How Do U.S. and Chinese Biology Students Compare in Explaining Energy Consumption Issues?
Hui Jin, Hayat Hokayem, Sasha Wang & Xin Wei
pp. 301-318 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.247a | Article Number: ijese.2015.001
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 231 | Article Download: 198
This qualitative study investigates how biology majors explain energy consumption issues. In particular, we focus on two energy consumption activities that account for about two-thirds of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2011: burning fossil fuels for transportation and using electricity. We conducted in-depth clinical interviews with twenty U.S. students and twenty Chinese students. We compared these two groups of students in terms of two aspects of explanation: 1) naming scientific terms in the explanation, and 2) explaining an energy consumption issue. Regarding naming, we examined the frequency of naming different terms of scientific concepts and principles in students’ explanations. Regarding explaining, we developed a rubric that differentiates three levels of explaining: informal explanations that are based upon intuitive ideas (Level 1), school science explanations that are based on alternative conceptions about matter and energy (Level 2), and scientific explanations that demonstrate the scientific understanding of concepts/principles about matter and energy (Level 3). The results revealed that scientific terms appeared most frequently in scientific explanations (Level 3), but they also appeared in many school science explanations (Level 2) and in some informal explanations (Level 1). We further describe how scientific terms were used in explanations at different levels. We found although Chinese students named scientific terms more frequently and demonstrated a better performance in explaining, they still produced more informal explanations and school science explanations than scientific explanations. In general, the results suggest the importance of promoting students’ abilities to use scientific terms correctly and meaningfully in explaining real-world environmental events in both countries.
Keywords: naming, explaining, environmental literacy, energy consumption
Andersson, B. (1986). Pupil's explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 79(5), 549-563.
Andersson, B. (1990). Pupil's conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347.
International Energy Agency [IEA]. (2013). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion: Highlights. Paris, France: IEA.
Jia, H. (2004, September 8). China to release draft 'scientific literacy standards'. Science Development Network Retrieved from http://www.scidev.net/global/policy/news/china-to-release-draft-scientific-literacy-standa.html.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012a). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149-1180.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012b). Development of assessments for a learning progression on carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. In A. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 151-182). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Jin, H., & Wei, X. (2014). Using ideas from the history of science and linguistics to develop a learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, F. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. C. Nordine & A. Scheff (Eds.),Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 Education (pp. 157-174). New York: Springer.
Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framework for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663-1697.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Liu, Y. (2006). Promoting science literacy at high school level. Beijing: Chinese Ministry of Education.
Marek, E. (1986). They misunderstand but they'll pass. The Science Teacher, 32-35.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Olivier, J. G. J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2013). Global CO2 emissions: 2013 Report. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2009). Green at fifteen? How 15-year-olds perform in environmental science and geoscience in PISA 2006. France: Programme for International Student Assessment, OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know? Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Swackhamer, G. (2005a). Cognitive resources for understanding energy. Department of Physics and Astronomy. Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.
Swackhamer, G. (2005b). Making work work. Department of Physics and Astronomy. Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.
The Ministry of Education. (2003). National curriculum standards: Science education. Beijing, China: The Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
Full text PDF
More than Just Playing Outside: A Self-Study on Finding My Identity as an Environmental Educator in Science Education
Jenna M. Gatzke, Gayle A. Buck & Valarie L. Akerson
pp. 319-335 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.248a | Article Number: ijese.2015.002
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 246 | Article Download: 163
The purpose of this study was to investigate the identity conflicts I was experiencing as an environmental educator entering a doctoral program in science education. My inquiry used self-study methodology with a variety of data sources, including sixteen weeks’ of personal journal entries, audio-recordings of four critical friend meetings, and three instructor evaluations completed by my students. Findings from this study show a progression of thoughts, emotions, and questions that came out of my comparisons of environmental education and science education, formal, and informal education, as well as three critical instances that led to an understanding of my own professional identity. Overarching connections were found within pedagogical practices. Implications regarding the need for life-long teacher reflection as well as suggestions for ways to build bridges across differing educational fields are discussed.
Keywords: self-study, identity, environmental education, science education, critical instances, pedagogy
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52. doi: 10.1080/03057269608560077
Alexander, R. J. (2001). Border crossing: Towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative Education, 37(4), 507-523. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3099559
Anderson, R. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell and N. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 807-830). Oxford, England: Routledge Publishers, Taylor and Francis Group.
Avraamidou, L. (2014). Studying science teacher identity: Current insights and future research directions. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 145-179. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.937171
Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (1996). Teaching and learning in environmental education: Developing environmental concepts. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 25-32. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1996.9941455
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Berry, M., & Russell, T. (2014). Critical friends, collaborators and community in self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 195-196. doi: 10.1080/17425964.2014.958283
Brickhouse, N., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441– 458. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)
Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121. doi: 10.1080/09500690500069483
Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self- study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594469
Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249-305). Washington, D.C.: American Education Research Association.
Coleman, E., & Leider, M. (2014). Personal and professional growth realized: A self-study of curriculum design and implementation in a secondary science classroom. Studying Teacher Education, 10(1), 53-69. doi: 10.1080/17425964.2013.835260
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Day, C., Kington, A. and Gu, Q. (2005) The role of identity in variations in teachers’ work, lives and Effectiveness. Paper presented at ESRC Seminar Series University of Nottingham.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1959) School and Society. In M. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on Education (pp. 76-78). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18. doi: 10.1177/0022487102238654
Eick, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86(3), 401-416. doi: 10.1002/sce.10020
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188686
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: a different agenda for environmental and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1201-1215.
Hammer, D. 1997. Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485-529. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233776
Hart, P. (2007). Environmental Education. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Hungerford, H. (2009). Environmental education (EE) for the 21st century: Where have we been? Where are we now? Where are we headed? The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1080/00958960903206773
Karrow, D., & Fazio, X. (2010). Educating-within-place: Care, citizen science, and ecojustice. In D. J. Tippins, M. P. Mueller, M. van Eijck & J. D. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism (pp. 193-214). Springer Netherlands.
LaBoskey, V. K. (1997). Teaching to teach with purpose and passion: Pedagogy for reflective practice. In J. Loughran & T. Russell, Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education, (pp. 150-163). Routledge: London.
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-869). Springer Netherlands.
Lave, J., &Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leavitt, R. (1995). Language and cultural content in Native education. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 124-138). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Lederman, N.G. (2010). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds) Handbook of Research on Science Education, (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lemke, J. L. (2003, April). Identity, development, and desire: Critical questions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Lighthall, F. F. (2004). Fundamental features and approaches of the s-step enterprise. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 193–246). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. L. Hamilton, S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. Loughran, & V. LaBoskey (Eds.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 7-18). Bristol, Pennsylvania: Falmer Press.
Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91(5), 822-839. doi: 10.1002/sce.20209
Luft, J. & Roehrig, G. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu.
McCombs, B., Berliner, D., Ilutchins, C., Jones, B., O'Neil, H., Mills, R..,…& Wittock, M. (1991). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: APA Task Force on Psychology in Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Kittleson, J., & Hutner, T. (2013). Understanding the induction of a science teacher: The interaction of identity and context. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1221-1244. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9310-5
Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), pp-11.
Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., & Ceglie, R. (2009). Constructing a doubt-free teaching self – self-efficacy, teacher identity, and science instruction within diverse settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 102-125. doi: 10.1002/tea.20268
Smith, G. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 584-594.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Nature and Listening, 4. Retrieved from http://www.antiochne.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pbexcerpt.pdf
Stapp, W. B. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31. doi: 10.1080/00139254.1969.10801479
Svinicki, M. 1998. A theoretical foundation for discovery learning. American Journal of Physiology, 275(6), 4-7. Retrieved from http://elmu.umm.ac.id/file.php/1/jurnal/A/Advances%20in%20Physiology%20Education/Vol275.Issue6/S4.pdf
Varelas, M., House, R., and Wenzel, S. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and science teacher identities. Science Education, 89(3), 492-516. doi: 10.1002/sce.20047
Weibke, H. & Park Rogers, M. (2014) Transition to science teacher educator: Tensions experienced while learning to teach lesson sequencing. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 222-238. doi:10.1080/17425964.2014.949657
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf?sequence=1
Williams, J., Ritter, J., & Bullock, S. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245-260.
