Teaching Science

1. Teaching Science Nico N. Largo

2. What is science learning? John Moore (1993, 502), a noted biology educator, says that: “Science is both knowledge of the natural world expressed in naturalistic terms and the procedures for obtaining that knowledge.”

3. How do students learn Science? Based on the analysis of Martin et al. (2004) on the recently published findings of TIMSS, the effective delivery of the content and the schools with positive climates for learning are the two important factors related to instruction which contribute in science learning.

4. THE TEACHER AS A FACTOR It was found out that higher levels of teacher science content knowledge has a positive correlation with the effective teaching practices (Supovitz and Turner 2000) and student science achievement (Rowan et al. 2000).

5. The use of instructional aides and the questions being asked to the students are important factors in teaching science. Analogies, open-ended problems, models, and explanations all allow students to connect new information with past experiences (Chin and Brown, 2000).

6. Inquiry Approach/Inquiry Learning According to Moreno et al. (2001), the guided inquiry, in which students explore a question or a variation of a question posed by the teacher, is a particularly valuable approach.

7. Freedman (1997) found that hands-on laboratory experiences raised achievement levels and promoted positive attitudes toward science among all members of a multiracial and multi-ethnic population enrolled in a ninth-grade physical science course.

8. Inquiry Training (Suchman, 1962) • Students inquire naturally when they are puzzled. • They can become conscious and learn to analyze their thinking strategies.

9. 3. New strategies can be taught directly and added to the students’ existing ones. 4. Cooperative inquiry enriches thinking and lelps students to learn about the nature of knowledge and to appreciate alternative explanations.

10. Five phases of Inquiry Training PHASE ONE: Confrontation with the problem PHASE TWO: Data Gathering - Verification

11. PHASE THREE: Data Gathering - Experimentation PHASE FOUR: Organizing, Formulating an Explanation PHASE FIVE: Analyze of the Inquiry Process

12. Inductive Approach Phases of the inductive model • identifying and enumerating the data relevant to a topic or problem • grouping these items into categories

13. interpreting the data and developing labels for the categories • converting the categories into skills or hypothesis

14. Constructivism David Ausubel summarized this when he wrote: “If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.”

15. According to Meyer (2004), the challenge for teachers is to assess student’s preconceptions prior to introducing new topics so that appropriate learning experiences can be provided.

16. Constructivist views of learning have been summarized by Driver and Bell (1986) as: • Learning outcomes depend not only on the learning environment but also on the knowledge of the learner. • Learning involves the construction of meanings.

17. The construction of meaning is a continuous and active process. • Meanings, once constructed, are evaluated and can be accepted or rejected. • Learners have the final responsibility for their learning. • There are patterns in the types of meanings students construct due to shared experiences.

18. Driver and Oldham (1986) characterized a number of stages or steps of constructivism: • Orientation – students are given the opportunity to develop a sense of purpose and motivation for learning the topic. • Elicitation – pupils make their current ideas on the topic of the lesson clear.

19. Restructuring of ideas – the heart of the constructivist lesson. It consists of: • Clarification and exchange of ideas • Construction of new ideas

20. Evaluation – students figure out the best ways of testing the alternative ideas • Application of ideas – Students are given the opportunity to use their developed ideas in a variety of situations. • Review – Students reflect back on how their ideas have changed

21. Cooperative Learning Fifteen essential elements of cooperative learning A. Clear set of specific student learning outcome objectives B. Collective “buy in” to outcome objectives by all students in the group. C. Clear and complete set of task-completion instructions.

22. D. Heterogeneous groups. E. Equal opportunity for success. F. Positive interdependence. G. Face-to-face interaction. H. Positive social interaction behaviours and attitudes. I. Access to must-learn information.

23. J. Opportunities to finish must-complete information-processing tasks. K. Sufficient time spent learning. L. Individual accountability. M. Public recognition and rewards for group academic success. N. Postgroup reflection.

24. SYNTAX OF GROUP INVESTIGATION PHASE ONE: Students encounter puzzling situation PHASE TWO: Students explore reactions to the situation

25. PHASE THREE: Students formulate study task and organize for study PHASE FOUR: Independent and group study PHASE FIVE: Students analyze progress and process PHASE SIX: Recycle activity.

26. Cooperative Learning Structures • Mix-Freeze-Pair • Think-Pair-Share • Guess-the-Fib • Value lines • Roundtable • Numbered Heads Together • Round Robin • One stray • Jigsaw

27. Hsin and Wu (2011) • examined young children’s explanations of floating and sinking and to investigate how scaffolding strategies could promote their scientific understandings • Fifteen 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds from a public kindergarten in northern Taiwan were the respondents

28. Both 4 and 5-year-olds in the scaffolding-material group and scaffolding group improved their explanation of floatation in which combining it with scaffolding is more effective. • It was found out that 4-year-olds needed more scaffolding than 5-year-olds. • It was also found out that 4-year olds’ explanations were related to the weight and volume of the objects which suggests that 4-year-olds have started to notice the physical characteristics of objects.

