Teaching Science as a Process, Not a Set of Facts

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Gunilla Öberg, Alice Campbell, Joanne Fox, Marcia Graves, Tara Ivanochko, Linda Matsuchi, Isobel Mouat, Ashley Welsh
{"title":"Teaching Science as a Process, Not a Set of Facts","authors":"Gunilla Öberg,&nbsp;Alice Campbell,&nbsp;Joanne Fox,&nbsp;Marcia Graves,&nbsp;Tara Ivanochko,&nbsp;Linda Matsuchi,&nbsp;Isobel Mouat,&nbsp;Ashley Welsh","doi":"10.1007/s11191-021-00253-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The widespread misperception of science as a deliverer of irrefutable facts, rather than a deliberative process, is undermining public trust in science. Science education therefore needs to better support students’ understanding of the central role that disputes play in the scientific process. Successfully incorporating scientific disputes into science education is, however, challenging. The aim of this paper is to identify course components and design features that develop undergraduate students’ abilities to write a logically coherent argument that is supported by evidence. First, we assessed student essays from a course that had gone through a major revision aimed at strengthening students’ reasoning skills. When comparing pre- and post-revision essays, we found substantial, and significant, improvements across the assessment criteria. We then elicited oral and written feedback from instructors who taught the course pre- and post-revision. We identified several changes that instructors felt most impacted students’ reasoning skills, most importantly: streamlining of learning outcomes and course content emphasizing argumentation skills; stronger scaffolding and better utilized peer review; and more detailed rubrics that specifically reference learning outcomes and course content. The study illustrates the power of iterative course revisions that incorporate findings from published research and instructors’ reflections on teaching practices as a way to strengthen student learning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56374,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"31 3","pages":"787 - 817"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11191-021-00253-8.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00253-8","RegionNum":3,"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: 6

Abstract

The widespread misperception of science as a deliverer of irrefutable facts, rather than a deliberative process, is undermining public trust in science. Science education therefore needs to better support students’ understanding of the central role that disputes play in the scientific process. Successfully incorporating scientific disputes into science education is, however, challenging. The aim of this paper is to identify course components and design features that develop undergraduate students’ abilities to write a logically coherent argument that is supported by evidence. First, we assessed student essays from a course that had gone through a major revision aimed at strengthening students’ reasoning skills. When comparing pre- and post-revision essays, we found substantial, and significant, improvements across the assessment criteria. We then elicited oral and written feedback from instructors who taught the course pre- and post-revision. We identified several changes that instructors felt most impacted students’ reasoning skills, most importantly: streamlining of learning outcomes and course content emphasizing argumentation skills; stronger scaffolding and better utilized peer review; and more detailed rubrics that specifically reference learning outcomes and course content. The study illustrates the power of iterative course revisions that incorporate findings from published research and instructors’ reflections on teaching practices as a way to strengthen student learning.

Abstract Image

将科学教学作为一个过程,而不是一组事实
人们普遍误解科学是提供无可辩驳的事实,而不是一个审议过程,这种误解正在破坏公众对科学的信任。因此,科学教育需要更好地支持学生理解争论在科学过程中所起的核心作用。然而,成功地将科学争论纳入科学教育是具有挑战性的。本文的目的是确定课程的组成部分和设计特点,以培养本科生写有证据支持的逻辑连贯的论点的能力。首先,我们对学生的论文进行了评估,这门课程经过了重大修改,旨在加强学生的推理能力。当比较修改前和修改后的文章时,我们发现整个评估标准有了实质性的、显著的改进。然后,我们从教授课程的教师那里得到口头和书面的反馈。我们确定了教师认为对学生推理能力影响最大的几个变化,最重要的是:精简学习成果和强调论证技能的课程内容;加强脚手架和更好地利用同行评审;以及具体参考学习成果和课程内容的更详细的规则。该研究说明了反复的课程修订的力量,它结合了发表的研究结果和教师对教学实践的反思,作为加强学生学习的一种方式。
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
Science & Education
Science & Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science & Education publishes research informed by the history, philosophy and sociology of science and mathematics that seeks to promote better teaching, learning, and curricula in science and mathematics. More particularly Science & Education promotes: The utilization of historical, philosophical and sociological scholarship to clarify and deal with the many intellectual issues facing contemporary science and mathematics education.  Collaboration between the communities of scientists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, science and mathematics educators, and school and college teachers. An understanding of the philosophical, cultural, economic, religious, psychological and ethical dimensions of modern science and the interplay of these factors in the history of science.  The inclusion of appropriate history and philosophy of science and mathematics courses in science and mathematics teacher-education programmes.  The dissemination of accounts of lessons, units of work, and programmes in science and mathematics, at all levels, that have successfully utilized history and philosophy.  Discussion of the philosophy and purposes of science and mathematics education, and their place in, and contribution to, the intellectual and ethical development of individuals and cultures.
×
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