Zembylas, M. (2003). Interrogating “teacher identity”: Emotion, resistance, and self-formation. Educational Theory, 53(1), 107-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2003.00107.x
Full text PDF
Student’s Interest in Science and Technology and its Relationships with Teaching Methods, Family Context and Self-Efficacy
Abdelkrim Hasni & Patrice Potvin
pp. 337-366 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.249a | Article Number: ijese.2015.003
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 328 | Article Download: 224
In order to explore students’ interest towards S&T, we developed and validated a questionnaire that simultaneously takes into account 18 components (general interest in school-S&T, utility of school-S&T, teaching methods preferences, perceived importance and preference for school-S&T with respect to other school subjects, etc.). The questionnaire was administered to 1,882 students from grades 5 through 11 (seven grade levels). Findings indicate that: a) students show a high general interest in S&T and a preference for student-centred teaching methods rather than teacher-centred ones; however, few of them perceive the utility of school-S&T for everyday life, want to spend more time doing S&T in school or intend to pursue S&T related studies or careers. Grade level differences appear to be important while gender differences are weak; b) in terms of school subjects, perceived importance and preference order, S&T seem to occupy an intermediate position; the preference order is not, however, similar to the perceived importance order. The latter, and therefore the role of S&T in school, appear to be strongly influenced by its status or its social value given in the curriculum; c) the analysis based on correlations and regressions propose some important predictors of general interest towards S&T. The results highlight, among other things, the importance for school to intervene on certain factors that promote the development of students’ interest in S&T. For instance, 1) to affirm the importance of S&T right from the beginning of elementary school, 2) to use teaching methods that allow students to establish links between what they learn in school and their lives, as well as methods centered on students’ development of inquiry processes, 3) to promote cultural activities related to S&T, and 4) to promote a positive development of self-concept through quality schooling.
Keywords: interest, science and technology, school subjects
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 51-71, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.518640.
Ainley, M., Corrigan, M., & Richardson, N. (2005). Students, tasks and emotions: Identifying the contribution of emotions to students’ reading of popular culture and popular science texts. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 433–447.
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561, DOI: 10.1037//0022-06220.127.116.115.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). Identifying meta-clusters of students' interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 999-1022, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20294.
Bennet, J., Green, G., & White, M. (2001). The development and use of an instrument to assess students’ attitude to the study of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 833-845, DOI: 10.1080/09500690010006554.
Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control. New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47-69). London: Collier-Macmillan.
Bernstein, B. (1997). À propos du curriculum. In J.-C. Forquin (Ed.), Les sociologues de l'éducation américains et britanniques. Présentation et choix de textes (pp. 165-171). Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1-40.
Chang, S.-N., Yeung, Y.-Y., & Cheng, M. H. (2009). Ninth graders' learning interests, life experiences and attitudes towards science & technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 447-457, DOI: 10.1007/s10956-009-9162-6.
Colley, A., Comber, C., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1994). School subject preferences of pupils in single sex and co-educational secondary schools. Educational Studies, 20, 379–385.
Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). School subject preferences: Age and gender differences revisited. Educational Studies, 29(1), 59-67, DOI: 10.1080/03055690303269.
Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (1999). Pour une meilleure réussite scolaire des garçons et des filles. Avis au ministère de l’éducation. Québec : Conseil supérieur de l’éducation.
Convert, B. (2005). Europe and the crisis in scientific vocations. European Journal of Education 40(4), 361-366.
Cotgreave, P., & Davies, R. (2005). How can we measure the success of national science policies in the short or medium terms? European Journal of Education 40(4), 393-403.
Desy, E. A., Peterson, S. A., & Brockman, V. (2011). Gender differences in science-related attitudes and interests among middle school and high school students. Science Educator, 20(2), 23-30.
Dobson, R., & Burke, K. (2013). Spotlight on science learning: the high cost of dropping acience and math. Toronto: Let's talk science and Amgen Canada Inc.
Foster, E. (2010). A new equation: How encore careers in Mmth and science education equal more success for students. Washington, D.C: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
Fox, W. (1999). Statistiques sociales. Québec: les Presses de l’Université Laval.
George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students' attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 571-589, DOI: 10.1080/09500690500338755.
Graeber, W., & Lindner, M. (2008). The impact of the PARSEL way to teach Science in Germany on interest, scientific literacy, and German national standards. Science Education International, 19(3), 275-284.
Haas, J., (2005). The situation in industry and the loss of interest in science education. European Journal of Education, 40(4), 405-416.
Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-protoptype matching as strategy for making academic academic choices. Why hhign school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 51-67, DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.002.
Hasni, A., Lenoir, Y. Larose, F. et Squalli, H. (2012). Interdisciplinarité et enseignement des sciences, technologies et mathématiques au premier cycle du secondaire : place; modalités de mises en oeuvre; contraintes disciplinaires et institutionnelles. Rapport de recherche. Partie 1 : les résultats de l’enquête par questionnaire. Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS), Université de Sherbrooke.
Häussler, P. (1987). Measuring students’ interest in physics: Design and results of a crosssectional study in the Federal Republic of Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 79–92.
Haussler, P,. & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students' interests, and impact on students' achievement and self-concept. Science Education 84(6), 689-705.
Häussler, P., & L. Hoffmann (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls' interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(9), 870-888, DOI: 10.1002/tea.10048.
Hendley, D., Stables, S., & Stables, A. (1996). Pupil’s subject preference at Key Stage 3 in South Wales. Educational studies, 22 (2), 177-186.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–208.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivation variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69-82, DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
Hidi, S., Renninger, A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
House, J. D. (2009). Classroom instructional strategies and science Career interest for adolescent students in Korea: Results from the TIMSS 2003 assessment. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(1), 13-19.
Howell, D. C. (1998). Méthodes statistiques en sciences humaines. Bruxelles : De Boeck.
Imbeau, L. M. (2004). Statistiques sociales avec SPSS. Québec : PUL.
Institut de la statistique du Québec (2014). Regard sur deux décennies d’évolution du niveau de scolarité de la population québécoise à partir de l’Enquête sur la population active. Québec : Institut de la statistique du Québec.
Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R, & Meisalo, V. (2010). Science teaching methods preferred by grade 9 students in Finland. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 8(4), 611-632.
Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education 94(5), 855-887, DOI: 10.1002/sce.20391.
Khoo, S. T., & Ainley, J. (2005). Attitudes, intentions and participation. Camberwell: ACER.
Kirikkaya, E. B. (2011). Grade 4 to 8 primary school students’ attitudes towards science: Science enthusiasm. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(4), 374-382.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation on interest. International Educational Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5-21.
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27-50, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.518645.
Krstovic, M., Brown, L., Chacko, M., & Trinh, B. (2008). Grade 9 astronomy study: Interests of boys and girls studying astronomy at Fletcher's Meadow secondary school. Astronomy Education Review, 7(2), 18-24.
Lamb, R. W., Annetta, A., Meldrum, J. et Vallett, D. (2012). Measuring science interest : rasch validation of the science interest survey. International Research of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 643-668.
Lenoir, Y. et Hasni, A. (2010). Interdisciplinarity in Quebec Schools: 40 Years of Problematic Implementation. Issues in Integrative Studies, 28, 238-294.
Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Los Angeles : Sage.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD Global Science Forum.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. Paris: OCDE.
Ornstein, A. (2006). The frequency of hands-on experimentation and student attitudes toward science: A statistically significant relation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3-4), 285-297, DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-9015-5.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079, DOI: 10.1002/tea.10105.
Ourisson, G. (2002). Désaffection des étudiants pour les études scientifiques. Rapport soumis au Ministère de l'Éducation nationale. Paris : Minisitère de l'éducation nationale.
Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Teaching physics: students' attitudes towards different learning activities. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 113-128, DOI: 10.1080/02635140802036734.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2): 147-165, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20263.
Pell, T. & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847-862, DOI: 10.1080/09500690010016111.
Porchet, M. (2002). Les jeunes et les études scientifiques: les raisons de la «désaffection»; un plan d'action. Paris : Minisitère de l'éducation nationale.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 183–207.
Reid, N & Skryabina, E.A. (2002) Attitudes towards physics. Research in Science & Technology Education, 20(1), 67–81, DOI: 10.1080/0263514022013093 9.
Rennie, L. J., & Punch, K. F. (1991). The relationship between affect and achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 193–209.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). New York: Academic Press.
Renninger, K. A. & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2011.587723.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel., & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational Interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–52.
Silver, A., & Rushton, B. S. (2008). The effect of the horsham greenpower goblin challenge on children's attitudes towards science, engineering and technology. Education, 36(4), 339-350, DOI: 10.1080/03004270701752668.
Sorge, C. (2007). What happens? Relationship of age and gender with science attitudes from elementary to middle school. Science Educator, 16(2), 33-37.
