Framework For Science Education Research Articles

Deep understanding of electromagnetism using crosscutting concepts

Crosscutting concepts like patterns and models are fundamental parts in both the American framework of science education (from the AAAS) and our proposals for a new science education framework in Flanders. These concepts deepen the insight of both students and teachers. They help students to ask relevant questions during an inquiry and they give an understanding in how scientists built up their scientific theories. We illustrate the didactical possibilities of crosscutting concepts within the field of electromagnetism.

Two concepts of radiation - a case study investigating existing preconceptions

Conceptual Change is a widely accepted theoretical framework for science education. Setting up successful learning and teaching arrangements in this framework necessarily entails including students´ preconceptions into the construction of those arrangements. In order to provide a basis for such arrangements this study investigated and explored preconceptions about radiation in a qualitative case study with seven students (age 17-18). The use of grounded theory allowed the discovery of deep-rooted conceptions and the formulation of a theory to help learners understand the basic concepts of radiation more quickly and more reliably. The results revealed a new conception „the nature of radiation“, which hampers students’ understanding and interferes with their explanations of radiation. Additionally, analysis of the data revealed interesting conceptions concerning the danger of different types of radiation. These highly interesting findings about the nature of radiation will be embedded in a broader perspective and suggestions for learning and teaching about radiation will be given.

It Is Time To Say What We Mean

While there is now general acceptance that active learning and inquiry are desirable, there is much less agreement on what these terms actually mean—and perhaps surprisingly to some, quite contradictory evidence about their efficacy. Similarly, while we might agree that critical thinking is an important outcome, even experts cannot agree what critical thinking is. In this editorial, I argue that it is now time to be more specific about what we mean when we talk about effective pedagogical approaches and the desired outcomes. One approach is to adopt the scientific practices from the Framework for Science Education, which are well described, and by their very nature require that students construct and use their knowledge. If we know what we are looking for, it is easier to recognize and assess it when we see it.

Teacher education students using TPACK in science: a case study

Teacher education is in the grip of change. Due to the new Australian Curriculum, no longer is it possible to plan and implement lessons without considering the inclusion of Information and Communication Technologies. Simply knowing about the latest technology gadgets is not enough. Information literacy is essential in today’s information-rich learning and working environment. Students and teachers must be able to engage with diverse learning technologies efficiently and effectively in the search for the “right information” at the “right time” for the “right purpose”. Key information literacy and inquiry skills have been recognised as vital learning goals by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority and the International Society for Technology in Education and are thus critical in science teacher education. This paper examines the overlap of technology, pedagogy and science content in the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and its affordances for science educators, at the intersection between technology knowledge, science pedagogy (information literacy and inquiry) and science content knowledge. Following an introduction of the TPACK framework for science education, the paper reports the research findings, which illustrate that 90% of pre-service teachers thought the experimental unit improved their understanding of the inquiry process, 88% reported more confidence in their understanding of science concepts and 94% of students reported an increase in their knowledge and confidence of Web 2.0 tools in supporting scientific inquiry in science. The implications of this study are that the online inquiry improved students’ knowledge and confidence in the skills and processes associated with inquiry and in science concepts.

The Unseen Microbial World as a Tool for Learning Biology

This is an exciting time in biology education. Important reports such as Bio2010 and Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education , which are based on science education research, are moving biology education practice toward concepts and competencies in undergraduate education. The Next Generation Science Standards have established a framework for science education on which to build curricula in the K–12 arena. Current teaching promotes inquiry, problem solving, and other forms of active learning. This special issue of The American Biology Teacher highlights the power of microbiology as a tool for teaching these core concepts and competencies. Microbiology is rising within the public consciousness, opening learning opportunities not only for students who want careers in biology but also for the general public. Microbiology touches every aspect of our lives and influences important decisions that affect our health and environment, making it an ideal way to engage students in biology. This engagement goes beyond the obvious topics, such as infectious diseases like Ebola, measles, HIV, and influenza, to global topics such as climate change, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and nutrition. Through discussions of the science behind the headlines, these topics provide approachable introductions to science and ethics. A vast array of resources and case studies are available for teaching these concepts using microbiology. Online tutorials on all these topics, along with online games, hands-on activities, and …

INFORMING A LEARNING PROGRESSION IN GENETICS: WHICH SHOULD BE TAUGHT FIRST, MENDELIAN INHERITANCE OR THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY?

