SCIENCE TEACHING METHODS PREFERRED BY GRADE 9 STUDENTS IN FINLAND
- 771 Downloads
Students find science relevant to society, but they do not find school science interesting. This survey study analyzes Finnish grade 9 students’ actual experiences with science teaching methods and their preferences for how they would like to study science. The survey data were collected from 3,626 grade 9 students (1,772 girls and 1,832 boys) across randomly sampled secondary schools. Students were asked to evaluate how often a particular teaching method is used in science (chemistry and physics) teaching and how often they would like to see the teaching method used. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests. Boys seemed to be more satisfied with current and traditional science teaching methods like direct teaching, solving basic problems, reading textbooks, and conducting practical work, while girls desired more discussion. Students who are interested in school science or think that school science is relevant in everyday life would like more creative activities such as brainstorming and project work. Results indicated that understanding the connection between student interest and teaching method preferences, especially interpreting interested students’ desire for creative activities, are important aspects for future research.
Key wordscreativity interest nonparametric secondary school survey teaching methods
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2004). A systematic review of the use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11–18, and their effects on students’ understanding in science or attitude to science. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
- Byrne, M. S., & Johnstone, A. H. (1988). How to make science relevant. School Science Review, 70(251), 43–46.Google Scholar
- Donnelly, J. F., & Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Science education: Policy, professionalism and change. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
- Fink, A., & Jacqueline, K. (2005). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/page.asp?path=447,27598,37840,72101,72106.
- Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.Google Scholar
- Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2005). Issues on school e-laboratories in science teaching: Virtuality, reality and gender. In J.-P. Courtiat, C. Davarakis & T. Villemur (Eds.), Proceedings of WS 2, the 18th IFIP World Computer Congress on technology enhanced learning (pp. 43–58). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Students’ reasons to choose or reject physics. In E. Mecholová (Ed.), Proceedings of selected papers of the GIREP 2004 Conference on teaching and learning physics in new contexts (pp. 185–186). Ostrava: University of Ostrava.Google Scholar
- Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational–psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of Education—Current Trends, Development and Motivation, 1(1), 57–84.Google Scholar
- Lavonen, J. (2008). Scientific literacy assessment. In J. Hautamäki, E. Harjunen, A. Hautamäki, T. Karjalainen, S. Kupiainen, S. Laaksonen, et al. (Eds.), PISA06 Finland. Analyses, reflections and explanations. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
- Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Uitto, A., Meisalo, V., & Byman, R. (2005). Attractiveness of science education in the Finnish comprehensive school. In A. Manninen, K. Miettinen & K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Research findings on young people’s perceptions of technology and science education: MIRROR results and good practises (pp. 5–30). Helsinki: Technology Industries of Finland. Retrieved from http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/network/countries/finland/fin-lavonen-2005.pdf. Google Scholar
- Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (n.d.). Matemaattis-luonnontieteellisten aineiden työtapaopas [Teaching methods in mathematics and science]. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/malu/kirjasto/tyotapa/. In Finnish.
- Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2000). Children’s thinking, learning, teaching and constructivism. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 41–54). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classroom. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Norris, N., Asplund, R., MacDonald, B., Schostak, J., & Zamorski, B. (1996). An independent evaluation of comprehensive curriculum reform in Finland. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). First results from PISA 2003 executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/63/34002454.pdf.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf.
- Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), AERA’s handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031–1065). Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
- Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
- Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
- Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education)—A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
- Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction—Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
- Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., et al. (2007). The Finnish success in PISA—And some reasons behind it. Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
- Woolnough, B. (1994). Effective science teaching. Buckingham: Open University.Google Scholar