Stafford, J., & Bodson, P. (2007). L’analyse multivariée avec SPSS. Québec : PUQ.
Steinkamp, M. W., & Maehr, M. L. (1983). Affect, ability, and science achievement: A quantitative synthesis of correlational research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 369–396.
Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515-537, DOI: 10.1002/tea.21010.
Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654, DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000323737.
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents' declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199-216, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20398.
Wade, S. E. (2001). Research on importance and interest: Implications for curriculum development and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 243-261.
Walczak, M. M., & Walczak, D. E. (2009). Do student attitudes toward science change during a general education chemistry course? Journal of Chemical Education, 86(8), 985-991.
Wang, T. L. & Berlin, D. (2010). Construction and validation of an instrument to measure Taiwanese elementary students’ attitudes toward their science class. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2413-2428, DOI: 10.1080/09500690903431561.
Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and control. New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan.
Young, M. (1997). Les programmes scolaires considérés du point de vue de la sociologie de la connaissance. In J.-C. Forquin (Ed.), Les sociologues de l'éducation américains et britanniques. Présentation et choix de textes (pp. 173-199). Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Zeyer, A., & Wolf, S. (2010). Is there a relationship between brain type, sex and motivation to learn science? International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2217-2233, DOI: 10.1080/09500690903585184.
Full text PDF
The Effect of Reflective Science Journal Writing on Students’ Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
Nawar M. Al-Rawahi & Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi
pp. 367-379 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.250a | Article Number: ijese.2015.004
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 313 | Article Download: 317
The current study investigates the effectiveness of grade-ten students’ reflective science journal writing on their self-regulated learning strategies. We used a pre-post control group quasi-experimental design. The sample consisted of 62 tenth-grade students (15 years old) in Oman, comprising 32 students in the experimental group and 30 students in the control group. Both groups studied a science text unit called ‘Matter and Energy in Chemical Reactions’. Students in the experimental group were given a model for a journal, which they wrote after they finished their science lessons. They reflected on their dialogues with their teacher and classmates. They also reflected on their scientific observations, their main conclusions, their evaluation of their level of understanding of the scientific concepts presented in the lesson, their achievement of the lesson goals, and their personal feelings regarding what was taught in the lesson. The control group studied the same unit without writing reflective journals. We used a modified self-regulation strategy instrument to measure the effectiveness of treatment. The results showed that participants in the journal-writing group (experimental group) (M=3.96; SD=0.37) significantly outperformed participants in the control group (M=3.62; SD=0.28) with respect to their self-regulation strategies. The study recommends that reflective journal-writing should be encouraged by science teachers and in science textbooks.
Keywords: reflective journal writing, science learning, self-reflection, self-regulation strategies
Akinoglu, O., & Tandogan, R. (2007). The effect of problem-based active learning in science education on students' academic achievement, attitudes and concept learning. Science and Technology Education, 3(1), 71-81.
Al-Battashi, K. (2004). Self-learning strategies among students of College of Education at Sultan Qaboos University. Unpublished Master Thesis, Muscat: Sultan Qaboos University.
Arsal, Z. (2010). The effects of diaries on self-regulation strategies of preservice science teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(1), 85-103.
Ayyıldıza, Y., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Case study applications in chemistry lesson: gases, liquids, and solids. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 408-420.
Chen, C. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to information systems course. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 20(1), 11-25.
Corrigan, G., & Taylor, N. (2004). an exploratory study of the effect a self-regulated learning environment has on pre-service primary teachers’ perceptions of teaching science and technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematical Education, 2, 45-62.
Desta, D., Chalchisa, D., Mulat, Y., Berihun, A., & Tesera, A. (2009). Enhancing active learning through self- and- peer reflections: The case of selected schools in Ethiopia. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 12(1), 71-87.
Dori, Y., & Belcher, J. (2005). Learning Electromagnetism with Visualizations and Active Learning. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 187-216). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Eliam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students' planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 304-334.
Fingon, J., & Fingon, S. (2008). Using science journals to encourage all students to write. Science Scope, 32, 41-45.
Fink, L. D. (1999). Active Learning. Retrieved 15/2/2010 from
Gunstone, R., & Mitchell, I. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education. 86(6)737–755.
Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
İnan, B., & Yüksel, D. (2010). Telling ELT tales out of school: Self-regulated learning: How is it applied as a part of teacher training through diary studies? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 116-120.
Keys, C. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.
Kırık, O., & Boz, Y. (2012). Cooperative learning instruction for conceptual change in the concepts of chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 221-236.
Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Research in science teaching and learning: A human constructivist view. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understaning: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Myers, R. (2001). Self-evaluations of the ‘‘stream of thought’’ in journal writing. System, 29, 481-488.
Neber, H., He, J., Liu, B.-X., & Schofield, N. (2008). Chinese high-school students in physics classroom as active, self-regulated learners: cognitive, motivational and environmental aspects. International Journal of Science and Mathematical Education, 6, 769-788.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education,31(2), 199 - 218.
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning & Instruction, 19, 259-271.
Pintrich, R., Smith, D. Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational & Psychological Measurment, 53, 801-813.
Towndrow, P., Ling, T., & Venthan, A. (2008). Promoting inquiry through science reflective journal writing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 279-283.
Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217-221.
Full text PDF
Farm Education and the Value of Learning in an Authentic Learning Environment
Pia Smeds, Eila Jeronen & Sirpa Kurppa
pp. 381-404 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.251a | Article Number: ijese.2015.005
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 232 | Article Download: 191
Farm education is a newly emerging field of research that utilises authentic learning environments, environments that combine a subject of academic study with its real-world surroundings, actors, and activities – in this case, the practical context of a farm. The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of various learning environments (farm, classroom, and synthesis of the two) on learning and how pupils experience it. Mixed-methods research with experiential interventions was used, and data collection used interviews and pre-learning, post-learning, and delayed tests. The analysis, performed with SPSS software, employed ANOVA and ANOVA repeated-measures design and inductive content analysis. Pupils showed significantly better learning results when allowed to study in authentic learning environments on farm. They experienced learning in an authentic learning environment as easier and found that they learnt more there than in the classroom. They concluded that the reason for this was that the subject to be learnt could be studied comprehensively and first-hand in its original surroundings, including processes. Farm education proved to be a versatile learning environment that encourage learning and support learners who differ in their learning preferences. It supports pupils with moderate learning difficulties, as well as talented pupils, thanks to being allowed to study many aspects of the subject for learning, at their own pace. Including authentic learning environments in education increases long-term retention of what has been learnt and improves understanding. Those involved in teacher education, teachers, and schools alike are urged to take this into account when planning and carrying out education.
Keywords: farm education, mixed methods, intervention, learning environment, context-based learning
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Bos, I., De Boever, P., Vanparijs, J., Pattyn, N., Panis, L. I., & Meeusen, R. (2013). Subclinical effects of aerobic training in urban environment. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45, 439–447.
Boström, L. (2004). Lärande & Metod. Lärstilsanpassad undervisning jämfört med
traditionell undervisning i svensk grammatik, Avhandling i pedagogik. Jönköping, Sweden: Helsingfors universitet och Högskolan för lärande och kommunikation.
Boström. L. (2011). ‘Hjärnforskare om inlärning.’ Min Morgon. Finland: YLE FST5.
Boström, L. & Lassen, M. (2006). Unraveling learning, learning styles, learning strategies and meta-cognition. Education & Training, 48, 178–89.
Bruel-Jungerman, E., Laroche, S., & Rampon, C. (2005). New neurons in the dentate gyros are involved in the expression of enhanced long-term memory following environmental enrichment. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 513–21.
Bryman, A. (2006). Mixed Methods: A Four-Volume Set. London: Sage.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Colcombe, S., & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Science, 14, 125–30.
Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cresswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Research design:
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 209–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, N. T., McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K. L., & Sidani-Tabbaa, A. (1993). Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 627–36.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Macmillan.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–15.
Eskola, J., & Suoranta, J. (2000). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Tampere, Finland: Vastapaino.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–12.
Granström, K. (2007). Ledarskap i klass rummet. In K. Granström (Ed.), Forskning i fokus nr. 33, Forskning om lärares arbete i klassrummet (pp. 13–32). Stockholm: Liber Distribution.
Haapasalo, L. (2004). Pitääkö ymmärtää voidakseen tehdä vai pitääkö tehdä voidakseen ymmärtää? In P. Räsänen, P. Kupari, T. Ahonen, & P. Malinen (Eds.), Matematiikka - näkökulmia opettamiseen ja oppimiseen. Jyväskylä, Finland: Niilo Mäki -Instituutti.
