Advertisement

ENGAGING SCIENCE: PRE-SERVICE PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ NOTIONS OF ENGAGING SCIENCE LESSONS

  • Douglas P. NewtonEmail author
  • Lynn D. Newton
Article

ABSTRACT

If children are engaged in science lessons, their learning is likely to be better and, in the long term, careers in science and technology will remain open. Given that attitudes can develop early and be difficult to change, it is important for teachers of younger children to know how to foster engagement in science. This study identified what a cohort of 79 pre-service teachers in England considered to be engaging elementary science lessons and compared their notions with teacher behaviours known to be conducive to engagement. First, all brought beliefs about how to engage children in science lessons to their training. They tended to favour children’s hands-on activity as an effective means of fostering attentive participation in learning, although many had additional ideas. Nevertheless, the means and ends of their ‘pedagogies of engagement’ tended to be simple and narrow. Trainers need to ensure that notions of engagement are wide enough to cope with a variety of teaching situations, as when hands-on experience is not feasible, effective or appropriate. At the same time, teachers will need to recognise that one approach may not suit all learners. Without this, there is the risk that they will lack the skills to engage children in science. Nevertheless, these beliefs could offer a useful starting point for trainers who wish to widen pre-service teachers’ conceptions of engagement and increase their repertoire of teaching behaviours.

KEY WORDS

fostering engagement in science pedagogies of engagement teachers’ conceptions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abrahams, I. Z. (2007). An unrealistic image of science. School Science Review, 324, 119–123.Google Scholar
  2. ASE (Association for Science Education) (2006). Science education in schools. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  3. Baram-Tsabari, A. & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontanteous interests in science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 803–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassey, M. (2001). A solution to the problem of generalisation in educational research: Fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, C. F. (2002). What students think: College students describe their high school chemistry class. The Science Teacher, 69, 52–55.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beswick, K. (2004). The impact of teachers’ perceptions of student characteristics on the enactment of their beliefs. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (IGPME, vol. 2, pp. 111–118). Cape Town: IGPME. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from http://www.emis.ams.org/proceedings/PME28/.
  8. Bettencourt, E. M., Gillett, M. H., Gall, M. D. & Hull, R. E. (1983). Effects of teacher enthusiasm training on student on-task behavior and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 435–450.Google Scholar
  9. Boekaerts, M. & Boscolo, P. (2002). Interest in learning, learning to be interested. Learning and Instruction, 12, 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boon, T. (2006). A historical perspective on science engagement. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds and action (pp. 8–13). London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  11. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckley, N. (2008). Science boosterism versus public engagement with science. Science and Public Affairs, 27, December 2008.Google Scholar
  13. Burkhardt, H., Fraser, R. & Ridgeway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Development in school mathematics education around the world, vol. 2 (pp. 3–29). Reston: National Council of Teachers on Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Educational Pyschology, 22(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capie, W. & Tobin, K. G. (1981). Pupil engagement in learning tasks: A fertile area for research in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chong, T. Y. (2007). Effectiveness of the teaching for understanding curriculum model in enhancing students’ engaged learning. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/WIDE/courses/files/res_435_03052007-153602.pdf/.
  17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Connell, J. (1990). Context, self, and action. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61–67). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Daniels, D. H. & Shumov, L. (2003). Child development and classroom teaching: A review of the literature and implications for educating teachers. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 35, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G. & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2007). Languages review. Annesley: DfES.Google Scholar
  23. Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fairbrother, R. (2000). Strategies for learning. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 7–22). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fielding-Wells, J. & Makar, K. (2008). Using mathematical enquiry to engage student learning within the overall curriculum. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress of Mathematical Education, July 6–13, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  26. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  27. Fliess, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  29. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, K. M. & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’ emotions and achievement—Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE-approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodwin, A. (2006). Engagement, communication and uncertainty in science education. Educación en Ciencias, 7(2), 75–77.Google Scholar
  32. Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. 3 (pp. 403–422). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Hardy, T. & Kirkwood, V. (1994). Towards creating effective learning environments for science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harris, R. & Haydn, T. (2008). Pupil and teacher perspectives on motivation in high school history. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. 24–28 March, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Hoffman, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jenkins, E. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kind, V. (2009). A conflict in your head: An exploration of trainee science teachers’ subject matter knowledge development and its impact on teacher self-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1529–1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leshner, A. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299(5609), 977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lunn, S. (2002). ‘What we think we can safely say…’: Primary teachers’ views of the nature of science. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mant, J., Wilson, H. & Coates, D. (2007). The effect of increasing conceptual challenge in primary science lessons on pupils’ achievement and engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1707–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in elementary, middle and high school years. American Education Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.Google Scholar
  43. Martin, A. J. & Marsh, H. W. (2005). Student motivation and engagement in mathematics, science, and English: Multilevel modelling. Retrieved May 20th, 2010 from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mar05402.pdf.
  44. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mestre, J. P. (2005). Facts and myths about pedagogies of engagement in science learning. Peer Review, 7, 24–27 (Winter).Google Scholar
  46. Middlecamp, C. H. (2005). The art of engagement. Peer Review, 7, 17–20. Winter.Google Scholar
  47. Millar, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Murphy, C. & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84(308), 109–116.Google Scholar
  49. Murphy, C. & Beggs, J. (2005). Primary horizons: Starting out in science. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  50. Murphy, P., Lunn, S. & Jones, H. (2006). Science in a social context. The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newmann, F. (1988). Higher order thinking in high school social studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  52. Newton, D. P. (1988). Making science education relevant. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  53. Newton, D. P. (2000). Teaching for understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Newton, D. P. (2004). Teaching tricky science concepts. Leamington Spa: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  55. Newton, D. P. (2008). A practical guide to teaching science in the secondary school. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Newton, D. P. & Newton, L. D. (2009). Knowledge development at the time of use. Educational Studies, 35(3), 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Niemi, A. M. (2007). What are effective strategies to support student engagement and learning? Master of Teaching thesis, Evergreen State College, USA.Google Scholar
  58. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Osborne, J., Simons, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.Google Scholar
  62. Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A. & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behaviour and emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rivera, T. C. & Ganaden, M. F. (2001). The development and validation of a classroom environment scale for Filipinos. International Online Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from, http://www.upd.edu-ph/∼ismed/online/articles/dev/intro.htm/.
  64. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Rocard, M., Hemmo, V., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D. & Wallberg-Rogers, K. B. (1991). A best-evidence synthesis of research on accelerative options for gifted students. In N. Colangela, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: The Proceedings of the 1991 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 406–409). Iowa: University of Iowa, Trillium Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shapka, J. D. & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of girls-only curriculum during adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shernoff, D. (2001). The experience of student engagement in high school classrooms. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  69. Strauss, S. (1993). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about children’s minds and learning: Implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sturman, L. & Twist, L. (2004). Attitudes and attainment: A trade-off? NFER 59th Annual Report (pp. 6–7). Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  71. Thorp, H. S., Burden, R. L. & Fraser, B. J. (1994). Assessing and improving classroom environment. School Science Review, 75(272), 107–113.Google Scholar
  72. Turner, J., Midgely, C., Meyer, D. & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and students’ affect and achievement-related behaviours in two high mastery/high performance classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 30(4), 477–494.Google Scholar
  73. Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J. & Meisalo, V. (2006). Students’ interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biology Education, 40(3), 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Valeras, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J. & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science. Science & Education, 92(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 919–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Waxman, H. C. & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Teaching and productivity. Education and Urban Society, 18(2), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wellcome Trust (2006). Science for all: Is public engagement engaging the public? Conference Report, 3-4 April. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  78. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  79. Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learning experiences. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations