Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning

VOLUME 20 ISSUE 2

The International Journal of

Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning

thelearner.com

The International Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning ………………………………… The Learner Collection VOLUME 20 ISSUE 2 March 2014

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND TECHNOLOGY LEARNING www.thelearner.com First published in 2014 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com ISSN: 2327-7971 © 2014 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2014 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected]. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Enhancing Lower Secondary School Science Teachers’ Science Process Skills and Laboratory Lesson Preparation through a Social Constructivist-based Professional Development Workshop Nantarat Kruea-In, Kasetsart University, Thailand Khajornsak Buaraphan, Mahidol University, Thailand Abstract: Laboratory work is essential for science learning in developing students’ scientific knowledge, process skills, and attitudes. Science teachers must therefore have sufficient skills in preparing and implementing laboratory work. However, many science teachers lack such skills. This study aims to enhance science teachers’ science process and laboratory lesson preparation skills via a social constructivist-based professional development workshop. The interpretive research methodology was utilized as a research framework. The participants consisted of thirty-six lower secondary school science teachers (Grades 7-9) from the Western Region of Thailand. Before and after the workshop, the teachers’ science process skills were assessed by the Performance Test of Science Process Skills (PTSP).The teachers’ interactions and science process skills in conducting scientific experiments during the workshop were observed. Lesson plans created by the teachers were also reviewed regarding the integration of science process skills and social constructivist perspectives. The results revealed that their science process skills were adequate in most skills, except the skill of defining variables operationally. The workshop, to some extent, helped the teachers develop their science process skills. The observations during the workshop evidenced that the teachers lacked some science content knowledge and skills. The lesson plans intensively showed the integration of science process skills and the social constructivist perspectives. However, there was a mismatch when setting learning standards, learning objectives, instruction, and assessment. Keywords: Science Process Skills, Laboratory Lesson Preparation, Lower Secondary Schools, Social Constructivist Learning Theory

Introduction

I

n learning science, students are generally expected to achieve adequate science contents, process skills and attitudes from participated learning activities. There are many types of activities that can be employed in teaching science. Laboratory work is one type of science learning activity that is able to enhance student achievement, their problem-solving skills, and interests in science (Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman 2007). In the Thai context, acquisition of science process skills is mentioned as one important learning outcome in the Basic Education Core Curriculum (BECC) launched in B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) (Ministry of Education, 2008). The BECC is the core curriculum for basic education (Grades 1-12) in Thailand. It is a standardbased curriculum, prescribing learning standards for grades 1-12 students to achieve. There are eight learning areas in the BECC: Thai Language, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Religion and Culture, Foreign Languages, Health and Physical Education, Arts, and Occupations and Technology. In particular, the brief description of science area was mentioned as “Application of knowledge and scientific process for study and search for knowledge and systematic problem-solving; logical, analytical and constructive thinking; and scientificmindedness”. The science area is divided into eight learning strands. The first seven strands are related to science contents necessary for all students to learn about the natural world and serve as a foundation for further learning in the tertiary level. The last strand namely “Nature of Science and Technology” stipulates that “application of the scientific process and scientific reasoning in The International Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning Volume 20, 2014, www.thelearner.com, ISSN 2327-7971 © Common Ground, Nantarat Kruea-In, Khajornsak Buaraphan, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND TECHOLOGY LEARNING

investigation for seeking knowledge and problem-solving; knowing that most natural phenomena assume definite patterns which are explainable and verifiable within limitation of data and instrument available during particular periods of time; and understanding that science, technology, society and the environment are interrelated”. According to the BECC, all Thai science teachers are generally obliged to not only understand science contents, but also attain science process skills at a level sufficient to help students achieve all the related science strands. However, without a formerly explicit teacher education and professional training, Thai teachers face difficulties in teaching science emphasizing science process skills. Many teachers usually teach science through cook-book activities, requiring students to follow predetermined steps and check their results with the correct ones. However, successful achievement in science process skills cannot be created by close-ended or deductive laboratory experiments, which are typically use in laboratory activities when students followed steps in the cookbook-like manuals (Hofstein and Lunetta 2004). The cook-book, verification type of science learning activity may contribute to students’ low scores in the national test, namely “the Ordinary National Education Test” (O-NET), which all Thai students are required to take before graduation in Grades 6, 9 and 12. Many of the O-NET test items ask students to use their science process skills to bring about the correct answers. Interestingly, the O-NET results show that Grades 6, 9 and 12 Thai students have not been able to get the scores greater than 40% in the science learning area since 2005. In learning science, students learn individually and socially. From the social constructivist perspectives, students construct knowledge within their sociocultural contexts. That is, students learn through the assistance and guidance of their teacher and peers. It is a scaffolding process. In this process, a learner is guided and assisted by more knowledgeable or experienced persons until they can perform the tasks without assistance and guidance. It is called the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky 1978). Thus, the more experienced members, such as more skilled classmates and teachers, are important in helping individual students gain knowledge and skill construction (Driver, et al. 1994). The social constructivist perspectives can also applied in professional development. Teachers can improve their classroom practice by forming a community of teachers where teachers share their problems relating to student learning difficulties and use brainstorming to find possible solutions or challenging activities to try in class (Englert and Tarrant 1995; Palincsar et al. 1998). Although science process skills are significant as mentioned by the national curriculum, the study about lower secondary science teachers’ science process skills and ability to integrate science process skills into their lesson plans and teaching are rare in Thailand. This study aims to develop a social constructivist-based professional development workshop to enhance lower secondary school science teachers’ science process skills and to help them design lesson plans incorporating science process skills with social constructivist perspectives. Three research questions guide this study:  What are the lower secondary school science teachers’ interaction and performance of science process skills during the social constructivist-based professional development workshop?  How does the workshop affect the teachers’ science process skills?  How do the teachers incorporate science process skills with social constructivist perspectives into their lesson plans?

Science Process Skills Being Essential for Science Learning The science process skills are generally accepted as essential skills for science learning. In general, science process skills refer to the fundamental skills used by scientists to inquire about the natural world (Millar and Driver 1987). They are also accepted as skills necessary for everyone in coping with their daily-life problems (Harlen 1999). The science process skills are

44

KRUEA-IN & BUARAPHAN: SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS AND LESSON PREPARATION WORKSHOP

useful for students in developing their understanding by testing their initial ideas via scientific investigation, interpretation and judgment of evidence, and then modification of their own knowledge (Harlen 1992). The science process skills, as mentioned in the BECC, consist of 13 skills; observing, classifying, measuring, using numbers, using space and time relationship, inferring, predicting, communicating, controlling variables, defining variables operationally, formulating hypotheses, experimenting, and interpreting data and drawing conclusions. The first eight skills are categorized as the basic science process skills, while the others are categorized as the integrated science process skills. However, the teachers and students’ performance of science process skills are found to be unsatisfactory. Many studies pointed out that students had insufficient understanding and performance of science process skills (Aydιnlι, et al. 2011; Beaumont-Walters and Soyibo 2001; Doran et al. 1993; Doran, Fraser and Giddings 1995; Emereole 2008; Öztürk, Tezel and Acat 2008) including the pre-service and in-service teachers (Emereole 2009; Karsli, Şahіn and Ayas 2009; Mbewe, Chabalengula and Mumba, 2010; Mugaloglu and Sarιbas 2010; Phang and Tahir 2012; Yιldιrιm et al. 2011; Monhardt and Monhardt 2006). There are many ways to enhance science process skills, one of them is providing students or teachers with scientific investigation or laboratory work related interventions such as project-based, problem-based, inquiry labs, and teacher professional development programs (Baumgartner 2010; Bilgin 2006; Brickman et al. 2009; Colley 2006; Cotabish 2011; Park 2006; Spektor-Levy, Eylon and Scherz 2009). Such programs are suggested to incorporate the social constructivist perspectives in designing the teaching and learning activities.