The Framework for Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards in the USA emphasize learning progressions (LPs) that support conceptual coherence and the gradual building of knowledge over time. In the domain of genetics there are two independently developed alternative LPs. In essence, the difference between the two progressions hinges on conjectures regarding the accessibility of Mendelian versus molecular genetics, the conceptual dependencies between them, and the order in which they should be taught. The discrepancies between the two progressions stem, in part, from gaps in the current research base. To address the question of whether learning one aspect of genetics, Mendelian or molecular, supports the learning of the other, we analyzed correlations between students’ test scores on item subsets for Mendelian and molecular genetics on written pre-post assessments. Students were seventh graders who received intensive instruction in Mendelian and molecular genetics. We found that students’ pretest scores on the molecular items were moderately correlated with their posttest scores on the Mendelian genetics item set (but not the other way around). This suggests that molecular genetics understandings may bootstrap the learning of Mendelian genetics. Implying that, in contrast to prevalent practice, molecular genetics should be taught before Mendelian genetics.

Self-Report and Academic Factors in Relation to High School Students’ Success in an Innovative Biotechnology Program

Biotechnology constitutes one of the most challenging, cutting-edge, and rapidly growing fields in science today (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). Its products influence our daily lives on multiple levels and often improve our quality of life. Both the practical implications and the hands-on nature of this ‘modern science’ make the topic of biotechnology an attractive addition to the high school science curriculum (France, 2007). The interdisciplinary nature of biotechnology also makes it an ideal candidate for future curricular offerings that strive to incorporate the K-12 Framework for Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; http://www.nextgenscience.org/). Bybee (2011) noted that the shift from inquiry methods to the use of both science and engineering practices will likely be the greatest challenges related to the NGSS, and suggested that these practices should be thought of as both instructional strategies and learning outcomes. Indeed, the NGSS performance expectations place emphasis on combining practice and content in the assessment of student learning (Bybee, 2012). Sneider (2012) suggested the use of existing learning activities as a first step in integrating technology and engineering practice into science teaching. The literature provides both a conceptual base for integrating biotechnology into curricular offerings, as well as practical examples implemented by early adopters. Wells (1994), for example, gathered biotechnology experts to compose a common taxonomic structure to guide the development of high school biotechnology curricula. Twenty panel members identified eight main areas, including topics that span both science (e.g., biochemistry, medicine, environmental science) and engineering (e.g., genetic engineering, food science, environmental safety). Similarly, an early survey of biology teachers captured recommendations for science and engineering content (the structure and function of DNA, understanding the genetic code, genetic engineering, cloning, and the biology of cancer), as well as the recommendation that this content be delivered through labs when possible (Zeller,1994). Harms (2002) noted that providing students with the opportunity to practice biotechnology provides specific examples of applied science that generalize to a differentiated understanding of concepts.

