评价教师的教学材料:NGSS设计的特点和科学表征的性质

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ryan Summers
{"title":"评价教师的教学材料:NGSS设计的特点和科学表征的性质","authors":"Ryan Summers","doi":"10.1007/s11165-023-10146-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Science teachers crave instructional materials and an increasing number of them are going to online educational marketplaces to purchase them. This study reports on a content analysis of highly rated products marketed for middle level science (grades 6, 7, and/or 8) on TeachersPayTeachers.com (TpT), one of the most prominent online educational marketplaces. Thirty-three products were reviewed in this study and they contained a variety of student tasks (e.g., investigations &amp; worksheets) and teacher resources (e.g., PowerPoint slides, lesson plans, &amp; answer keys). Instructional materials obtained from these products yielded more than 1,500 pages for analysis. The first layer of the analysis focused on the alignment of these materials to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and results indicated that few materials included any key features of NGSS design (<i>n</i> = 2). The second layer of the analysis focused on the treatment and presentation of nature of science (NOS) ideas in these instructional materials. Of the 27 products that included any representation of NOS, the majority of these materials included empirical NOS (<i>n</i> = 22) and the myth of the “Scientific Method” (<i>n</i> = 21). Fewer representations were found for social NOS (<i>n</i> = 4), creative (<i>n</i> = 3), tentative (<i>n</i> = 3), theory-laden (<i>n</i> = 3), and along with social and cultural embeddedness (<i>n</i> = 1). Results revealed mixed messages among the instructional materials reviewed, examples are shared to frame a discussion about features that can foster the development of NOS understandings. Implications of this research regarding the preparation of teachers to evaluate instructional materials are discussed alongside research highlighting how educative features can support NOS instruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":" 690","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appraising Instructional Materials from TeachersPayTeachers for Features of NGSS Design and Nature of Science Representations\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Summers\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11165-023-10146-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Science teachers crave instructional materials and an increasing number of them are going to online educational marketplaces to purchase them. This study reports on a content analysis of highly rated products marketed for middle level science (grades 6, 7, and/or 8) on TeachersPayTeachers.com (TpT), one of the most prominent online educational marketplaces. Thirty-three products were reviewed in this study and they contained a variety of student tasks (e.g., investigations &amp; worksheets) and teacher resources (e.g., PowerPoint slides, lesson plans, &amp; answer keys). Instructional materials obtained from these products yielded more than 1,500 pages for analysis. The first layer of the analysis focused on the alignment of these materials to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and results indicated that few materials included any key features of NGSS design (<i>n</i> = 2). The second layer of the analysis focused on the treatment and presentation of nature of science (NOS) ideas in these instructional materials. Of the 27 products that included any representation of NOS, the majority of these materials included empirical NOS (<i>n</i> = 22) and the myth of the “Scientific Method” (<i>n</i> = 21). Fewer representations were found for social NOS (<i>n</i> = 4), creative (<i>n</i> = 3), tentative (<i>n</i> = 3), theory-laden (<i>n</i> = 3), and along with social and cultural embeddedness (<i>n</i> = 1). Results revealed mixed messages among the instructional materials reviewed, examples are shared to frame a discussion about features that can foster the development of NOS understandings. Implications of this research regarding the preparation of teachers to evaluate instructional materials are discussed alongside research highlighting how educative features can support NOS instruction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"volume\":\" 690\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10146-1\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10146-1","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: 0

摘要

科学教师渴望获得教学材料,越来越多的人开始在在线教育市场上购买这些材料。本研究报告了在TeachersPayTeachers.com (TpT)(最著名的在线教育市场之一)上为中级科学(6年级、7年级和/或8年级)销售的高评价产品的内容分析。在本研究中回顾了33种产品,它们包含各种学生任务(例如,调查和;工作表)和教师资源(如PowerPoint幻灯片、教案等);回答键)。从这些产品中获得的教学材料有1500多页可供分析。分析的第一层侧重于这些材料与下一代科学标准(NGSS)的一致性,结果表明,很少有材料包含NGSS设计的任何关键特征(n = 2)。分析的第二层侧重于这些教学材料中科学本质(NOS)思想的处理和呈现。在包含NOS表征的27个产品中,大多数材料包括经验性NOS (n = 22)和“科学方法”的神话(n = 21)。社会性NOS (n = 4)、创造性NOS (n = 3)、试探性NOS (n = 3)、理论性NOS (n = 3)以及社会和文化嵌入性NOS (n = 1)的表征较少。结果显示,在审查的教学材料中,信息是混杂的,我们分享了一些例子来讨论可以促进NOS理解发展的特征。本研究对教师准备评估教学材料的影响,以及强调教育特征如何支持NOS教学的研究进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Appraising Instructional Materials from TeachersPayTeachers for Features of NGSS Design and Nature of Science Representations

Appraising Instructional Materials from TeachersPayTeachers for Features of NGSS Design and Nature of Science Representations

Science teachers crave instructional materials and an increasing number of them are going to online educational marketplaces to purchase them. This study reports on a content analysis of highly rated products marketed for middle level science (grades 6, 7, and/or 8) on TeachersPayTeachers.com (TpT), one of the most prominent online educational marketplaces. Thirty-three products were reviewed in this study and they contained a variety of student tasks (e.g., investigations & worksheets) and teacher resources (e.g., PowerPoint slides, lesson plans, & answer keys). Instructional materials obtained from these products yielded more than 1,500 pages for analysis. The first layer of the analysis focused on the alignment of these materials to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and results indicated that few materials included any key features of NGSS design (n = 2). The second layer of the analysis focused on the treatment and presentation of nature of science (NOS) ideas in these instructional materials. Of the 27 products that included any representation of NOS, the majority of these materials included empirical NOS (n = 22) and the myth of the “Scientific Method” (n = 21). Fewer representations were found for social NOS (n = 4), creative (n = 3), tentative (n = 3), theory-laden (n = 3), and along with social and cultural embeddedness (n = 1). Results revealed mixed messages among the instructional materials reviewed, examples are shared to frame a discussion about features that can foster the development of NOS understandings. Implications of this research regarding the preparation of teachers to evaluate instructional materials are discussed alongside research highlighting how educative features can support NOS instruction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Science Education
Research in Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: 2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021 2020 Impact Factor: 5.439 Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus 2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership. RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal. You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research: Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know. RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted. The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers. Empircal contributions are: Theoretically or conceptually grounded; Relevant to science education theory and practice; Highlight limitations of the study; and Identify possible future research opportunities. From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks. Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is: No longer than 6000 words, including references. Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability; Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education; Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE. While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
×
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