International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1308-9501

Original article | International Journal of Educational Researchers 2010, Vol. 1(3) 92-102

Primary and Secondary School Differences in Thinking about Learning Science

Adile Hugh Gash & Thomas McCloughlin

pp. 92 - 102   |  Manu. Number: ijers.2010.014

Published online: December 01, 2010  |   Number of Views: 134  |  Number of Download: 748


Abstract

Samples of teachers and pupils (primary & secondary) in five countries (Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Ireland, & Slovenia) completed questionnaires concerning dimensions of their thinking about learning science that reflect aspects of the constructivist approach. The dimensions concerned the actual experience of (1) teachers’ and (2) pupils’ and (3) teachers’ desired experience in relation to (1) personal relevance/ learning about the world; (2) uncertainty/ learning about science; (3) critical voice/ learning to speak out; (4) shared control/ learning to learn; and (5) student negotiation/ learning to communicate. There were significant differences between countries in each of these three data sets. Results are discussed in terms of the convergences and divergences between primary and secondary data in each country in each of these three domains for the five variables. The issue is whether science teaching is represented as about memorising or about investigating.

Keywords: Constructivist teaching, teachers’ perceptions, pupils’ perceptions, National differences


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Gash, A.H. & McCloughlin, T. (2010). Primary and Secondary School Differences in Thinking about Learning Science. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 1(3), 92-102.

Harvard
Gash, A. and McCloughlin, T. (2010). Primary and Secondary School Differences in Thinking about Learning Science. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 1(3), pp. 92-102.

Chicago 16th edition
Gash, Adile Hugh and Thomas McCloughlin (2010). "Primary and Secondary School Differences in Thinking about Learning Science". International Journal of Educational Researchers 1 (3):92-102.

References
  1. Bauersfeld, H. (1988) Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching. (Vol. 1, pp27-46) Reston, Virginia: NCTM and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [Google Scholar]
  2. Duschl, R.A., & Duncan, R.G. (2009) Beyond the fringe: Building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems. In S. Tobias & T.M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure. (Pp. 311-332). Routledge: London. [Google Scholar]
  3. European Commission: Directorate-General for Research (2005) Europeans, science and technology. Special Eurobarometer 224 / Wave 63.1 - TNS Opinion & Social. European Commission, Europe needs more scientists. 2004, Directorate-General for Research: Brussels. p. 1-215. [Google Scholar]
  4. Group interuniversitaire projet Sophia : Chypre, France, Irlande, Republique tcheque, Slovenie (2009) (Sophie Robert, Hugh Gash, Thomas McCloughlin, Barbara Bajd, Dusan Krnel, Zdenka Chocholouskova, Michaela Dolenska, & [Google Scholar]
  5. Nicos Valanides.) (2009) Formation des enseignants : un exemple de recherche-action. Review Internationale D'Education, Sevres, No 51 septembre, 47-58. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J. & Clark R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 4 (2): 75-86. [Google Scholar]
  7. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  8. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B.S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  9. Linn, M.C., Lee, H.S., Tinker, R., Husic, F. & Chiu , J.L. (2006) Inquiry Learning: Teaching and Assessing Knowledge integration in Science. Science 313 (5790) pp. 1049 - 1050. [Google Scholar]
  10. OECD (2006) Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies - Policy Report; Global Science Forum. [Google Scholar]
  11. O’Hare, D. (2002) Report of task force on the physical sciences. Dublin: Department of Education and Science. [Google Scholar]
  12. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (Ireland). Retreived March 12 2010 from http: //www.ncca.ie [Google Scholar]
  13. Rocard,M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henrikson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007) Science education now: a renewedpedagogy for the future of Europe. Directorate-General for Research: Science, Economy and Society, European Commission. [Google Scholar]
  14. Royal Irish Academy (2009) Making the best of third level science. (2009) Royal Irish Academy. Retreived January 30, 2010, from http://www.ria.ie [Google Scholar]
  15. Taylor, P.C., & Fraser, B.J. (1991). Development of an instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research, 27(4), 293-302. [Google Scholar]
  16. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., & White, L.R. (1994) The revised CLES: a questionnaire for educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia (April). [Google Scholar]
  17. Taylor, P.C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B.J. (1995) A constructivist perspective on monitoring classroom learning environments under transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, San Francisco, California (April). [Google Scholar]
  18. Taylor, P., Fisher, D., & Fraser, B. (1996) A questionnaire for monitoring social constructivist reform in university teaching. Internet paper, last accessed 4th December 2006, URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/taylorp.html [Google Scholar]
  19. Thyssen, M. (2008) EPP-ED Group. Lisbon Strategy: Partnership for growth and jobs should be incorporated in Berlin Declaration. [Press Release] 2007 [cited 2008 17 OCT 08]; Available from:http://www.epp- [Google Scholar]
  20. ed.eu/Press/showPR.asp?PRControlDocTypeID= 1 &PRControlID=5728&PRContentID= 1019 3 &PRContentLg=en [Google Scholar]
  21. Tobin, K. (1990) Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education. Australian Science Teachers Journal. 36 (4) pp29-35. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009) ConstructivistInstruction: Success or Failure. Routledge: London. [Google Scholar]
  23. N. Valanides. (Ed.) (2009) Sophia (128958-CP-1-2006-FR-Comenius-C21-Sophia) Teacher : Professional Development.Cyprus: University of Cyprus. [Google Scholar]