The Philosophy and Approach on which the PROFILES Project is Based
Keywords:
PROFILES, Student motivation, Relevance, 3 stage model, Inquiry learning, Socio-scientific context
Abstract
This article sets out to describe the PROFILES project, an European Commission FP7 science and society project, addresses problems and issues in science education by guiding teachers to embrace a range of teaching factors, such as a context-based approach, motivational constructivist learning; student centred inquiry teaching; enhancing cognitive conceptualisation, and including socio-scientific decision making. The PROFILES project bases the teaching on a theoretically derived, 3 stage model, which is supported through carefully designed PROFILES modules, providing for both the students and the teacher. The major focus of the project is promoting more relevant school science education at the secondary level (grade 7 and above) by guiding teachers to gain ownership of the PROFILES philosophy and approach.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Anderson, R. D., Anderson, B. L., Varanka-Martin, M. A., Romagnano, L., Bielenberg, J., Flory, M., Miera, B., & Whitworth, J. (1992). Issues of Curriculum Reform in Science, Mathematics and Higher Order Thinking Across the Disciplines. The Curriculum Reform Project, University of Colorado, USA.
Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Rauch, F. (Eds.) (in press). Science Teachers‘ Continuous Professional Development in Europe. Case Studies from the PROFILES Project. University of Klagenfurt.
Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., & Rauch, F. (Eds.) (2012). Inquiry-based Science Education in Europe: First Examples and Reflections from the PROFILES project. University of Klagenfurt.
European Commission (EC). (2007). Science Education Now: A renewed pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (EC). (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Report of a High Level Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
Feinstein, N. (2010). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
Fernandez, C., Holbrook, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Coll, R. K. (2013). How to teach science in emerging and developing environments. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching Chenistry – A
Studybook. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (online published 2013). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement and longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 1-14.
Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2012). The Changing Role of Education and Schools. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 1-45). London: Springer.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459-1483.
Holbrook, J. (1998). Operationalising Scientific and Technological Literacy – A New Approach to Science Teaching. Science Education International, 9(2), 13-19.
Holbrook, J. (2008). Introduction to the Special Issue of Science Education International devoted to PARSEL. Science Education International, 19(3), 257-266.
Holbrook, J. (2010). Education through science as a motivational innovation for science education for all. Science Education International, 21(2), 80-91.
Holbrook, J. B. (1992). Teaching Science the STS way. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), The Status of Science- Technology-Society Reform Efforts around the World: ICASE 1992 Yearbook. Hong Kong: ICASE.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (Eds.) (1997). Supplementary teaching materials promoting scientific and technological literacy. Tartu, Estonia: ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science Education).
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The Nature of Science Education for Enhancing Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3) 275-288.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, re-contextualisation – A science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary Science Education (pp. 69-82). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Modern Content and the Enterprise of Science: Science Education for the Twentieth Century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education Across A Century: The Centennial Volume. One Hundredth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 205-237).
Lemke, J. (2005). Research for the future of science education: New ways of learning, new ways of living. Plenary presented at the VIIth International Congress on Research in Science Teaching. Granada, Spain. Retrieved November 2010 from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2005). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved December 2010 from www.mceetya.edu.au
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them. Technical Report No. IHMC CmapTools 2006-01. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary. Margaret Hilton, Rapporteur. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Retrieved November 2008 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf
Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupil’s views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
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.
Rannikmäe, M. (2001). Guiding teacher development towards STL teaching: identifying factors affecting change. Science Education International, 12(3), 21-27.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy / science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sjoberg, S. (2001). ROSE: The relevance of science education. A comparative and cooperative international study of the contents and contexts of science education. Retrieved http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/ROSE_files.htm
Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education, online. Retrieved doi 10.1007/s11191-011-9401-0.
Smith, C. (2011). Scientific Thinking. ICASE newsletter April 2011. Retrieved online www.icaseonline.net/news.html
Teppo, M., & Rannikmäe, M. (2008). Paradigm Shift for Teachers: More Relevant Science Teaching. In J. Holbrook, M. Rannikmäe, P. Reiska, & P. Ilsley (Eds.), The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Education for Post-Soviet Societies (pp. 25-46). Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.