Learning about a fish from an ANT: actor network theory and science education in the postgenomic era

This article uses actor network theory (ANT) to develop a more appropriate model of scientific literacy for students, teachers, and citizens in a society increasingly populated with biotechnological and bioscientific nonhumans. In so doing, I take the recent debate surrounding the first genetically engineered animal food product under review by the FDA, AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage® salmon, as a vehicle for exploring the ways in which the biosciences have fundamentally altered the boundary between nature and culture and thus the way the public understands both. In response to the new challenges of a postgenomic society, I outline three frameworks for using ANT literacies in classroom settings. Each frame, I argue, is foundational to the development of a scientific literacy that can trace and map actors involved in controversies such as the AquAdvantage® salmon. In examining these frames I follow the actor of a salmon through an environmental history lens, the technoscientific literacy operating in AquaBounty’s FDA application and the National Academies new science education framework, and finally to a model of democracy rooted in an ethic of the common. The ultimate claim of this article is that until science education (and education in general) can begin to include nonhumans such as the AquAdvantage® salmon as part of a common political framework, students, educators, and community members will continue to be at the mercy of experts and corporate stakeholders for defining the terms in which people heal, feed, and educate themselves now and in the future.

Assessing Scientific Practices Using Machine-Learning Methods: How Closely Do They Match Clinical Interview Performance?

The landscape of science education is being transformed by the new Framework for Science Education (National Research Council, A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012), which emphasizes the centrality of scientific practices— such as explanation, argumentation, and communication—in science teaching, learning, and assessment. A major chal- lenge facing the field of science education is developing assessment tools that are capable of validly and efficiently evaluating these practices. Our study examined the efficacy of a free, open-source machine-learning tool for evaluating the quality of students' written explanations of the causes of evolutionary change relative to three other approaches: (1) human-scored written explanations, (2) a multiple- choice test, and (3) clinical oral interviews. A large sample of undergraduates (n = 104) exposed to varying amounts of evolution content completed all three assessments: a clinical oral interview, a written open-response assessment, and a multiple-choice test. Rasch analysis was used to compute linear person measures and linear item measures on a single logit scale. We found that the multiple-choice test displayed poor person and item fit (mean square outfit (1.3), while both oral interview measures and computer- generated written response measures exhibited acceptable fit (average mean square outfit for interview: person 0.97, item 0.97; computer: person 1.03, item 1.06). Multiple- choice test measures were more weakly associated with interview measures (r = 0.35) than the computer-scored explanation measures (r = 0.63). Overall, Rasch analysis indicated that computer-scored written explanation mea- sures (1) have the strongest correspondence to oral inter- view measures; (2) are capable of capturing students' normative scientific and naive ideas as accurately as human-scored explanations, and (3) more validly detect understanding than the multiple-choice assessment. These findings demonstrate the great potential of machine-learn- ing tools for assessing key scientific practices highlighted in the new Framework for Science Education.

Embracing Scientific and Engineering Practices in 4-H

The 4-H Science Initiative has renewed efforts to strengthen 4-H programmatic and evaluation efforts in science and engineering education. A fundamental component of this initiative is to provide opportunities to youth to aid in their development of science process skills; however, emerging research stresses the importance of engaging youth in authentic practices of science and engineering. Refocusing 4-H efforts on a sociocultural framework of science education that emphasizes a participation-oriented framework towards learning scientific and engineering practices ensures 4-H programs are affording youth high-quality learning experiences.

2009 개정 과학교육과정에 따른 고등학교 물리 교과서 탐구활동 분석

본 연구에서는 2009 개정 과학 교육과정에 따른 고등학교 물리 교과서에 제시된 탐구활동을 과학적 실천 개념을 이용하여 분석하고, 교과서를 통해 학생들에게 제공되는 가능한 탐구 학습의 경험을 알아보았다. 분석 결과 '자료를 분석하고 해석하기'와 '설명 구성하고 문제해결 고안하기'가 다른 과학적 실천에 비해 강조되는 것으로 나타났다. 반면 '질문하고 문제 규정하기'는 물리 교과서 4권을 통틀어 단 1건이 있었다. 단원별로 강조되는 과학적 실천의 차이가 거의 없어 특정 과학적 실천의 강조가 교과 내용과는 무관한 것으로 드러났다. 또한 탐구활동에서 수행한 과학적 실천이 교과서 내용 전개상의 탐구활동의 목적과는 무관하게 사용되고 있음이 드러났다. 교육과정과 교과서 그리고 교사 교육에 대한 시사점과 후속 연구 과제를 제시하였다. The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of inquiry activities proposed in high school physics textbooks that were developed based on the 2009 science curriculum in Korea. The inquiry activities were analyzed using the notion of scientific practices introduced in the Science Education Framework (NRC, 2012). The results showed that the inquiry activities in the textbooks emphasized two of eight types of scientific practices including "Analyzing and interpreting data" and "Constructing explanations". In contrast, the activities required students to "ask questions" only once in a total of 291 science inquiry activities. The other types of scientific practices appeared less than 10%. Also found was that the types of scientific practices were not relevant to the way inquiry activities were used for textbook content. Implications for the curriculum and science teacher education were discussed.

