Science teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning related to content and procedural goals

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Verena Petermann, Andreas Vorholzer, Claudia von Aufschnaiter
{"title":"Science teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning related to content and procedural goals","authors":"Verena Petermann,&nbsp;Andreas Vorholzer,&nbsp;Claudia von Aufschnaiter","doi":"10.1002/tea.22003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Science teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning are a vital component of teachers' professional competence and are often assumed to impact classroom practice. To date, these beliefs have been predominantly investigated regarding teaching and learning in general or for a particular science subject (e.g., physics). It remains to be determined whether these beliefs are similar across different goals within a subject. The study reported addresses this question by investigating and comparing beliefs about teaching and learning regarding two prominent main goals of science education: content goals that refer to scientific phenomena, laws, theories, and disciplinary core ideas and procedural goals that refer to scientific procedures and practices. To that end, data from 170 German teachers were collected in 2019 and 2020 with an online questionnaire. After modeling the data and assessing the quality of measurement via Rasch analysis techniques, subsequent <i>t</i>-tests were employed to compare beliefs. Results reveal that science teachers' beliefs vary between both main goals. For instance, teachers believe that achieving procedural goals requires primarily doing science with lesser relevance of discussing and elaborating with students explicitly the rules and strategies for engaging appropriately in scientific practices (e.g., control of variables strategy). In contrast, teachers believe that for achieving content goals, explicit instruction about corresponding conceptual knowledge is of higher relevance. Furthermore, the analysis reveals differences in teachers' beliefs about their own abilities. Teachers typically believe they are more able to teach and deal with content goals compared with procedural goals. The differences reported may help to understand research on teachers' classroom practice and can inform teacher training and professional development.</p>","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"62 5","pages":"1388-1413"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.22003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.22003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Science teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning are a vital component of teachers' professional competence and are often assumed to impact classroom practice. To date, these beliefs have been predominantly investigated regarding teaching and learning in general or for a particular science subject (e.g., physics). It remains to be determined whether these beliefs are similar across different goals within a subject. The study reported addresses this question by investigating and comparing beliefs about teaching and learning regarding two prominent main goals of science education: content goals that refer to scientific phenomena, laws, theories, and disciplinary core ideas and procedural goals that refer to scientific procedures and practices. To that end, data from 170 German teachers were collected in 2019 and 2020 with an online questionnaire. After modeling the data and assessing the quality of measurement via Rasch analysis techniques, subsequent t-tests were employed to compare beliefs. Results reveal that science teachers' beliefs vary between both main goals. For instance, teachers believe that achieving procedural goals requires primarily doing science with lesser relevance of discussing and elaborating with students explicitly the rules and strategies for engaging appropriately in scientific practices (e.g., control of variables strategy). In contrast, teachers believe that for achieving content goals, explicit instruction about corresponding conceptual knowledge is of higher relevance. Furthermore, the analysis reveals differences in teachers' beliefs about their own abilities. Teachers typically believe they are more able to teach and deal with content goals compared with procedural goals. The differences reported may help to understand research on teachers' classroom practice and can inform teacher training and professional development.

Abstract Image

科学教师的教与学信念与内容目标和程序目标有关
科学教师的教与学信念是教师专业能力的重要组成部分,通常被认为会影响课堂实践。迄今为止,这些信念主要是关于一般教学或特定科学学科(如物理)的研究。这些信念在同一主题的不同目标中是否相似还有待确定。该研究报告通过调查和比较关于教与学的两个主要科学教育目标的信念来解决这个问题:内容目标指的是科学现象、规律、理论和学科核心思想,程序目标指的是科学程序和实践。为此,研究人员在2019年和2020年通过在线问卷收集了170名德国教师的数据。在对数据建模并通过Rasch分析技术评估测量质量后,随后使用t检验来比较信念。结果显示,科学教师的信念在两个主要目标之间存在差异。例如,教师认为实现程序性目标主要需要进行科学研究,而与学生明确讨论和详细阐述适当参与科学实践的规则和策略(例如,变量控制策略)的相关性较低。教师则认为,为了实现内容目标,对相应概念知识进行明确的指导具有更高的相关性。此外,分析还揭示了教师对自身能力信念的差异。教师通常认为,与程序目标相比,他们更有能力教授和处理内容目标。报告的差异可能有助于理解教师课堂实践的研究,并可以为教师培训和专业发展提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信