Prakse učiteljev naravoslovja med pandemijo na Portugalskem
Povzetek
Članek poskuša preučiti, kako so učitelji naravoslovja prilagodili svojo prakso v luči pandemije covida-19 in česa so se naučili v obdobju zaprtja. Vzorec sestoji iz 15 učiteljev naravoslovja, ki trenutno sodelujejo pri raziskovalnem projektu STEM. Za zbiranje podatkov smo uporabili dve tehniki, in sicer individualne intervjuje in pisne refleksije učiteljev, ki smo jih analizirali z induktivnim pristopom analize vsebine. Rezultati kažejo, da so bile prilagoditve uperjene v oblikovanje in upravljanje z oddelki. Pouk je bil izveden sinhrono prek digitalnih platform in druge komunikacijske infrastrukture; realizirane so bile eksperimentalne dejavnosti na daljavo in spletni pouk, ki je temeljil na televizijskem programu. Poleg tega so med zaprtjem vzgojno - izobraževalnih ustanov učitelji razvijali svoje pedagoške kompetence, nanašajoče se na tehnološke veščine, zato da je bilo omogočeno učenje na daljavo. Končno, raziskava poudarja pomen vloge učiteljev v kriznem upravljanju, kot je na primer covid-19.Prenosi
Literatura
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
Babinčá ková, 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 Go‐Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561‐014‐0003‐6
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., García-Zubía, 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.
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.
