding. More than 80% of the teachers in K-5 classrooms spent less than an hour teaching science (Dorph, Goldstein, Lee, et al., 2007). More importantly, 16% did not spend teaching science in their classrooms. Teachers need to learn to work smarter by optimising the use of their in-class time. Integration is proposed as one of the ways to address the issue of curriculum overload (Venville & Dawson, 2005; Vogler, 2003). Even though there may be a lack of definition for integration (Hurley, 2001), curriculum integration aims at covering key concepts in two or more subject areas within the same lesson (Buxton & Whatley, 2002). This implies covering the curriculum in less time than if the subjects were taught separately; therefore teachers should have more time to cover other educational issues. Expectedly, the reality can be decidedly different (e.g., Brophy & Alleman, 1991; Venville & Dawson, 2005). Nevertheless, teachers report that students expand their knowledge and skills as a result of subject integration (James, Lamb, Householder, & Bailey, 2000). There seems to be considerable value for integrating science with other KLAs besides aiming to address teaching workloads. Over two decades ago, Cohen and Staley (1982) claimed that integration can bring a subject into the primary curriculum that may be otherwise left out. Integrating science education aims to develop a more holistic perspective. Indeed, life is not neat components of stand-alone subjects; life integrates subject content in numerous ways, and curriculum integration can assist students to make these real-life connections (Burnett & Wichman, 1997). Science integration can provide the scope for real-life learning and the possibility of targeting students’ learning styles more effectively by providing more than one perspective (Hudson & Hudson, 2001). To illustrate, technology is essential to science education (Blueford & Rosenbloom, 2003; Board of Studies, 1999; Penick, 2002), and constructing technology immediately evokes a social purpose for such construction (Marker, 1992). For example, building a model windmill requires science and technology (Zubrowski, 2002) but has a key focus on sustainability and the social sciences. Science has the potential to be integrated with all KLAs (e.g., Cohen & Staley, 1982; Dobbs, 1995; James et al., 2000). Yet, “integration” appears to be a confusing term. Integration has an educational meaning focused on special education students being assimilated into mainstream classrooms. The word integration was used in the late seventies and generally focused around thematic approaches for teaching. For instance, a science theme about flight only has to have a student drawing a picture of plane to show integration; it did not connect the anticipated outcomes from science and art. The term “fusing curricula” presents a seamless bonding between two subjects; hence standards (or outcomes) need to be linked from both subjects. This also goes beyond just embedding one subject within another. Embedding implies that one subject is dominant, while fusing curricula proposes an equal mix of learning within both subject areas. Primary education in Queensland has eight KLAs, each with its established content and each with a proposed structure for levels of learning. Primary teachers attempt to cover these syllabus requirements across the eight KLAs in less than five hours a day, and between many of the extra-curricula activities occurring throughout a school year (e.g., Easter activities, Education Week, concerts, excursions, performances). In Australia, education systems have developed standards for all KLAs (e.g., Education Queensland, NSW Department of Education and Training, Victorian Education) usually designated by a code. In the late 1990’s (in Queensland), “core learning outcomes” for strands across all KLA’s. For example, LL2.1 for the Queensland Education science syllabus means Life and Living at Level 2 standard number 1. Thus, a teacher’s planning requires the inclusion of standards as indicated by the presiding syllabus. More recently, the core learning outcomes were replaced by “essential learnings”. They specify “what students should be taught and what is important for students to have opportunities to know, understand and be able to do” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2009, para. 1). Fusing science education with other KLAs may facilitate more efficient use of time and resources; however this type of planning needs to combine standards from two syllabuses. To further assist in facilitating sound pedagogical practices, there are models proposed for learning science, technology and other KLAs such as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2004), de Bono’s Six Hats (de Bono, 1985), and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1999) that imply, warrant, or necessitate fused curricula. Bybee’s 5 Es, for example, has five levels of learning (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate; Bybee, 1997) can have the potential for fusing science and ICT standards.

Mapping the language of science and science teaching practices : a case study of early childhood school science

Concerns raised in educational reports about school science in terms of students. outcomes and attitudes, as well as science teaching practices prompted investigation into science learning and teaching practices at the foundational level of school science. Without science content and process knowledge, understanding issues of modern society and active participation in decision-making is difficult. This study contended that a focus on the development of the language of science could enable learners to engage more effectively in learning science and enhance their interest and attitudes towards science. Furthermore, it argued that explicit teaching practices where science language is modelled and scaffolded would facilitate the learning of science by young children at the beginning of their formal schooling. This study aimed to investigate science language development at the foundational level of school science learning in the preparatory-school with students aged five and six years. It focussed on the language of science and science teaching practices in early childhood. In particular, the study focussed on the capacity for young students to engage with and understand science language. Previous research suggests that students have difficulty with the language of science most likely because of the complexities and ambiguities of science language. Furthermore, literature indicates that tensions transpire between traditional science teaching practices and accepted early childhood teaching practices. This contention prompted investigation into means and models of pedagogy for learning foundational science language, knowledge and processes in early childhood. This study was positioned within qualitative assumptions of research and reported via descriptive case study. It was located in a preparatory-school classroom with the class teacher, teacher-aide, and nineteen students aged four and five years who participated with the researcher in the study. Basil Bernstein.s pedagogical theory coupled with Halliday.s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) framed an examination of science pedagogical practices for early childhood science learning. Students. science learning outcomes were gauged by focussing a Hallydayan lens on their oral and reflective language during 12 science-focussed episodes of teaching. Data were collected throughout the 12 episodes. Data included video and audio-taped science activities, student artefacts, journal and anecdotal records, semi-structured interviews and photographs. Data were analysed according to Bernstein.s visible and invisible pedagogies and performance and competence models. Additionally, Halliday.s SFL provided the resource to examine teacher and student language to determine teacher/student interpersonal relationships as well as specialised science and everyday language used in teacher and student science talk. Their analysis established the socio-linguistic characteristics that promoted science competencies in young children. An analysis of the data identified those teaching practices that facilitate young children.s acquisition of science meanings. Positive indications for modelling science language and science text types to young children have emerged. Teaching within the studied setting diverged from perceived notions of common early childhood practices and the benefits of dynamic shifting pedagogies were validated. Significantly, young students demonstrated use of particular specialised components of school-science language in terms of science language features and vocabulary. As well, their use of language demonstrated the students. knowledge of science concepts, processes and text types. The young students made sense of science phenomena through their incorporation of a variety of science language and text-types in explanations during both teacher-directed and independent situations. The study informs early childhood science practices as well as practices for foundational school science teaching and learning. It has exposed implications for science education policy, curriculum and practices. It supports other findings in relation to the capabilities of young students. The study contributes to Systemic Functional Linguistic theory through the development of a specific resource to determine the technicality of teacher language used in teaching young students. Furthermore, the study contributes to methodology practices relating to Bernsteinian theoretical perspectives and has demonstrated new ways of depicting and reporting teaching practices. It provides an analytical tool which couples Bernsteinian and Hallidayan theoretical perspectives. Ultimately, it defines directions for further research in terms of foundation science language learning, ongoing learning of the language of science and learning science, science teaching and learning practices, specifically in foundational school science, and relationships between home and school science language experiences.

A highway for research in science education that no longer leads to the frontier

A review of "Progressing science education: constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science", by Keith S. Taber, Dordrecht, Springer, 2009.