29. Taber and Taylor (2009) • aimed to determine the misconceptions of primary students about global warming prior to the teaching intervention based upon a constructivist view of learning students’ understanding of global warming. • 22 males and 7females with a total of 29 grade 6 students participated

30. it appeared that the teaching intervention did improve the understanding of global warming held by the students. • It was also found out that teaching primary children the difference between global warming and hole in the ozone layer had little impact • According to the researcher, even when the existing conception is addressed and new information systematically introduced, the learner may still chose to remain with their initial conception.

31. THE STUDENTS AS A FACTOR Students are motivated to learn when they apply information to resolve problems where students test their predictions and hypothesis during the exploration of a science question.

32. THE STUDENTS AS A FACTOR The students who are interested in the task are more likely to use higher-level thinking strategies and be more persistent in their efforts to follow through with an idea (Chin and Brown, 2000).

33. Lee et al. (2005) • examined the effectiveness of notetaking strategy on elementary students’ notetakingbehavior • 103 third grade students age 8-9 years old from a school in a southern rural Taiwan participated but the final number of participants is 93 because nine did not complete the training.

34. The full and partial notetaking groups took more notes as observed where full notetaking was the highest. • The result showed a potential to improve students’ learning by teaching effective studying strategies as indicated in thelong-term free recall. • The results suggest that it is important for teachers to recognize that young students always need to be reminded to take notes on important lecture information.

35. THE SCHOOL OR LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AS A FACTOR When students are allowed to conduct real research with practicing scientists, they can acquire insights into data collection and use of evidence (Etkina et al. 2003), develop and use sophisticated laboratory skills (Knox et al. 2003) and build abilities to plan and conduct their own investigations (Korman and Dixon 1997).

36. Oluwatelure (2010) • investigated the relationship between classroom learning environment and scientific literacy level of the learners. • 449 secondary students and 81 science teachers were the respondents

37. It was observed that the science teachers’ ratings for the best learning environment was the Type A (Old Mission and Federal Government Schools). • It was found out that the correlation of the respondents’ scientific literacy level scores and the learning environment checklist scores was significant.

38. It was also observed that there was a significant difference between the respondents’ scientific literacy level scores based on their science learning environment. • The researcher concluded that all stakeholders in education need to look forward in creating a constructivist learning environment.

39. Ogunkola (2011) • aimed to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the selected students’ performance linked to their attitude towards use of technology in science teaching, interest in science and study habit as well as to determine the effects of the three selected variables on students’ achievement in science

40. 300 4th Form students participated in this study. • Four validated instruments were used for collection of data which includes Science Achievement Test (SAT), Interest in Science Scale (ISS), Study Habit Scale (SAS) and Attitude to Use of Technology in Education (ATUTE).

41. The results showed that there were significant differences in students’ science achievement based on their attitude to use of technology in science teachingin favour of students who have positive attitude to use of technology in science teaching, interest in science in favour of students with high interest in science, and study habit infavorof students with good study habits.

42. The combination of the three variables significantly contributed to science achievement . • The researcher concluded that secondary school principals and practicing science teachers should encourage the development of positive attitude to use of technology in science teaching, high interest in science and good study habit.

43. References: Rhoton, J. and Shane P. (2006). Teaching Science in the 21stcentury.NationalTeachers Association. United States of America. Stahl, R. J. (1996). Cooperative Learning in Science. Addison-Wesely Publishing Company. Mathews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching. Routledge. Trowbridge, L. W. and Bybee, R. W. (1996). Teaching Secondary School Science, 6th edition. Prentice-Hall Inc. Joyce, B., Wel, M. And Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of Teaching, 7th ed. Pearson Education, Inc. United States of America Ogunkola, B. J. (2011). “High School Students’ Attitude to Use of Technology in Science Teaching, Interest in Science and Study Habits as Determinants of Science Achievement in Barbados”.European Journal of Scientific Research. 65 (4): 564-471.

44. Hsin C. T. and H. K. Wu (2011). “Using Scaffolding Strategies to Promote Young Children’s Scientific Understandings of Floating and Sinking”.Journal of Science Education & Technology.20:656–666. T. A. Oluwatelure. (2010). “Classroom Learning Environments As A Correlate of Scientific Literacy”. Journal of College Teaching and Learning. 7 (6): 1-10. Lee, P., W. Lan,D. Hamman and B. Hendricks. (2005). “The effects of teaching notetaking strategies on elementary students’ science learning”. Instr Sci. 36:191–201. Taber, F. and N. Taylor.(2009). “Climate of Concern - A Search for EffectiveStrategies for Teaching Children about Global Warming”.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 4 (2): 97-116. Bawaneh, A. K. A., A. N. Zain, S. Saleh and A. G. K. Abdullah. (2012). “Using Herrmann Whole Brain Teaching Method To EnhanceStudents' Motivation Towards Science Learning”. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 9 (3): 3-22.