Higgins, S. (2011). How should education respond to the changing world? Tools, technologies, and techniques for teachers. Keynote presentation at Kasvatustieteen päivät. Joensuu Finland, 24 November. Retrieved from Joensuu university website: https://www.uef.fi/documents/1086013/1086215/Higgins+in+Joensuu.pdf/01df5c80-ff7f-4f2c-aad3-e1fac9aed686
Hirsjärvi, S., & Hurme, H. (2001). Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Hirsjärvi, S., Remes, P., & Sajavaara, P. (2009). Tutki ja kirjoita. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi.
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading Statistics and Research. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–11.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
Jolly, L. (2009). Læring om vårt daglige brød. En undersøkelse av pedagogiske opplegg om landbruks- og matproduksjon for ungdomsskoleelever. Ås, Norway: Norwegian University for Life Sciences.
Jolly, L., & Krogh, E. (2010). School–farm cooperation in Norway: Background and recent research. In J. Schockemöhle (Ed.), Conference Proceedings, First Conference of the Academic Initiative on Farms As Sites of Learning 2010 (pp. 5–20). Altenkirchen, Germany: Evangelische Landjugendakademie Altenkirchen.
Kämppi, K., Välimaa, R., Ojala, K., Tynjälä, J., Haapasalo, I., Villberg, J., & Kannas, L. (2012). Koulukokemusten kansainvälistä vertailua 2010 sekä muutokset Suomessa ja Pohjoismaissa 1994-2010, WHO- Koululaistutkimus. Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 2012:8. Tampere, Finland: Juvenes Print, Tampereen yliopistopaino Oy.
Kandel, E. R. (2001). The molecular biology of memory storage, a dialogue between genes and synapses. Science, 294, 1030–8.
Kiilakoski, T. (2012). Kasvatus teknologisessa maailmassa. Tutkimus teknologisoituvasta kasvatuksesta. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseuran/Nuorisotutkimusverkoston julkaisuja 132.
Knapp, C. E. (1996). Just Beyond the Classroom: Community Adventures for Interdisciplinary Learning. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED388485)
Knapp, C. (2000). Learning from an outdoor education hero: Personal reflections about L. B. Sharp. Taproot, 12, 7–11.
Koch, L. G., Kemi, O. J., Qi, N., Leng, S. X., Bijma, P., & Gilligan, L. J. (2011). Intrinsic aerobic capacity sets a divide for aging and longevity. Circulation Research, 109, 1162–72.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Experiential learning theory and the Learning Style Inventory: a reply to Freedman and Stumpf. Academy of Management Review, 6, 2, 289–296.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.
Krogh, E., & Jolly, L. (2012). Relationship-based experiential learning in practical outdoor tasks. In A.E.J. Wals & P.B. Corcoran (Eds.), Learning for Sustainability in Times of Accelerating Change (pp. 213–24). The Netherlands: Wageningenin Academic Publishers.
Kumpulainen, T., & Saari, S. (2006). Koulutuksen määrälliset indikaattorit 2006. Tampere, Finland: Opetushallitus.
Mabie, R., & Baker, V. (1994). Strategies for improving agricultural literacy and science process skills of urban fifth and sixth graders in the Los Angeles unified school district. Paper presented at the Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Honolulu, HI. retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED369886)
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
McRae, K. (1990). Integrated outdoor education. In K. McRae (Ed.), Outdoor and Environmental Education – Diverse Purposes and Practices (pp. 75–91). Australia: The MacMillan Company.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Myntti, A. (2005). Renovering av en lågstadieskola som en intervention i Vasa, Finland. Elevernas upplevelse av inomhusklimatet och besvär samt symtom i två lågstadieskolor. Nordiska högskolan för folkhälsovetenskap MPH 2005: 21.
NCC (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education) (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Finnish National Board of Education. Vammala, Finland: Vammalan kirjapaino.
Niemi, J., & Ahlstedt, J. (2006). Finnish Agriculture and Rural Industries 2006. MTT, Finland: Economic Research.
Nobel Media (2000). The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2000, Arvid Carlsson, Paul Greengard, Eric R. Kandel. Retrieved from the official website for the Nobel Prize http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2000/
Nordin-Hultman, E. (2004). Pedagogiska miljöer och barns subjektsskapande. Stockholm: Liber.
Olson, A. K., Eadie, B. D., Ernst, C., & Christie, B. R. (2006). Environmental enrichment and voluntary exercise massively increase neurogenesis in the adult hippocampus via dissociable pathways. Hippocampus, 16, 250–60.
Palmberg, I., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 32–6.
Palmer, J. (1998). Environment Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise. London: Routledge.
Palmer, J., & Neal, P. (1994). The Handbook of Environmental Education. London: Routledge.
PISA. Retrieved from OECD and programme for international student assessment (PISA) website http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Polvinen, K., Pihlajamaa, J., & Berg, P. (2012). Luonnosta hyvinvointia lapsille ja
nuorille. Kuvauksia luonnon hyvinvointivaikutuksista, palveluista ja malleista palveluiden kehittämiseen. Finland: Kansallinen Hyvinvointiverkosto.
Rogers, A., Day, J., Randall, F., & Bentall, R. P. (2003). Patients’ understanding and participation in a trial designed to improve the management of anti-psychotic medication: A qualitative study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 720–7.
Ruoppila, I. (1999). Lasten tutkimuksen eettisiä kysymyksiä. In I. Ruoppila, E. Hujala, K. Karila, J. Kinos, P. Niiranen, & M. Ojala (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatuksen tutkimusmenetelmiä (pp. 26–51). Jyväskylä, Finland: Atena kustannus.
Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm:
Sand, O., Sjaastad, Ø.V., & Haug, E. (2004). Människans fysiologi. Stockholm: Liber.
Satish, U., Mendell, M.J., Shekhar, K., Hotchi, T., Sullivan, D., Streufert, S., & Fisk, W.J. (2012). Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 1671–1677. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104789.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Perspectives on Individual Difference: Learning Strategies and
Learning Styles. New York: Plenium Press.
Smeds, P. (2012). Aidoissa oppimisympäristöissä piilee oppimisen ilo ja syväoppiminen. In E. Jeronen, M. Mikkola, H. Risku-Norja, & A. Uitto (Eds.), Ruoka-oppimisen edellytys ja opetuksen voimavara (pp. 59–65). Julkaisuja 25. Finland: Helsingin yliopisto, Ruralia instituutti.
Smeds, P., Jeronen, E., Kurppa, S., & Vieraankivi, M. -L. (2011). Rural camp school Eco Learn: Outdoor education in rural settings. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6, 267–91.
STM (2003). Asumisterveysohje. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö. Helsinki: Edita.
STM (2009). Asumisterveysopas (3rd ed.). Pori, Finland: Ympäristö- ja terveyslehti.
Szczepanski, A., & Dahlgren, L. -O. (1997). Boklig bildning och sinnlig erfarenhet. Ett försök till bestämning av Utomhuspedagogikens särart. Sweden: Skapande vetande, Linköpings universitet.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Method Research in the Social Behavior Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tilastokeskus. Koulutustilastot: Erityisopetus 2010. Retrieved from Statistics Finland website http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2010/erop_2010_2011-06-09_fi.pdf
Trexler, C. J. (2000). A qualitative study of urban and suburban elementary student understandings of pest-related science and agricultural education benchmarks. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41, 89–102.
Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2004). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Jyväskylä, Finland: Gummerus Kirjapaino.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing
learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.
Wikgren, J., Mertikas, G. M., Raussi, P., Tirkkonen, R., Äyräväinen, L., Pelto-Huikko, M., …Kainulainen, H. (2012). Selective breeding for endurance running capacity affects cognitive but not motor learning in rats. Physiology & Behavior, 106, 95–100.
Full text PDF
Multifaceted NOS Instruction: Contextualizing Nature of Science with Documentary Films
Mark Bloom, Ian C. Binns & Catherine Koehler
pp. 405-428 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.252a | Article Number: ijese.2015.006
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 237 | Article Download: 183
This research focuses on inservice science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science (NOS) before and after a two-week intensive summer professional development (PD). The PD combined traditional explicit NOS instruction, numerous interactive interventions that highlighted NOS aspects, along with documentary films that portrayed NOS in context of authentic scientific discovery. Reflective dialogue was used throughout the professional development to encourage constructivist learning. The PD addressed seven commonly held NOS tenets that are deemed significant to K-12 science teachers. Finally, qualitative methodologies were used to analyze the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-D) and the associated interview data to explore subtleties within each NOS tenet and to gain a richer understanding of how the teachers’ NOS understanding differed before and after the PD.