Education Framework Needs Better Foundation

I do not share B. Alberts's enthusiasm for the draft Framework for Science Education (“Reframing science standards,” Editorial, 30 July, p. [491][1]). For no apparent reason, the process has been insanely rushed: less than a year for a report that could have a major impact (for better or worse). The Framework committee met just four times before release of the draft, and then the time allotted for serious peer review was vanishingly small. Contrary to the Editorial, I found the draft to be far from promising. Among other deficiencies, it does not support its claim to call for reduced content. It is also conceptually confusing and muddies the distinction between framework and standards. Except for its inclusion of engineering, there is little in it that is new. It vastly overemphasizes (as does the Editorial) the importance of everyone being able to “do” science and “do” engineering, and of the capacity of schools to deliver such training. I believe that scientists and teachers would be well advised to call for a more protracted, properly peer-reviewed process, and especially one that takes time to examine thoroughly the half-century-old issue of K–12 education for understanding science versus doing science ([ 1 ][2]). To assume that the shortcoming of the framework will be taken care of in the next phase is to avoid our scientific and educational responsibility to get it right from the start. 1. [↵][3] 1. J. Rutherford , J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2, 80 (1964). [OpenUrl][4][CrossRef][5] 2. The author is the former Chief Education Officer of AAAS. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1195444 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BRes.%2BSci.%2BTeach.%26rft.volume%253D2%26rft.spage%253D80%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252Ftea.3660020204%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [5]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/tea.3660020204&link_type=DOI

Can theoretical constructs in science be generalised across disciplines?

For many years there has been a growing concern, particularly among researchers in biology education, about the extent to which research findings from one discipline (most usually physics education) can be applied directly to other disciplines (particularly biology education). This paper explores the issue through the use of one particular theoretical construct - Learning Demand - to inform the design of a plant nutrition teaching sequence. Reflections on this experience suggest that the basic construct could be applied to good effect but contextual differences between disciplines make it more difficult to agree common ground in relation to the finer detail. Implications for the development of a common framework for science education are considered.

In search of new lights: getting the most from competing perspectives

Some 18 months ago, Wolff-Michael Roth approached me with the idea to have a special issue on conceptual change theory and sociocultural theories that might be complementary or alternative. He was writing an article that adopted a bottom-up approach to the learning of science, that is, an approach that addressed questions such as ‘‘What competencies allow students and interviewers alike to talk about conceptions?’’ ‘‘Under what conditions can researchers extract conceptions from interview materials?’’ and ‘‘What are the implications of the fact that interviewers and students talk about conceptions that researchers denote as ‘misconceptions’?’’ I readily agreed because I regarded the pervasive acceptance of conceptual change theory as an ideology that obscured some of the most important issues in science education. Providing a forum in which the status quo was analyzed alongside of sociocultural alternatives was appealing to me. For my professional life as a science educator, which began more than 40 years ago, I have experienced the steady rise of conceptual change theory as a theoretical framework for science education. I never fully embraced this framework even though I was primarily interested in teaching and learning of science, and learning to teach science. I carefully studied its tenets, considered how they might be applied, but never really saw any advantage in adopting its premises, largely because conceptual change theory did not address praxis or knowledgeability. Hence, neither teaching nor learning was adequately addressed in ways that shed light on the issues that my research sought to address. I have continuously searched for appropriate theoretical frameworks for my research in science education, being mindful of Max Van Manen’s (1990) advice that those seeking to shine fresh light on an issue first must find the light. In so doing I have been mindful that as theories illuminate landscapes in particular ways, they simultaneously obscure or fail to discern other potentially salient issues.

Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking

This longitudinal case-study aimed at examining whether purposely teaching for the promotion of higher order thinking skills enhances students’ critical thinking (CT), within the framework of science education. Within a pre-, post-, and post–post experimental design, high school students, were divided into three research groups. The experimental group (n = 57) consisted of science students who were exposed to teaching strategies designed for enhancing higher order thinking skills. Two other groups: science (n = 41) and non-science majors (n = 79), were taught traditionally, and acted as control. By using critical thinking assessment instruments, we have found that the experimental group showed a statistically significant improvement on critical thinking skills components and disposition towards critical thinking subscales, such as truth-seeking, open-mindedness, self-confidence, and maturity, compared with the control groups. Our findings suggest that if teachers purposely and persistently practice higher order thinking strategies for example, dealing in class with real-world problems, encouraging open-ended class discussions, and fostering inquiry-oriented experiments, there is a good chance for a consequent development of critical thinking capabilities.

Hermeneutics and science education: An introduction

This paper is a programmatic sketch of a line of theoretical investigation in the philosophy of science education. The basic idea is that philosophical hermeneutics is an appropriate framework for science education in most of its aspects. A brief discussion is given of hermeneutics in general, of the version of it developed by H. G. Gadamer, and of the reasons for its relevance to science and to the problem of meaning in science education. A key element in this approach is the suggestion that each science be biewed as a language. Arguments against the appropriateness of hermeneutics to natural science are also discussed. One application of the theory to ongoing educational research — ‘misconceptions’ — is specifically treated.

The “pupil-as-scientist” metaphor in science education

The language used in the science education literature often serves the explicit function of presenting information and making cases but it also conveys implicit messages and points to links outside the technical framework of science education. The “pupil-as-scientist” metaphor is embedded in a rich network of associated ideas only some of which have been exploited in research in this and other areas.

"Alcohol and drunkenness"--a newly developed curricular unit as a model for drug-education, science oriented curricular programs.

Alcohol and Drunkenness is a newly developed science-oriented curriculum which constitutes an innovative attempt at coping with the problem of excessive drinking among high school students. It is a field-tested, practical and manageable model of a program aimed at influencing attitudes of Israeli teenagers toward excessive drinking and to affect their behavior accordingly. This preventive program in drug-education was developed at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, with the need for an appropriate preventive educational program in mind to be implemented and disseminated within the upper level of the Israeli school system. The preventive model of the curriculum is the so-called “social science model.” The program deals with primary prevention, is related to direct prevention, integrates the cognitive and the affective domains, fosters the decision-making component, emphasizes Jewish values and norms concerning alcohol consumption, and is interdisciplinary in approach. The program, which constitutes the first attempt of its kind in Israel to cope within the Israeli school system with excessive drinking, and the first attempt to battle excessive drinking in the framework of science education, can represent a curriculum model for future preventive programs within the realm of science education, as well as a curriculum model for interdisciplinary studies. Based on the results of a field test it is safe to conclude that the curriculum may be considered as a viable procedure in the prevention of excessive drinking among youngsters.

A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement

Science education is presented as the negotiation of knowledge between several different perspectives: those provided by ‘scientists’ science’, ‘ curricular science’, ‘teachers’ science’, ‘children's science’ and ‘students’ science’. A case study based on concepts of force and movement is used to illuminate these perspectives, and implications for the curricular presentation and classroom teaching of the ideas are discussed.