Social Constructivist Teaching and Learning Perspectives Lev Vygotsky is a key person in initiating the social constructivist learning theory. The social constructivist learning theory strongly emphasizes social interactions and sociocultural conditions during learning (Sjøberg 2007). For social constructivists, learning takes place when students develop or change their prior ideas by actively engaging in meaning-generative activities based on their experiences (Bell 1993). Students construct their own knowledge from the combination of higher mental functioning the individual derives from social interactions, negotiation, and collaboration (Jaramillo 1996; Leach and Scott 2002; Palincsar 1998), which cannot be separated from the learning context itself (John-Steiner and Manhn 1996; Osborne 1996; Palincsar 1998). Interactions in the social constructivist perspectives can be the teacherstudent interaction as well as the student-student interaction (Atwater 1996). In particular to laboratory activities, discussion about what students have experienced in the laboratory classroom is able to allow students to generalize, transfer, synthesize the ideas, and builds a deeper understanding of the science concepts (Reznitskaya, Anderson and Kuo 2007). The social constructivists believe that teachers and students can evaluate scientific claims in a sociocultural context through being vigorous participants, who know about concepts of self and social roles, in the process of constructing social worlds (Bingle and Gaskell 1994; PattheyChavez 1993). From social constructivist perspectives, interpersonal interaction during classroom discussion can promote higher-order thinking (Palincsar 1998). Students engaged in a conflict condition, where they need to reconstruct their knowledge based on the new information, can learn better than students who learn in an assimilation condition (Chan, Burtis and Bereiter 1997). Vygotsky’s conception of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) emphasizes a scaffolding process. The aim of the process is to guide students from what is presently known or achieved to what is to be known or to be achieved which allows the students to perform tasks normally beyond their ability without assistance and guidance from the teacher or peer collaboration. Thus, the more experienced members such as more skilled classmates or the teachers are important to help individual students in knowledge and skill construction (Driver, et al. 1994).

45


The social constructivist perspectives commonly consist of six aspects of teaching and learning (Bell 1993; Cosgrove and Osborne 1985; Perkins 1999; Plourde and Alawiye 2003; Tobin and Tippins 1993; Tynjälä 1999; Tytler 2002; Yager 1991); a) Valuing students’ prior ideas related to what being taught by probing their understanding and use the students’ ideas to guide preparing for the lesson, b) Setting goals and objectives of learning from students’ ideas or from negotiation with teachers, c) Engaging students in multiple, active, challenging learning activities that foster higher-order thinking skills and science process skills with the environment that is collaborative, safe and free for sharing ideas and skills, d) Encouraging students to be responsible for their own learning and use scaffolding to help them perform beyond the limits of their ability, e) Providing sufficient time for students to reflect, reform, and modify their ideas or improve their skills and apply the ideas and skills in other situations, and f) Using assessment that is authentic and embedded in the learning process. The social constructivist perspectives can also be applied to teachers’ professional development. Teachers could improve their classroom practice by the construction of a community of teachers where teachers share their problems about student learning difficulties and use brainstorming to find possible solutions or challenging activities to try in class (Englert and Tarrant 1995; Palincsar et al. 1998). This study is, therefore, interested in developing a social constructivist-based professional development workshop to help lower secondary science teachers improve their science process and laboratory lesson preparation skills.

Methodology This research employs an interpretive research method (Neuman 2003) as a research framework. The participants’ words, meanings, and interaction with the activities and peers concerning science process skills and application of these skills incorporated with the social constructivist perspectives emerged during the workshop were videotape-recorded, reviewed and interpreted.

Participants The participants were 36 volunteered in-service lower secondary science teachers (5 males and 31 females), who were responsible to teach grades 7- 9 students from Nakhon Pathom, Suphan Buri, Ratchaburi, Petchaburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan provinces in the Western Region of Thailand. The teachers’ age range was from 24 to 55 years old and the range of teaching experience was from 2 to 33 years.