Keywords: nature of science, professional development, contextualized instruction
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but…, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016720417219
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10143
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V.L. (2006). On the role and use of “theory” in science education research: A response to Johnston, Southerland, and Sowell. Science Education, 91(1), 187-194. DOI 10.1002/sce.20189
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701. DOI: DOI:10.1080/09500690050044044
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20159
Akerson, V. L., & Morrison, J. A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20099
Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73-82. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730720107
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford Press: New York.
Anderson, K. E. (1950). The teachers of science in a representative sampling of Minnesota schools. Science Education, 34(1), 57-66. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730340114
Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., & Lamb, W. G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 289-297. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660140404
Behnke, F. L. (1950). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 61(3), 193-207. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1961.tb08537.x
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. DOI: v40 n5 p487-509
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20402
Berkman, M.B., Pacheco, J.S., & Plutzer, E. (2008). Evolution and creationism in America’s classrooms: A national portrait. PLoS Biology, 6(5), 920-924. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124
Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660120303
Bloom, M.A. & Weinburgh, M.H. (2007). Why all middle school teachers should know the nature of science. Association for Childhood Education International – Focus on Middle School, 20(3), 4-5, 8.
Bloom, M.A., Sawey, A.T., Holden, M.E., & Weinburgh, M.H. (2009). To what degree can explicit classroom interventions change pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science? Council for Elementary Science International – Science, 40(2), 27-39.
Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Letts, W. J., & Shipman, H. L. (2000). Diversity of students’ views about evidence, theory, and the interface between science and religion in an astronomy course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 340–362. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<340::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-D
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). (Producer), Chappell, P. (Director), & Peix, C. P. (Director). (2004). The Origin of AIDS [originally Les origins du SIDA] [Motion Picture]. Canada: Galafilm.
Carey, R. L., & Strauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52(4), 358-363. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730520410
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15, 463-494. DOI:10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7
Crue, W. (1932, February). Ordeal by cheque. Vanity Fair.
Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the nature of science from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 234-256. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10074
Dowling, P.A. (Producer & Director). (1997). Footpath Murders: DNA Profiling’s Landmark Case. [Motion Picture]. USA: Films for the Humanities.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
Dubeck, L. W., Moshier, S. E., & Boss, J. E. (1988). Science in Cinema: Teaching Science Fact through Science Fiction Films. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dubeck, L. W., Moshier, S. E., Bruce, M. H., & Boss, J. E. (1993). Finding the facts in science fiction films. The Science Teacher, 60(4), 46-48
Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Flammer, L. (2002). How’s your horoscope? Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hor.les.html
Gruber, H. E. (1963). Science as doctrine or thought? A critical study of nine academic year institutes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(2), 124-128. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660010207
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20137
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961. DOI:
Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660010112
Koehler, C.K., Bloom, M.A., & Binns, I.C. (2013). Lights, camera, action! Developing a methodology to document mainsteam films’ portrayal of nature of science and scientific inquiry. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(2).
Lavach, J. F. (1969). Organization and evaluation of an inservice program in the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(2), 166-170. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660060211
Lederman, J. S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished paper. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10034
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 600-620). New York: Routledge.
Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137–163. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9033-4
McComas, W. (1997). 15 myths of science. Skeptic, 5(2), 88-96.
Miller, P. E. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students of biology to understand science. Iowa Academy of Science, 70, 510-513,
Mosley, M. (Producer), & Bennett, J. (Editor). (1994). Ulcer Wars [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: BBC TV.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980’s. (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2001, November). Secondary science teachers’ implementation practices following a course emphasizing contextualized and decontextualized nature of science instruction. Paper presented at the 6th International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, Denver, CO.
Ozgelen, S. (2012). Exploring the relationships among epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness and nature of science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 7(3), 409-431.
Ozgelen, S., Hanuscin, D. L., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2013). Preservice elementary science teachers’ connections among aspects of NOS: Toward a consistent, overarching framework. Journal of Science Teacher Education 24, 907-927. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-012-9274-3
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Riley, J. P., II. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(5), 373-384. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660160502
Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(2), 201–219. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<201::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-H
Sahin, C.T. & Koksal, M.S. (2010). How are the perceptions of high school students and teachers on NOS as a knowledge type presented in schools in terms of “importance” and “interest?” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(1), 105-126.
Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M., Jr. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 375-388. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660290406
Schwartz, R., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10128
Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1101::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-V
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493-509.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (2008). A Multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching preservice teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 219-248. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-006-9009-y
Trembath, R. J. (1972). The structure of science. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 18(2), 59-63.
Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1967-1968). An evaluation of summer institute programs for physics teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 105-109. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660050203
Full text PDF
Reading Engagement in Science: Elementary Students’ Read-Aloud Experiences
Alandeom W. Oliveira
pp. 429-451 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.253a | Article Number: ijese.2015.008
Published Online: May 11, 2015
Article Views: 241 | Article Download: 194
This study examines student reading engagement with children’s science books in elementary classrooms. Reading engagement in science is conceived in terms of a Transmission—Transaction continuum. When centered on transmission, science reading entails passive reception of a textually encoded scientific message. By contrast, when science reading is transaction-centered, teachers and students actively engage in the negotiation of scientific meanings that transcend the text itself. Examination of reading engagement relied on a discourse-centered method whose analytical goal was to uncover and better understand meaning-making around textual artifacts. More specifically, it took the form of a discourse analysis across three science read-alouds. While meaning-making in one aloud reading was predominantly centered on transmission, the other two read-alouds were characterized by increasing levels of transaction. Further, adoption of transmissive or transactional strategies was consistent with how teachers perceived reading in the context of science instruction. This study underscores the multiplicity of ways that reading can be conceived by science teachers and approached in elementary classroom settings. It is suggested that a more sophisticated understanding of how to systematically engage young students with science texts can help elementary teachers effectively integrate reading with science instruction, meet literacy requirements of current science education policies, and recognize that science reading transcends passive reception of facts.
Keywords: science reading, elementary science, text discussion, science read-alouds
Alvermann, D., Young, J.P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J.M. (1999). Adolescents’ perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in after-school read and talk clubs. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 221-264.
Ametller, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 285-312.
Aubusson, P.J., & Fogwill, S. (2006). Role play as analogical modeling in science. In P.J. Aubusson, A.G. Harrison, & S.M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 93-104). The Netherlands: Springer.
Bailey, S., & Watson, R. (1998). Establishing basic ecological understanding in younger pupils: A pilot evaluation of a strategy based on drama/role play. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 139-152.
Bauman, R. (1977). Verbal art as performance. Prospective Heights, IL: Waveland.
Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 83-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beacco, J.-C., Claudel, C., Doury, M., Petit, G., & Reboul-Toure, S. (2002). Science in media and social discourse: New channels of communication, new linguistics forms. Discourse Studies, 4, 277-300.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 251-271.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.
Berger, M. (1996). The mystery of magnets. New York, NY: Newbridge.
Berger, M., & Berger, G. (2004). Seed to plant. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bernard, H.R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 443-449.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Branley, F.M., & Kelley, T. (1996). What makes a magnet? New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognitive Learning, 6, 111-130.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M.A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of sources evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6-28.
Braun, P. (2010). Taking the time to read aloud. Science Scope, 34, 45–49.
Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. (1994). On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 295-308). London: Routledge.
Camp, D. (2000). It takes two: Teaching with twin texts of fact and fiction. The Reading Teacher, 53, 400-408.
Catley, K.F., Novick, L.R., & Shade, C.K. (2010). Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 861-882.
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222.
Cherry, L. (1990). The great kapok tree: A tale of the Amazon rain forest. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Colin, P., Chauvet, F., & Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: Students’ difficulties and teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 313-332.
Coulthard, M. (1994). On analyzing and evaluating written text. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 1-11). London: Routledge.
Creech, J., & Hale, G. (2006). Literacy in science: A natural fit. The Science Teacher, 22-27.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Dorion, K.R. (2009). Science through drama: A multiple case exploration of the characteristics of drama activities used in secondary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2247-2270.
Ebbers, M. (2002). Science text sets: Using various genres to promote literacy and inquiry. Language Arts, 80, 40-50.
Ehlert, L. (1987). Growing vegetable soup. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Enfield, M. (2014). Reading scientifically: Practices supporting intertextual reading using science knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 395-412.
Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Farnell, B., & Graham, L.R. (1998). Discourse-centered methods. In H.R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 411-457). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvin.
