Science Teachers' Practices During the Pandemic in Portugal
Abstract
This paper aims to examine how science teachers adapted their practices to the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and what they learned during the period of confinement. The participants are fifteen science teachers who currently collaborate on a STEM research project. To collect the data, we used two techniques (individual interviews and teachers' individual written reflections), which have been analysed using an inductive content analysis approach. The results reveal that adjustments have been made in the design and management of classes. Synchronous classes using digital platforms and other communication infrastructure have been held; experimental distance activities have been implemented, and online courses based on a television programme have been taught. In addition, during the period of confinement, to enable distance learning, teachers developed pedagogical skills using technological skills. Finally, this study highlights the importance of teachers' role in crisis management, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Downloads
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracing online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group LLC.
Ambusaidipictorial, A., Musawi, A. A., Al-Balushi, S., Al-Balushi, K. (2017). The impact of virtual lab learning experiences on 9th grade students’ achievement and their attitudes towards science and learning by virtual lab. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(2), 13–29.
Anderson, A., Kollmann, E. K., Beyer, M., Weitzman, O., Bequette, M., Haupt,G., & Velázquez, H. (2021). Design strategies for hands-on activities to increase interest, relevance, and self-Efficacy in Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(6), 1841−1851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00193
Azhari, B., & Fajri, I. (2021). Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: School closure in Indonesia. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1875072
BabincÌŒaÌkovaÌ, M., & Bernard, P. (2020). Online experimentation during COVID-19 secondary school closures: teaching methods and student perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3295−3300. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00748
Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
Barbour, M. K. (2012). Training teachers for a virtual school system: A call to action. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Creating technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 499–517). IGI Global.
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001680842
Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 811–822. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0542-2
Burkett, V. C., & Smith, C. (2016). Simulated vs. hands-on laboratory position paper. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 8–24.
Bybee, R., McCrae, B., Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20333
Chadwick, R., & McLoughlin, E. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on science teaching and facilitation of practical activities in Irish schools. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/vzufk
Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H. (2010). Science curriculum development in online environments: A SCALE to enhance teachers’ science learning. In L. Kattington (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum development (pp. 367–385). Nova Science Publishers.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Goâ€Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561â€014â€0003â€6
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582:AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Education group (n.d.). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED576762.pdf
Evangelista, I., Farin, J. A., Pozzo, M. I., Dobboletta, E., Alves, G. R., GarcÃa-ZubÃa, J., Hernandez, U., Marchisio, S.T., Concaris, S. B., & Gustavsson, I. (2017). Science education at high school: a VISIR remote lab implementation. IEEE Proceedings of the 4th Experiment@ International Conference. https://recipp.ipp.pt/handle/10400.22/11371
Fischer, C., Zhou, N., Rodriguez, F., Warschauer, M., & King, S. (2019). Improving college student success in organic chemistry: impact of an online preparatory course. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(5), 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed. 8b01008
Gachago, D., Morkel, J., Hitge, L., van Zyl, I., & Ivala, E. (2017). Developing eLearning champions: A design thinking approach. International Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0068-8
Gemin, B., & Pape, L. (2016, November 30). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning, 2016. Evergreen Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED576762
Hill, M., Sharma, M. D., & Johnston, H. (2015). How online learning modules can improve the representational fluency and conceptual understanding of university physics students. European Journal of Physics, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045019
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on Activities and Their Influence on Students’ Interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0
Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology on-line. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312–317.
Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4–29.
Khlaif, Z. N., Salha, S., Affouneh, S., Rashed, H., & ElKimishy, L. A. (2020). The Covid-19 epidemic: teachers’ responses to school closure in developing countries, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1851752
Liebowitz, D., González, P., Hooge, E., & Lima, G. (2018). OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308411-en
Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B. & Alston, D. M (2017). Inquiry-Based Instruction: A Possible Solution to Improving Student Learning of Both Science Concepts and Scientific Practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x
NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. OECD.
Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications.
Puntambekar, S., Gnesdilow, D., Tissenbaum, C., Narayanan, N.H., & Rebello, N.S. (2021). Supporting middle school students’ science talk: A comparison of physical and virtual labs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 1–28, 392– 419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21664
Ramlo, S.E. (2016). Students’ views about potentially offering Physics courses online. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9608-6
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–779). Erlbaum.
Sadi, O., & Cakiroglu, J. (2011). Effects of hands-on activity enriched instruction on students’ achievement and attitudes towards science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(2), 97–97.
Son, J., Narguizian, P., Beltz, D., & Desharnais, R. (2016). Comparing physical, virtual, and hybrid flipped labs for general education biology. Online Learning, 20(3), 228–243.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J.-S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341668
Swinnerton, B. J., Morris, N. P., Hotchkiss, S., & Pickering, J. D. (2017). The integration of an anatomy massive open online course (MOOC) into a medical anatomy curriculum. American Association of Anatomists, 10(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1625
Tho, S. W., & Yeung, Y. Y. (2014). Remote laboratory (RL) system for technology-enhanced science learning: The design and pilot implementation in undergraduate courses. In C. C. Liu, H. Ogata, S. C. Kong, & A. Kashihara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2014, pp. 260–262.
Tho, S.W., & Yeung, Y.Y. (2018). An implementation of remote laboratory for secondary science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12273
Venkateswaran, R. (2016). Evaluating the use of learn smart and connect in introductory general chemistry classes: The pros and cons of an online teaching and learning system. In M. Schultz, S. Schmid, & T. Holme (Eds.), Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry; ACS Symposium Series 1235 (pp. 83–599). American Chemical Society: Washington, DC.
Walters, S., Grover, K. S., Turner, R. C., & Alexander, J. C. (2017). Faculty perceptions related to teaching online: A starting point for designing faculty development initiatives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 4–19.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Anderson, O. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618–629.
Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.
