so at this point i'm working on getting a few pages together on a refined research topic, questions, and methods. i'll be editing the survey questions and the lit review in the next few weeks. but as for now, this is the direction i am heading. let me know what you think!
In recent years science education reform has received increasing attention from researchers and educators around the world. Much of the questions surrounding this issue involve topics of scientific literacy, the nature of science, and content standards reform. In the US, the National Science Education Standards state that ‘the content standards define scientific literacy.’ Internationally, the PISA goals format the question in this way: What is important for citizens to know, value, and be able to do in situations involving science and technology?
The answers to this question are at the heart of science education goals around the world. Every society must decide what is important for students to know and understand in order to be productive and critical citizens, or scientifically literate citizens. The idea of a democratic science education revolves around the concept of scientific literacy, the capacity to use scientific knowledge and skills to make informed decisions in order to understand the natural world and to participate in social activities. The scientific knowledge in question when considering scientific literacy often involves a discussion of the nature of science (NOS), an understanding of the process and skills that make up the discipline of science. International standards documents show an increased attention to NOS ideas and scientific literacy, including the competency standards in Denmark (McComas, __, Dolin, IND MtG).
The Danish science education standards reflect three specific strands for students (future citizens) to engage: the use, understanding, and awareness of science and science content (MtG map). The attainment targets (goals) at folkeskole science levels, though not specifically outlined as competencies, also align with process and NOS skills. For 8-10 physics and chemistry they include: Physics and chemistry world/content, Evolution of scientific cognition, applications of physics/chemistry in everyday life and society, working methods and philosophies (Folkeskole Publication). At the gymnasium level, the competency standards reflect the process and skills present in NOS ideas, and were created to supplement content standards with practical knowledge that would contribute to the scientific literacy of students. Competencies require students to demonstrate knowledge, cognitive abilities, and attitudes, values, and motivations as they meet and respond to science-related issues (Dolin). Their emphasis is on measuring the skills necessary for living an everyday life and to participate in democratic processes. The competency standards were introduced in Denmark as part of the 2005 reform, in response to the PISA testing reports.
The competencies related to science at the gymsaium level are (http://pub.uvm.dk/2004/fremtidens/html/chapter03.htm):
- Empirikompetence - observation and description, experimentation, classification, manual skills, data collection and processing, safety, assessment of uncertainty and expediency, critique methods, generalization between practice and theory, etc..
- Representation Competency - symbols and representations, and observing, presenting, differentiate and switch between different levels of representation, analyze, understand explanatory power, abstract, reduce, etc..
- Modeling Competence - problem formulation, develop, distinguish between model and reality, reduce, analyze, clarify, apply appropriate check falsify, determining causality, criticize, develop more.
- Perspectives Competence - Internal consistency, coherence with non-science, historical / cultural context in relation to the near and the distant outside world, reflect on the progress of science and technology's roles in society, critically evaluate natural sciences knowledge compared to other knowledge, etc..
Impact of Educational Reform on Danish Science Education
With respect to education, standards should act to help define the content of instruction—to inform teacher education/development processes with regards to content and expectations (Impact of Standards). In Denmark, the tradition of teaching and planning is left to the teacher (didactic), whose role is to merge the necessary content with the individual and collective learning needs of students (bildung aspect of education). National content standards in Denmark are normally broad and nonspecific, reflecting consideration of
didactic choice. In contrast, the introduction of competency standards as a part of science education reform in Denmark has placed a somewhat curricular tradition demand on Danish science teachers, creating a unique research perspective.
didactic choice. In contrast, the introduction of competency standards as a part of science education reform in Denmark has placed a somewhat curricular tradition demand on Danish science teachers, creating a unique research perspective.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of imposing a curricular tradition on a didactic classroom teacher. Specifically, the question of focus is: How do Danish science teachers (gymnasium) receive and interpret the Danish competency standards with respect to the nature of science. How do standards affect their planning/instruction decisions? (Physics or bio specifically?) The study will cover aspects of teachers’ beliefs about the necessity and relevance of NOS/competency reform strands and the degree of implementation of those standards in the classroom. In addition, specific attention will be paid to the empirical and the perspectives competencies, as these most closely align with NOS goals.
Questions to be considered:
- Are the competency standards viewed as process or content oriented?
- Do they (competencies) matter for students to be scientifically literate? Any one more than the others?
- Is competency teaching already a part of teachers instruction/planning?
o Are any of the competencies easier to implement?
o Are teachers implicit or explicit about the competencies/NOS in their practice?
Are teachers implicit or explicit about the competencies/NOS in their practice?
This will be addressed with observation and interview, as it is difficult to describe explicit instruction through a survey process. Explicit instruction is a contextual phenomenon. An explicit NOS instructional approach deliberately focuses learners’ attention on various aspects of NOS during classroom instruction, discussion, and questioning (McDonald, 2010).
Specific methodology editing/refinement questions:
Participants: Danish gymnasium teachers (physics or bio?—leaning toward physics here, but I’m open) will be targeted for the sample population. Secondary (gymnasium) educators are targeted because the competency standards have been set for gymnasium level.
Data collection:
The study will be involve mixed methods—with survey, observation and interview components. The mixture of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (observation and interview) data collection will enable the researcher to gain a more well-rounded view of the phenomenon in question. The added feature of observation of science teaching will enhance the data regarding the question of whether teachers are explicit or implicit regarding NOS/competencies.
Instrumentation: The protocol in the survey and interview targets (1) teacher’s attitudes towards competency/reform and (2) the degree of implementation of NOS reform strands.
(Should I have an interview protocol?)
(Should I consider sending the survey multiple times for reliability testing?)
(Should I incorporate a comparison of preferred and actual goals/implementation?)
Potential Impacts:
- How can teachers be assisted in addressing competency standards? (aka are there barriers to implementation?)
One of the important impacts of these questions is what potential barriers do science teachers encounter when implementing SBI practices? This study will help to inform teacher education programs at university and local professional development levels to prepare teachers to implement the competency standards.
nl;