Gee, J.P., & Green, J.L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
Genette, G. (1992). The architext: An introduction. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Genette, G. (1997a). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Genette, G. (1997b). Paratexts: Thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Graham, A. (2000). Intertextuality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Harste, J.. Short, K. & Burke, C. (1996). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Heisey, N., & Kucan, L. (2010). Introducing science concepts to primary students through read-alouds: Interactions and multiple texts make the difference. The Reading Teacher, 63, 666–676.
Hoey, M. (1994). Signalling in discourse: a functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 26-45). London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (2nd ed). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lawrence, J.F., & Snow, C.E. (2010). Oral discourse and reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. IV) (pp. 320-338). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lincoln, Y.S., & , E.G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Huston & G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mathews, N., & Moody, N. (2007). Judging a book by its cover: Fans, publishers, and the marketing of fiction. England: Ashgate.
McCormick, M. K., & McTigue, E. (2011). Teacher read-alouds make science come alive. Science Scope, 34, 45–49.
Miller, L., Straits, W., Kucan, L., Trathen, W., & Dass, M. (2007). Literature circle roles for science vocabulary. The Science Teacher, 52-56.
Moschkovich, J.N., & Brenner, M.E. (2000). Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into research on mathematics and science cognition and learning. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 457-486). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Myers, G.A. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 3-17.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards. Retrieved on March 13th from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
Nielsen, L. (2006). Playing for real: Text and the performance of identity. In D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in adolescents’ lives (2nd ed) (pp. 5-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Orr, M. (2003). Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Oliveira, A.W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422-453.
Oliveira, A.W. (2011). Science communication in teacher personal pronouns. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1805-1833.
Oliveira, A.W., Rivera, S., Glass, R., Mastroianni, M., Wizner, F., & Amodeo, V. (2013). Teaching science through pictorial models during read-alouds. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 367-389.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pappas, C.C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2003). Dialogic inquiry around information texts: The role of intertextuality in constructing scientific understandings in urban primary classrooms, Linguistics and Education, 13, 435-482.
Pappas, C.C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2004). Promoting dialogic inquiry in information book read-alouds: Young urban children’s way of making sense in science. In W. Saul (Ed), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 161-189). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, and the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 337-356.
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schraw, G., & Burning, R. (1999). How implicit models of reading affect motivation to read and reading engagement. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 281-302.
Short, K.G. (2004). Researching intertextuality within collaborative learning environments. In Shuart-Faris, N., & Bloome, D. (2004). Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 373-396). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Sinclair, J. McH. (1986). Fictional worlds. In R.M. Coulthard (ed.), Talking about text (pp. 43-60). University of Birmingham: English Language Research.
Sipe, L.R. (2000). The construction of literary understanding by first and second graders in oral response to picture storybook read-alouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 252-275.
Sipe, L.R. (2001). A palimpsest of stories: Young children’s construction of intertextual links among fairytale variants. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 333-352.
Sipe, L.R. (2002). Talking back and talking over: Young children’s expressive engagement during story book read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 55, 476-483.
Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., & Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ reading of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 257-283.
Straits, W.J., & Nichols, S.E. (2007). Using historical non-fiction and literature circles to develop elementary teachers’ nature of science understandings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 901-912.
Straits, W.J., Zweip, S.G., & Wilke, R.R. (2011). Connecting students to science through structured reading of historical nonfiction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 26-31.
Straw, S. (1990). Challenging communication. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.). Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp.67-90). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sutton, C.R. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 1-18.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 3-18.
Tadros, A. (1994). Predictive categories in expository text. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69-82). London: Routledge.
Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.) Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., Tucker-Raymond, E., Kane, J., Hankes, J., Ortiz, I., & Keblawe-Shamah, N. ( 2010). Drama activities as ideational resources for primary-grade children in urban science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 302-325.
Wertsch, J. V., & Hickman, M. (1987). Problem solving in social interaction: A microgenetic analysis. In M. Hickman (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 251-266). New York: Academic Press.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23, 2594-8.
Wilkinson, I., & Son, E.H. (2010). A dilogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. IV) (pp. 359-387). New York, NY: Routledge.
Full text PDF
Identity Development of Youth during Participation at an Informal Science Education Camp
pp. 453-475 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.254a | Article Number: ijese.2015.007
Published Online: May 10, 2015
Article Views: 252 | Article Download: 202
In this exploratory case study, I investigated the ways that youth engaged in negotiating their identity during learning conversations at an informal science education camp. In particular, I was interested in exploring the ways that youth positioned themselves within their learning group and how this influenced their identities as learners of science. The research question that guided the investigation was: What is the role of learning conversations in influencing youths’ identities as learners of science during an informal science education camp? In particular, I was interested in elucidating the ways in which youth socially constructed their identities relative to others in their learning group and how the social context shaped this process. Identity in this study was defined as the socially constructed sense of self derived from one’s position relative to others in a social group. Data collection included videotaped observations, field notes, interviews and journal entries. Findings from my analysis and interpretation of the data collected suggested that identity developed in the following ways: (a) members of the learning group derived their sense of self and identity from their perceived position relative to others and (b) power dynamics and social roles within the learning group were negotiated and redefined within the specific affordances and norms of the informal science education camp context. These findings lend support to the assertion that identity develops during learning conversations in informal science education settings and adds to the corpus of research in this area.
Keywords: informal science education, out-of-school learning, environmental education, science camps, identity development, learning conversations
Ahmed, A. M. (2007). Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 324-337. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.007.
Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, A., Druger, M., James, C., Katz, P., & Ernisse, J. (2001). An NSTA position statement on informal science education. In P. Katz (Ed.), Community Connections for Science Education (pp. ix-xi). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Ash, D. (2003). Dialogical inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138-162. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10069.
Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102. DOI: 10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<70::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Bhattacharyya, S., Mead, T. P., & Nathaniel, R. (2011). The influence of science summer camp on African-American high school students’ career choices. School science and mathematics, 111(7), 345-353. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00097.x
Bloome, D., & Clark, C. (2006). Discourse-in-use. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Ellmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 227-242). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Calabrese-Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2011). We be burnin’! Agency, identity and science learning. Journal of the Learning Science, 19, 187-229. DOI: 10.1080/10508400903530044.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning, 2nd edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition (pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Charmaz, K., & Henwood, K. (2008). Grounded theory. In C. Willig & W. Stainton Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 240-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1), 431-457. DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.1.431
Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education, 85, 712-732. DOI: 10.1002/sce.1035.
Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Pyschological Science, 12(3), 258- 261.
Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (1994). Family behavior and learning in informal science settings: A review of the research. Science Education, 78(1), 57-72. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730780104.
Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the “Informal Science Education” Ad Hoc Committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 108-111. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10066.
Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Family learning in museums: Perspectives on a decade of research. In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions (pp. 17-30). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Ellmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177 192). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Fields, D.A. (2007). What do students gain from a week at science camp? Youth perceptions and the design of an immersive, research-oriented astronomy camp. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1-21. DOI:10.1080/09500690701648291.
Fienberg, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Looking through the glass: Reflections of identity in conversations at a history museum. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 167-211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frost, J. H., & Wiest, L. R. (2007). Listening to the girls: Participant perceptions of the confidence boosting aspects of a girls’ summer mathematics and technology camp. The Mathematics Educator, 17(2), 31-40.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytical lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693-705. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10039.
Greckhamer, T., & Cilesiz, S. (2014). Rigor, transparency, evidence, and representation in discourse analysis: Challenges and Recommendations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13, 422-443.
Holland, D, Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1-15.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnsen, R.H. (1954). The summer science camp as a means of attracting talented students to science careers. The Scientific Monthly, 64(1), 37-39.
Johnson, A., Brown, J., Carlone, H., & Cuevas, A. K. (2011). Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: A multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 339-366. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20411.
Kim, K. Y., & Crowley, K. (2010). Negotiating the goal of museum inquiry: How families engineer and experiment. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 51-65). New York, NY: Springer.
Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96, 1047-1070. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21036.
Know, K. L., Moynihan, J. A., & Markowitz, D. G. (2003). Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 471-478.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Markowitz, D. G. (2004). Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school summer science program on students’ interest and perceived abilities in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 395-407.
McClain, L. R., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2014). Prior experiences shaping family science conversations at a nature center. Science Education, 98, 1009-1032. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21134.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moore, J.E. (2003). Girls in science rule! Science and Children, 40(7), 38-41.
