Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

This paper has the explicit aim to raise questions about ourselves, in fact, to question the very ways in which we science educators do business and understand ourselves. Would it come as a surprise if some readers were upset with me for raising such questions? Negative responses to the issues I articulate in this paper are at the very heart of what my chapter is about. How does a community of practice renew itself when at the very moment that those of its members who propose change are often silenced by journal and book reviewers who see their power, which they have gained in the existing community, threatened by new or different ideas? And how can we begin talking about such issues without upsetting those who have different stakes and views? But then, we also need to ask, how can the science education community renew itself if there are gatekeepers who uphold the old order? That is, how can the science education community (of practice) change itself from doing normal science to doing revolutionary science?

This paper describes some general aspects of the problem posing approach, as developed at the CSMEU. It describes why this approach has been developed; what didactical problem it tries to focus on; from what perspective this is done; to what didactical structures such an approach may lead, and what its application may involve for a teacher. The arguments are endorsed by examples taken from recent PhD work, but placed within a wider perspective.

In this paper the two international comparative studies IEA TIMSS and OECD PISA have been discussed by comparing their similarities and differences. A number of examples have been presented to demonstrate how findings in various areas are relevant to help improve science education. Focus are on students’ conceptual understanding, gender and school differences, relations to home background factors, and on what characteristics of instruction that seem to be related to high achievement. Furthermore, the assessment frameworks for the two studies are argued to be of influential importance in its own terms, but that any influence on national aims and curricula should be carefully considered only in a national context.

From international comparative studies (TIMSS, PISA) it appears that students in lower secondary education in the Netherlands perform relatively well in mathematics and science compared to their peers from other participating countries. Policy-makers, especially, are eager to bring these positive outcomes into the limelight. However, one may wonder whether, in case of the Netherlands, there is good reason for such zeal. An evaluation study, conducted by the Netherlands Inspectorate of Education, shows that lower secondary schools do not meet the quality required in implementing a curriculum reform that started in 1993, entitled ‘basic secondary education’. So, in spite of all rhetoric on the positive outcomes of TIMSS and PISA in the Netherlands, when putting the relatively good student performance in the context of the implementation of this ambitious curriculum reform, many people become puzzled. Research findings on the quality of mathematics and science education seem to be in conflict with the results of TIMMS and PISA. This conclusion and also the observation that international comparative assessment studies have serious difficulty in meeting the goal of providing proper interpretations of student achievement, especially from a curriculum perspective, give reason to attempt to disentangle the conflicting images.

I discuss a number of features of world-wide science curriculum development, including the extent to which each development is local and specific, the relationship to issues and ideologies current at the time, the question of ‘top-down’ versus ‘bottom-up’ development, the role of didactic inventions and creativity, the relationship of development to research, and the question of ownership.

In this paper we elaborate on three potential strategies to promote meaningful chemistry education: using relevant contexts, offering content on a need-to-know basis, and making students feel that their input matters. We illustrate that it is educationally worthwhile to incorporate these characteristics, through our work on a particular chemistry module. Such emphasis leads to concrete, empirically based designs of modules and to heuristic guidelines for educational design decisions. It also productively informs further theorizing, such as an improved conceptualisation of the relations between the three characteristics. We therefore suggest that the type of investigation discussed in this paper, and the scenario-based design method which goes along with it, deserves a more prominent place in science education research.

Science teachers can lack pedagogic skill and confidence in handling multi-faceted socio-scientific issues. This project explored the development, implementation, and evaluation of a ‘cross-curricular’ day as a suitable vehicle in eight different schools for both engaging 14–16 year old pupils in active consideration of social aspects of genetics and enabling science and humanities teachers to collaborate in planning and delivery. The cross-curricular research team planned a programme of activities, involving volunteer teams of teachers in development. Pupils in participating schools generally found the day stimulating, increasing their understanding of genetics and appreciation of social aspects. However, implementation showed that some teachers missed important learning opportunities as a result of lack of critical scaffolding of pupils’ discussions and limited expertise in ethical analysis. Cross-curricular collaboration was successful in presenting pupils with a holistic experience but had limitations in developing teachers’ expertise. Continuing professional development for both science and humanities teachers is needed to address socioscientific issues effectively.

The School Innovation in Science (SIS) initiative has developed and evaluated a model to improve science teaching and learning across a school system. The model involves a framework for describing effective teaching and learning, and a strategy that allows schools flexibility to develop their practice to suit local conditions and to maintain ownership of the change process. SIS has proved successful in improving science teaching and learning in primary and secondary schools. Evidence of variations in the nature and extent of the change is used to argue that the process is essentially cultural in nature, and that change occurs at different levels within a school. Processes supporting change thus need to be flexible and responsive.

Connecting science to students’ everyday life experiences is an important theme in science education discourse. The aim of this article is to explore in what ways ‘everyday life’ is used in the science classroom and what problems are solved through the use of ‘everyday life’. The research approach is ethnographic. Data was gathered through participant observation during one semester, in two Swedish science classes. Results show that ‘everyday life’ is brought into the classroom and made into school tasks within different types of activities; enculturation into science, education of scientifically literate citizens and making science interesting. The results underscore the importance of understanding the use of ‘everyday life’ in science classrooms as embedded in science classroom practice.

Research in science teacher thinking and constructivist pedagogy calls for an expanded knowledge base of teaching, and raising the issue of teaching and understanding of such knowledge by students during teacher education. In the present paper we discuss certain recent studies concerning teachers’ knowledge base; besides we present and discuss a framework for developing and investigating courses in science teacher education; finally, in the third part, we present aspects of a case study illustrating the suggested framework.