Izziv za izobraževalne reforme med globalno krizo: primer progresivnega oz. naprednega naravoslovnega izobraževanja
Povzetek
V članku trdimo, da so v šolstvu med globalno pandemijo ali drugimi podobnimi obsežnimi izzivi za normalno delovanje najbolj ogroženi tisti elementi, ki bi lahko veljali za manj tradicionalne in zato najnaprednejše. Po predstavljenih splošnih značilnostih, ki so skupne izzivom, s katerimi se spoprijemajo šole in učitelji, je ta trditev ponazorjena s primerom šolskega naravoslovnega izobraževanja. Obravnavana sta dva posebna vidika: prvi je povezan s pedagogiko (odzivanje na alternativne predstave učencev ali njihove »napačne predstave«), drugi pa z učnim načrtom (poučevanje lastnosti naravoslovja). Ti vidiki veljajo za »napredne« v smislu, da so jih v številnih nacionalnih okoljih na splošno zagovarjali kot način za izboljšanje in reformiranje naravoslovnega izobraževanja, vendar je mogoče razumeti, da so naleteli na odpor v smislu nasprotovanja »reakcionarnih« deležnikov in v smislu ravni podpore, ki bi jo sprejeli učitelji. Trdimo, da so v času, ko je izobraževalni sistem pod skrajnim pritiskom, takšni napredni elementi še posebej ogroženi, saj jih lahko učitelji in administratorji obravnavajo kot »dodatke« in ne kot »temeljne« značilnosti prakse in/ali kot odraz »zahtevnejših« izobraževalnih ciljev, ki jih je mogoče treba za zdaj umakniti s prednostnega seznama (in tako zanemariti). V tem smislu gre za krhke vidike prakse, ki niso tako odporne kot bolj uveljavljene in s tem trdnejše značilnosti. Sklenemo lahko, da se morajo progresivni elementi, kadar so še posebej cenjeni, dovolj vgraditi v običaje in prakso, da jih ne bi več obravnavali kot razkošne, ampak bi jih priznali kot temeljne elemente dobrega poučevanja, ki jih je treba zaščititi in ohraniti v obdobju izrednih razmer.
Prenosi
Literatura
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. SHiPS Educational Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bourke, B., Bray, N. J., & Horton, C. C. (2009). Approaches to the core curriculum: An exploratory analysis of top liberal arts and doctoral-granting institutions. The Journal of General Education, 58(4), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0049
Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2019). ‘I’m sad that it is gone’: Teachers’ views on teaching the nature of science at Key Stage 4. School Science Review, 100(373), 69–74.
Chesky, N. Z., & Wolfmeyer, M. R. (2015). Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Open University Press.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.
Driver, R., Rushworth, P., Squires, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2013). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1991/1977). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Penguin Books Ltd.
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.
Hadžibegović, Z., & Sliško, J. (2013). Changing university students’ Alternative Conceptions of Optics by Active Learning. CEPS Journal, 3(3), 29–48.
Jenkins, E. W. (2007). School science: a questionable construct? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 265–282.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Mulitmodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. Continuum.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed.). University of Chicago.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated cognition: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
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). Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Long, D. E. (2011). Evolution and religion in American education: An ethnography. Springer.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual Matters.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
Orion, N., King, C., Krockover, G. H., & Adams, P. E. (1999). The development and status of Earth science education: A comparison of three case studies: Israel, England and Wales, and the United States Part II.
Peskova, K., Spurna, M., & Knecht, P. (2019). Teachers’ acceptance of curriculum reform in the Czech Republic: one decade later. CEPS Journal, 9(2), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.560
Reiss, M. J. (2008). Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue? Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802264214
Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (Vol. 39). Springer.
Schools Inquiry Commission. (1868). Report of the commissioners [a.k.a. The Taunton report]. H. M. Stationary Office.
Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14(9), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1958.11453895
Sumida, M. (2018). STEAM (science, technology, engineering, agriculture, and mathematics) education for gifted young children: A glocal approach to science education for gifted young children. In K. S. Taber, M. Sumida, & L. McClure (Eds.), Teaching gifted learners in STEM subjects: Developing talent in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (pp. 223–241). Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 179–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2431-2
Taber, K. S. (2010). Paying lip-service to research?: The adoption of a constructivist perspective to inform science teaching in the English curriculum context. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 251–45.
Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2017). Knowledge, beliefs and pedagogy: how the nature of science should inform the aims of science education (and not just when teaching evolution) [journal article]. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9750-8
Taber, K. S. (2018a). Masterclass in science education: Transforming teaching and learning. Bloomsbury.
Taber, K. S. (2018b). Pedagogic doublethink: scientific enquiry and the construction of personal knowledge under the English National Curriculum for science. In D. W. Kritt (Ed.), Constructivist Education in an Age of Accountability (pp. 73–96). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66050-9_4
Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69–119.
Taber, K. S. (2020). Foundations for teaching chemistry: Chemical knowledge for teaching. Routledge.
Taber, K. S., & Li, X. (2021). The vicarious and the virtual: A Vygotskian perspective on digital learning resources as tools for scaffolding conceptual development. In A. M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research (Vol. 143, pp. 1–72). Nova.
Taber, K. S., & Vong, L. T. K. (2020). Lumping and splitting in curriculum design: curriculum integration versus disciplinary specialism. In Bachmeier (Ed.), Curriculum Perspectives and Development (pp. 1–66). Nova Science Publishers.
Toplis, R. (Ed.). (2011). How science works: Exploring effective pedagogy and practice. Routledge.
Zhang, D. (2012). Tongshi education reform in a Chinese university: Knowledge, values, and organizational changes. Comparative Education Review, 56(3), 394–420. https://doi.org/10.1086/665814
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.