Intervention The intervention of this study is entitled “Integration of Science Process Skills to Science Teaching” workshop utilized the social constructivist perspectives as a framework. The environment of the workshop was active and collaborative. The activities used were active discussion, brainstorming, practical work, and gallery walks. Also, peer teaching was used when some teachers could not catch up with the activities. The workshop was flexible and teachers could take extra time to finish some sessions such as practical work. Table 1 presents all sessions in the workshop.

46


Table 1: Sessions in the “Integration of Science Process Skills to Science Teaching” Workshop Duration 6 hrs

4 hrs

9 hrs

3 hrs

5 hrs

9 hrs

Sessions Activities Science teaching,  Discuss and share knowledge and activities of each science process skills skill and scientific  Design and conduct scientific investigations; investigation Mirrors and Images, and Moments Science process skills  Analyze learning activities and artifacts from and outside science project-based camps and field trips classroom activities  Design outside classroom activities and materials Science process skills  Model teaching of science process skills integrated and the standards by to different science contents; experts Lesson 1: Respiratory system structures and a lung capacity experiment Lesson 2: Acid and making simple indicator paper from butterfly pea flowers (Clitoria ternatea L) Lesson 3: Getting to the core of the Earth: Earth model and structure Social constructivist  Discuss social constructivist teaching and learning teaching and learning perspectives perspectives  Analyze given lesson plans and share teaching techniques Assessment for  Discuss summative and formative assessment science process skills strategies and rubrics for science process skills  Create assessment tools for students’ science process skill performance and experiment reports Lesson preparation  Design and present science lessons integrating and reflection science process skills and social constructivist perspectives for grades 7-9 students  Provide peer critiques and suggestions

Data Collection The teachers’ science process skills were assessed by the Performance Test on Science Process Skills (PTSP) before and after the workshop. The PTSP consisted of 26 open-ended items. Each basic science process skill was assessed by two test items in different contexts. For example, in the measuring skill, a teacher was asked to use a spring balance to measure the mass of a bottle filled with steel balls (Item 7) and to use a cylinder to measure the volume of red syrup (Item 8) without units provided. In the using space and time relationships skill, a teacher was given two pictures of the Moon positioned in the sky at different times (8 pm and 2 am) and required to identify the position of the Moon at 11 pm (Item 15). Another item (Item 16) for measuring this skill asked the teacher to draw a 3D picture of a plant cell from 2D cross- and long- section pictures. In addition, two sets of items were used to assess the integrated skills. Each set was comprised of items for the skills of; identifying the independent, dependent and controlled variables, formulating a hypothesis, operationally defining the dependent variable, recording the data in self-designing tables, and drawing the conclusions. The experimental contexts for measuring the integrated skills were: 1) comparing the amount of sugar in three different fruit juices through the Benedict’s test; and 2) experimenting of how the amount of coils affects electrostatic induction. 47


In the last session of the workshop, the teachers were required to work in groups to prepare lesson plans aimed to enhance student science process skills using social constructivist learning activities. They were permitted to create a new lesson plan or improve their own lesson plans normally used in their classrooms. In total, six lesson plans were gathered from the teachers.

Data Analysis The responses from the PTSP were analyzed by a rubric of performance of science process skills adapted from the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). Then, the mean scores of each skill before and after the workshop were statistically compared by a paired sample t-test to determine the development of the teachers’ science process skills. The lesson plans were reviewed several times by the researchers in order to detect any specific patterns of how teachers integrated science process skills and the social constructivist perspectives into the teaching and learning.