Nasir, N. S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 213-247. DOI:10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_6.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nicholson, H. J., Weiss, F. L., & Campbell, P. B. (1994). Evaluation in informal science education: Community based programs. In V. Crane, H. Nicholson, M. Chen, & S. Bitgood (Eds.), Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community based projects (pp. 107 176). Ephrata, PA: Science Press.
Rath, A., & Brown, D.E. (1996). Models of engagement in science inquiry: A microanalysis of elementary students’ orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1083-1097.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 125-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Riedinger, K. (2011). Identity development of middle school students as learners of science at an informal science education camp. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Riedinger, K. (2012). Family Connections: Family conversations in informal learning environments. Childhood Education, 88, 125-127.
Robbins, M. E.-, & Schoenfisch, M. H. (2005). An interactive analytical chemistry summer camp for middle school girls. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(10), 1486-1488. DOI: 10.1021/ed082p1486.
Solow, J. L., & Kirkwood, N. (2002). Group identity and gender in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48, 403-412. DOI:10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00243-8.
Sondergeld, T. A., Rop, C. J., & Milner, A. R. (2008, April). Environmental education professional development programs: Characteristics that bring positive change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 3rd edition (pp. 119-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stevens, S., Shin, N., Degado, C., Cahill, C., Yunker, M., & Krajcik, J. (2007, April). Fostering students’ understandings of interdisciplinary science in a summer science camp. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tan, E., Calabrese-Barton, A., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143-1179. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21123.
Tunnicliffe, S. D. (1996). Conversations with primary school parties visiting animal specimens in a museum and zoo. Journal of Biological Education, 30, 130-141. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.1996.9655491
Wheaton, M., & Ash, D. (2008). Exploring middle school girls’ ideas about science at a bilingual marine science camp. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 131-143.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods, 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., McClain, L. R., Mohney, M. R., Choi, G. W., & Salman, F. H. (2013). Tree Investigators: Supporting families’ scientific talk in an arboretum with mobile computers.
International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2013.832437.
Zimmerman, H. T., & McClain, L. R. (2014). Intergenerational learning at a nature center: Families using prior experiences and participation frameworks to understand raptors. Environmental Education Research, 20(2), 177-201. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.775219
Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2010). Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Science Education, 94(3), 478-505. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20374
Full text PDF
Association of the Environmental Attitudes “Preservation” and “Utilization” with Pro-Animal Attitudes
Janine Binngießer & Christoph Randler
pp. 477-492 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.255a | Article Number: ijese.2015.009
Published Online: May 14, 2015
Article Views: 251 | Article Download: 205
The relevance of environmental attitudes is obvious and attitudes towards farm and companion animals and animal welfare in medical research are an important aspect of education. However, both have rarely been linked with each other, and animal attitudes are only sparsely represented within environmental education assessment instruments. Linking these two aspects was the main aim of the present study. The Animal Attitude Scale (AAS), the Intermediate Attitude Scale (IAS), and environmental attitudes based on the 2-MEV-model were used. The 2-MEV model is made of two distinct aspects: preservation and utilization of nature. This relationship between pro-animal attitudes and preservation and utilization has been assessed while controlling for pet ownership, meat consumption, gender and grade level. These covariates are necessary because they have been identified in previous research. Five hundred and forty-three pupils from two different schools in Leipzig, Germany participated in this study. There was a significant influence of gender and grade but not of pet ownership on environmental attitudes. Girls showed higher positive attitudes, and preservation decreased with an increasing grade. Animal attitudes (both AAS and IAS) correlated with > 0.4 with the two environmental attitudes preservation and utilization. It is therefore concluded that environmental attitudes and animal attitudes are closely related constructs.
Keywords: adolescents, attitudes towards animals, environmental attitudes, preservation, utilization
Aminrad, Z., Sayed Zakaria, S.Z.B. & Hadi, A.S. (2011). Influence of age and level of education on environmental awareness and attitude: Case study on Iranian students in Malaysian Universities. Social Sciences, 6, 15-19.
Binngiesser, J., Wilhelm, C. & Randler, C. (2013). Attitudes towards animals among German children and adolescents. Anthrozoös, 26, 325-339.
Bjerke, T., Ødegårdstuen, T.S. & Kaltenborn, B. (1998a). Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozöos, 2, 79-86.
Bjerke, T., Ødegårdstuen, T.S. & Kaltenborn, B. (1998b). Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian children and adolescents: species preferences. Anthrozöos, 4, 227-235.
Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B. P. & Odegardstuen, T. S. (2001). Animal-related activities and appreciation of animals among children and adolescents. Anthrozoös, 14, (2), 86-94.
Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T. & Kleiven, J. (2003). Attitudes and activities related to urban wildlife: pet owners and non-owners. Anthrozöos, 3, 252-262.
Boeve-de Pauw, J. & Van Petegem, P. (2011). The effect of Flemish eco-schools on student environmental knowledge, attitudes and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1513-1538.
Bogner, F.X. & Wilhelm, M.G. (1996). Environmental perspectives of pupils. Development of an attitude and behavior scale. The Environmentalist, 16, 95-110.
Bogner, F.X. & Wiseman, M. (1997). Environmental perception of rural and urban pupils. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 111-122.
Bogner, F.X. & Wiseman, M. (1999). Towards measuring adolescent environmental perception. European Psychologist, 4, 139-151.
Bogner, F.X. & Wiseman, M. (2002). Environmental Perception. Factor profiles of extreme groups. European Psychologist, 7, 225-238.
Bogner, F.X. & Wiseman, M. (2006). Adolescents´ attitudes towards nature and environment: Quantifying the 2-MEV model. Environmentalist, 26, 247-254.
Bolscho, D., & Hauenschild, K. (2006). From environmental education to education for sustainable development in Germany. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 7-18.
Cooper, C.K., Wise, T.N. & Mann, L.S. (1985). Psychological and cognitive characteristics of vegetarians. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, 26, 521-527.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of environmental education, 40(1), 3-18.
Dixon Preylo, B. & Arikawa, H. (2008). Comparison of vegetarians and non-vegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozöös, 4, 387-395.
Eagles, P. F., & Demare, R. (1999). Factors influencing children's environmental attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 33-37.
Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H.E. & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 67-81.
Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 143-158.
Hebel Le, F., Montpied, P., & Fontanieu, V. (2014). What can influence students’ environmental attitudes? Results from a study of 15-year-old students in France. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 329-345.
Herzog, H.A. & Burghardt, G.M. (1988). Attitudes toward animals: Origins and diversity. Anthrozöos, 4, 214-222.
Herzog, H.A., Betchart, N.S. & Pittman, R.B. (1991). Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 3, 184-191.
Herzog, H.A. 2007. Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozöos, 1, 7-21.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.
Hummel, E., Ozel, M., Medina-Jerez, W., Fančovičová, J., Usak, M., Prokop, P. & Randler, C. (2015). Interest in Birds and its Relationship with Attitudes and Myths: A Cross-cultural Study in Countries with Different Levels of Economic Development. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 1-12.
Johnson, B. & Manoli, C.C. (2011). The 2-MEV scale in the United States: A measure of children's environmental attitudes based on the Theory of Ecological Attitude. Journal of Environmental Education, 42, 84-97.
Kellert, S.R. & Westervelt, M.O. (1983). Children´s attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward animals. Government Printing Office report no. 024-010-00641-2.
Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrij, A. & Cherryman, J. 2003. Using grounded theory to examine people`s attitudes toward how animals are used. Society & Animals, 11, 307-328.
Lee, K. (2011). The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 301-308.
Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., Porter, B. E. & Cobern, M. K. (1993). Outcome Research in Environmental Education. A Critical Review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 8–21.
Leppänen, J.M., Haahla, A.E., Lensu, A.M. & Kuitunen, M.T. (2012). Parent-child similarity in environmental attitudes: A pairwise comparison. Journal of Environmental Education, 43, 162-176.
Levine, D.S. & Strube, M.J. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 308-326.
Milfont, T. L. & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 289–303.
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 187-195.
Oerke, B, & Bogner, F.X. (2010). Gender, age and subject matter: Impact on teachers' ecological values. Environmentalist, 30, 111-122.
Onur, A., Sahin, E. & Tekkaya, C. (2012). An investigation on value orientations, attitudes and concern towards the environment: The case of Turkish elementary school students. Environmental Education Research, 18, 271-297.
Paul, E.S. & Serpell, J.A. (1993). Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood. Animal Welfare, 2, 321-337.
Pifer, L., Shimizu, K. & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Society and Animals, 2, 95-113.
Prokop, P., & Kubiatko, M. (2008). Bad wolf kills lovable rabbits: Children‟s attitudes towardpredator and prey. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 1-16.
Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). “Disgusting” animals: Primary school children‟s attitudes and myths of bats and spiders. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(2), 87-97.
Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2008). Effects of keeping animals as pets on children's concepts of vertebrates and invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 431 – 449
Prokop, P., Özel, M. & Usak, M. (2009). Cross-cultural comparison of student attitudes toward snakes. Society and Animals, 17, 224 - 240.
Prokop, P. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2010). Effects of having pets at home on children´s attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozöos, 1, 21-35.
Prokop, P., Usak, M. & Erdogan, M. (2011). Good predators in bad stories: cross-cultural comparison of children's attitudes toward wolves. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10, 229 – 242.
Randler, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2009). Efficacy of two different instructional methods involving complex ecological content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 315-337.
Randler, C. (2010). Animal related activities as determinants of species knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2, 237-243.
Randler, C., Osti, J. & Hummel, E. (2012). Decline in interest in biology in elementary school pupils during one generation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8, 201-205.
Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20(1), 61-74.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450.
Scheunpflug, A., & Asbrand, B. (2006). Global education and education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 33-46.
Schultz, P. W. & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255-265.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.
Seybold, H., & Rieß, W. (2006). Research in environmental education and Education for Sustainable Development in Germany: the state of the art. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 47-63.
Signal, T.D. & Taylor, N. (2006). Attitudes to animals: demographics within a community sample. Society & Animals, 2, 147-157.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Sex differences in school achievement: What are the roles of personality and achievement motivation? European Journal of Personality, 22, 185–209.
Taylor, N. & Signal, T.D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozöos, 1, 18-27.
Thompson, K.L. & Gullone, E. (2003). Promotion of empathy and prosocial behaviour in children through humane education. Australian Psychologist, 3, 175-182.
Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, M.T & Tynys, S.M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 12-19.
Tomažič, I. (2011). Seventh graders´ direct experience with, and feelings toward, amphibians and some other nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 19, 225-247.
Torkar, G., Mohar, P., Gregorc, T., Nekrep, I., & Adamic, M. H. (2010). The Conservation Knowledge and Attitudes of Teenagers in Slovenia toward the Eurasian Otter. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(3), 341-352.
Wagler, R., & Wagler, A. (2011). Arthropods: Attitude and incorporation in preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3 (3), 229-250.
Wagler, A., & Wagler, R. (2014). Arthropods and the current great mass extinction: effective themes to decrease arthropod fear and disgust and increase positive environmental beliefs in children? The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9 (2), 197-214.
WIRE Western Institute for Research and Evaluation (1983). Intermediate attitude scale (IAS). National Association for Humane and Environmental Education.
Wiseman, M. & Bogner, F. X. (2003). A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 783–794.
Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P. & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.
Full text PDF
How Students’ Values are Intertwined with Decisions in a Socio-scientific Issue
Demetra Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Andreas Ch. Hadjichambis & Konstantinos Korfiatis
pp. 493-513 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.256a | Article Number: ijese.2015.010
Published Online: May 16, 2015
Article Views: 245 | Article Download: 153
The present study incorporated a scaffolding decision making procedure on an authentic environmental socio-scientific issue and investigated how students’ decisions are intertwined with their values. Computer-based activities provided necessary information and allowed for the consideration of multiple aspects of the issue, the study of the effects of every possible solution and the formulation and balancing of criteria. The optimization strategy for decision making was adopted. Data collection relied on 51 sixth grade students (11-12 years old). Open-ended written tests were given to students before and after the learning intervention with two tasks: application of the optimization strategy and a meta-reflection question explaining their decision. Children incorporated several criteria in the decision making process, however, what guided their decisions were the criteria which were given the greater weight. These criteria were connected with substantive arguments and were based on decisive values. Three value-driven patterns of decision makers were revealed: strong anthropocentric, weak anthropocentric and ecocentric. The ability of assigning weight in conflicting criteria is a cornerstone for the emersion of how values are interrelated with decisions. Values arise when preferences are in conflict and decisions are made by weighting alternatives in comparison to our preferences. In conclusion, students have to learn to develop solutions that represent a compromise between economic, ecological, and socioeconomic dimensions, which include establishing a value hierarchy. The ability to weight decision criteria and to disclose underlying value considerations may be an elaborate way to work with multifaceted socio-scientific issues.
Keywords: sustainability, decision making, optimization method, environmental values
Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student Difficulties in Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206.
Anderson, R. D., Sweeney, J. D., & Williams, A. T. (2005). An Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative approaches to decision-making (11th ed.). West Publishing.
Berk, L. (1994). Child development. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Beyth-Marom, R., Novik, R., & Sloan, M. (1987). Enhancing children’s thinking skills: An instructional model for decision-making under certainty. Instructional Science, 16, 215-231.
Birnbaum, M. (1998). Measurement, judgment and decision-making. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bogeholz, S., & Barkmann, J. (2005). Rational choice and beyond: Action-oriented competencies for dealing with factual and ethical complexity. In R. Klee, A. Sandmann, & H. Vogt (Eds.), Lehr-und Lernforschung in der Biologiedidaktik [Educational research in didactics of biology] (Vol. 2, pp. 211-224). Insbruck: Studienverlag.
Brennan, A., Lo.Y.S. (2002). Environmental ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. EN Zalta.
Crain, W.C. (1985). Theories of development: Concepts and applications, 2nd ed Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
de Haan, G. (2010). The development of ESD-related competencies in supportive institutional frameworks. International Review of Education, 56(2), 315-328.
Dewey, J. (1988). Theory of valuation. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey The Later
Works (Vol. 13, pp. 189-251). Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dietz, T. M., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental Values. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, (30)12, 1-38.
Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (1995). Toward realistic models of individual choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, 261-79.
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial creditmodel. Science Education, 94, 230-258.
Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698.
Grace, M. 2008. Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 551-570.
Hechter, M. (1994). The role of values in rational-choice theory. Rationality and Society, 6, 318-33.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
Joas, H. (2000). The Genesis of Values. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
Klaczynski, P. A., & Cottrell, J. M. (2004). A dual-process approach to cognitive development: The case of children’s understanding of sunk cost decisions. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 147-174.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689-1716.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oak CA: Sage.
McTighe, J., & Schollenberger, J. (1991). Why teaching thinking? A statement of rationale. In: A. Costa (Ed.) Developing minds (Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Ministry of Education and Culture (2010). Curriculum of Preprimary, Primary and Secondary Education, (Volume 1,pp. 249-252). Nicosia: Pedagogical Institute – Program Development Service.
Nicolaou, Ch., Korfiatis, K., Evagorou, M., & Constantinou, C. (2009). Development of decision-making skills and environmental concern through computer-based, scaffolded learning activities. Environmental Education Research, 15, 39-54.
Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision-making situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600-630.
Papadouris, N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2010). Approaches employed by sixth-graders to compare rival solutions in socio-scientific decision-making tasks. Learning and Instruction, 20, 225 – 238.
Paraskeva-Hadjichambi D., Korfiatis K., Hadjichambis A. Ch & Arianoutsou, M. (2010). Charismatic threatened plant Vs road development: Value driven decision-making through computer-based, scaffolded learning activities. Paper presented at the eighth Conference for the Didactics of Biology. ERIDOB, Portugal.
Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D., Korfiatis, K., Hadjichambis, A. Ch, & Arianoutsou, M. (2012). Conservation reasoning and proposed actions for the protection of threatened plant species: insights from a sample of rural and urban children of Cyprus. Society and Natural Resources, 25(9), 868-882.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
Payne, J., Bettmann, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (1998). Behavioral decision research: An overview. In M.H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Measurement, judgment, and decision making (2nd ed., pp. 303–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the science curriculum (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Southampton, UK.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Student decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
Sauve, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: A further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7-34.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-62.
Scott, W., & Gough, S. (2003). Sustainable development and learning. London: Routledge, Falmer.
Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education 26(14), 1765-85.
Siegel, M. (2006). High school students’ decision-making about sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 12(2), 201-15.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636.
UNESCO (1998). Reshaping education for sustainable development. Environment and development issues. Paris: UNESCO.
Uskola, A., Maguregi, G., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: a university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311-2333.
Vosniadou, S. (2002). Introduction to Psychology. Biological, developmental and behavioral approaches (in Greek). Athens, GR: Gutenberg.
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan C. A., & Osggod, D. W. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent attitudes, beliefs and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior, 42(1), 61-85.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 201-216). Dordrecht: Springer.
Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
Full text PDF