Volume : 3, Issue : 12, DEC 2017
HOW TO DEVELOP ENGAGING SCIENCE EDUCATION ACTIVITIES: A CASE STUDY IN ROMANIA
DR. GEORGETA CHIRLEŞAN, DR. DUMITRU CHIRLEŞAN
The paper shows results obtained from a qualitative research implemented in Romania by the research team of the University of Piteşti involved in the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership project “SciFUN: Making Learning Science Fun”. The purpose of this research was to obtain valid inputs on how science lessons should be designed and what they should contain thus to become more appealing to students, to raise students’ interest. The researched aimed at collecting realistic opinions upon the research topics (designing learning activities to enhance (1) students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and achievement in science education; (2) their competence and efficacy beliefs; (3) their social interaction and motivation) from teachers and educationalists. The research was achieved in July – September 2016, through Literature Review and Focus Group organized with 5 science teachers who are involved or connected to science education and teach to students aged 9 to 15. The mains results from the Literature Review have been synthesized as practical guidelines-tips for teachers and samples of innovative teaching activities. The Focus Group revealed which are the motivational disciplines for students, the activities relevant to the needs and settings of students, teachers and schools and some recommendations for getting students closer to the mysteries of world and life. The research concluded that outdoor activities and experimental lessons are preferred by students instead of theoretical and traditional ones, games and competitions can make lessons more attractive and motivational and that ICT and Web 2.0 technologies could replace the lack of laboratory facilities, providing high-tech experiments.
Science Education; Motivation; Web2.0 Technologies.
Article : Download PDF
Cite This Article
Article No : 10
Number of Downloads : 449
1. Arthur, B. and Russell, W.: The Impact of Science on Society. AMS Press, New York, N.Y. 10003, Library of Congress Card Number: 68-54290, available at https://archive.org/stream/TheImpactOfScienceOnSociety-B.Russell#page/n1/mode/2up, accessed 14 October 2017. 2. Ball, D.L., and Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8. 3. Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Testing assumptions underlying the science education reform: Decision-making on science and technology-based issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. p. 31, available at http://w.eatonintl.com/www.eatonintl.com/Research_files/Formal,%20non-formal%20and%20informal%20learning%20in%20the%20sciences.pdf, accessed 24 November 2017. 4. Burke, J., Bergman, J. and Asimov, I. (2012). The Impact of Science on Society, Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, ISBN 1478241438 (ISBN13: 9781478241430) 5. Clandinin, D.J., and Connelly, F.M. (1991). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, pp. 363-401. New York: Macmillan. 6. Cheung, D. (2017). The key factors affecting students’ individual interest in school science lessons, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 39, Issue 18, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1362711 7. Chimo, D. M. (2012). Effects of Web 2.0 technology on student learning in science, available at http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/1070, accessed 18 November 2017 8. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, pp. 453-494. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 9. Ellis, C. (2013). Web 2.0 Educational Technologies used to Improve Student Achievement, Goucher College, Collection Master of Education, p.5, available at https://mdsoar.org/handle/11603/2384?show=full, accessed 18 November 2017 10. Eurydice. (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research, doi:10.2797/7170 11. Hellgren, J. M. and Lindberg, S. (2017). Motivating students with authentic science experiences: changes in motivation for school science, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 409-426 , https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1322572
12. Koh, T. S. and Tan, K. C. D. (2009). Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education. In Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges, pp. 310-326, doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch020, available at https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/web-technologies-science-education/35922, accessed 18 November 2017 13. Li, Q. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 25, Issue 4, pp. 427-443, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2010.524752 14. Mendelsohn, E., Weingart, P. and Whitely, R.D. (2012). The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, Springer Science & Business Media, available at https://books.google.ro/books?id=0Lt9CAAAQBAJ&dq=social+construction+of+science&lr, accessed 5 October 2017. 15. National Academy of Sciences USA, (1996). Science Teaching Standards. In National Science Education Standards, National Academies Press, New York, pp. 27-54, ISBN 0-309-05326-9. 16. National Research Council, (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625. 17. Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R. Tweeny, D. Gooding, and A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking, pp. 17-56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 18. OECD, Better Policies for Better Lives (2006). 21st Century Learning Environments, ISBN: 9264006486, available at http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/21stcenturylearningenvironments.htm, accessed 4 November 2017. 19. Osborne, J., Simon, S. and Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 25, Issue 9, pp. 1049-1079, https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199. 20. PISA 2015: Results, available at http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf, accessed 1 December 2017
21. Sjøberg, S. and Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: an overview and key findings, available at http://roseproject.no./network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf, accessed 29 October 2017. 22. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, Lewin, K. M., (2015). Educational access, equity, and development: Planning to make rights realities, ISBN: 978-92-803-1384-0, © UNESCO 2015.