Results and Discussion Teachers’ Interaction and Science Process Skills At the beginning of the workshop, the teachers actively shared their ideas about teaching by using laboratory activities they employ in their classrooms. All of them stated that they were familiar with guided, cookbook-like experiments. This finding is consistent with the regular practice of teaching and learning of school laboratory work (e.g. Hodson 1998; Lunetta 1998). When discussing students designing investigations and experiments, a majority of the teachers expressed that they had never tried these activities in their classrooms because they were worried about time constraint, limited materials, and student failure. Providing students a chance to design investigations and experiments appeared as a challenging issue for the teachers. During the workshop, some teachers commented that the workshop provided them the opportunities to conduct their own experiments and also share results with their peers. The teachers mentioned that they enjoyed the learning experience by taking the students’ role when creating the Earth models, calculating the ratio of earth structure, making simple indicator papers, and acid testing. After this, the teachers reflected on their experiences from the other workshops, that most of the workshops emphasized the teaching and learning theories, methods, or techniques, but rarely engaged them with science practical activities. This was similar to the finding reported by Banerjee (2010) and Deter (2005). The teachers were excited about the PTSP because they rarely had a chance to assess their own science process skills. Some of the teachers reflected that PTSP was convenient and could be adapted for assessing student science process skills in their classrooms. Two teachers, teaching the selective science courses focusing student science process skills, reflected that they always assigned students to do science projects and used paper-pencil tests to assess students’ skills. They were interested in assessing students’ practical skills and would apply some items in PTSP to assess their students in the future. This finding shows a consistency with previous research done that teachers rarely assess students’ practical science process skills (Tobin, Kahle and Fraser 1990; Harlen 1999). When required to do science practical activities, most of the teachers started ‘doing’ without ‘planning’. In the first practical activity of the workshop, namely “the Mirror and Images”, the teachers were challenged with the question “Can you see more parts of your body in a positionfixed plane mirror when you moved backwards?” Two teachers were asked to demonstrate this activity, that is, the first teacher held a plane mirror and the other stood in front of the mirror and slowly moved backwards step-by-step. Based on prior knowledge, almost all teachers immediately answered to the question, “‘Yes”. Then, the teachers were asked to do a group

48


investigation to seek evidence supporting their answer. All the groups started doing the investigation without formulating hypotheses, identifying and controlling variables, and planning the procedure. All teachers were not aware of the height of the mirror from the floor and the angle of the mirrors while being held. The high level of confidence of the teachers made a majority of them failed to collect accurate results from the experiment. The majority of teachers had difficulties in controlling variables and replication. In particular, the lung capacity experiment, the teachers were required to measure the lung capacity of all members in their groups. The lung capacity was represented by the volume of the bubble being breath-full blown. Then, they were asked “What factors affect the lung capacity of each member?” They were required to plan and conduct an experiment to verify their hypotheses. All groups selected either age or gender as the independent variables of their experiments. During this activity, the researchers noticed that most of the teachers did not have enough understanding about controlling the variables, so they could not appropriately design their experiments. For example, in a group with three female members having a similar age (42, 43, 46 years old), selected age as an independent variable. After the experiment, they claimed that the ages of the group members were not varied enough to ensure a valid conclusion. No groups could identify the factors affecting lung capacity because they did not have the idea of sharing the results between groups. Furthermore, most of the designs were also weak in replications. This finding revealed that the teachers lack an understanding of, and experiences about, conducting scientific experiments. Supportably, previous research highlighted that the experiences of teachers with inappropriate science laboratory activities and misconception of inquiry affected their classroom practice and attitudes in teaching. Without any background of the nature of science and scientific inquiry, teachers would not be empowered in delivering the skills and methods to students (Atar 2011; Roehrig and Luft 2004).

Effect of the Workshop on Teachers’ Science Process Skills The average scores of the 36 teachers’ science process skills reflected by the PTSP before and after the workshop can be presented as Table 2. Table 2: Teachers’ Average Scores from the PTSP Before and After Attending the Workshop

Science Process Skills Observing Inferring Classifying Measuring Using of numbers Communicating Predicting Using space/time relationships Identifying variables Formulating hypotheses Defining variables operationally Experimenting Interpreting data and drawing conclusions Note * p

Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning

Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning

Suggest Documents