Turner, R. S. (2008). Why we teach school science, and why knowing why matters. Keynote Address to the CRYSTAL Atlantique Annual Colloquium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Tytler, R. (2007). Australian education review: Re-imagining science education engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Victoria: ACER Press.
UNESCO. (1999). World Conference on Science: Framework for Action. Paragraph 71. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Logical positivism as a tool to analyse the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1151-1168
Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195-197.
Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Rauch, F. (Eds.) (in press). Science Teachers‘ Continuous Professional Development in Europe. Case Studies from the PROFILES Project. University of Klagenfurt.
Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., & Rauch, F. (Eds.) (2012). Inquiry-based Science Education in Europe: First Examples and Reflections from the PROFILES project. University of Klagenfurt.
European Commission (EC). (2007). Science Education Now: A renewed pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (EC). (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Report of a High Level Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
Feinstein, N. (2010). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
Fernandez, C., Holbrook, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Coll, R. K. (2013). How to teach science in emerging and developing environments. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching Chenistry – A
Studybook. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (online published 2013). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement and longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 1-14.
Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2012). The Changing Role of Education and Schools. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 1-45). London: Springer.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459-1483.
Holbrook, J. (1998). Operationalising Scientific and Technological Literacy – A New Approach to Science Teaching. Science Education International, 9(2), 13-19.
Holbrook, J. (2008). Introduction to the Special Issue of Science Education International devoted to PARSEL. Science Education International, 19(3), 257-266.
Holbrook, J. (2010). Education through science as a motivational innovation for science education for all. Science Education International, 21(2), 80-91.
Holbrook, J. B. (1992). Teaching Science the STS way. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), The Status of Science- Technology-Society Reform Efforts around the World: ICASE 1992 Yearbook. Hong Kong: ICASE.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (Eds.) (1997). Supplementary teaching materials promoting scientific and technological literacy. Tartu, Estonia: ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science Education).
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The Nature of Science Education for Enhancing Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3) 275-288.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, re-contextualisation – A science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary Science Education (pp. 69-82). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Modern Content and the Enterprise of Science: Science Education for the Twentieth Century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education Across A Century: The Centennial Volume. One Hundredth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 205-237).
Lemke, J. (2005). Research for the future of science education: New ways of learning, new ways of living. Plenary presented at the VIIth International Congress on Research in Science Teaching. Granada, Spain. Retrieved November 2010 from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2005). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved December 2010 from www.mceetya.edu.au
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them. Technical Report No. IHMC CmapTools 2006-01. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary. Margaret Hilton, Rapporteur. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Retrieved November 2008 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf
Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupil’s views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
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.
Rannikmäe, M. (2001). Guiding teacher development towards STL teaching: identifying factors affecting change. Science Education International, 12(3), 21-27.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy / science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sjoberg, S. (2001). ROSE: The relevance of science education. A comparative and cooperative international study of the contents and contexts of science education. Retrieved http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/ROSE_files.htm
Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education, online. Retrieved doi 10.1007/s11191-011-9401-0.
Smith, C. (2011). Scientific Thinking. ICASE newsletter April 2011. Retrieved online www.icaseonline.net/news.html
Teppo, M., & Rannikmäe, M. (2008). Paradigm Shift for Teachers: More Relevant Science Teaching. In J. Holbrook, M. Rannikmäe, P. Reiska, & P. Ilsley (Eds.), The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Education for Post-Soviet Societies (pp. 25-46). Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.
Turner, R. S. (2008). Why we teach school science, and why knowing why matters. Keynote Address to the CRYSTAL Atlantique Annual Colloquium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Tytler, R. (2007). Australian education review: Re-imagining science education engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Victoria: ACER Press.
UNESCO. (1999). World Conference on Science: Framework for Action. Paragraph 71. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Logical positivism as a tool to analyse the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1151-1168
Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195-197.
Published
2014-03-31
How to Cite
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2014). The Philosophy and Approach on which the PROFILES Project is Based. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.210
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
