Advertisement

LEARNING ABOUT TEACHING THE EXTRACURRICULAR TOPIC OF NANOTECHNOLOGY AS A VEHICLE FOR ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE CHANGE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

  • Ron BlonderEmail author
  • Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
Article

Abstract

This study focused on teachers’ transfer of a variety of teaching methods from a teaching module on nanotechnology, which is an example of a topic outside the science curriculum, to teaching topics that are part of the chemistry curriculum. Nanotechnology is outside the science curriculum, but it was used in this study as a means to carry out a change in the way chemistry teachers teach. The participants in the study included nine high school in-service chemistry teachers. Three research tools were used: (1) semistructured interviews that were conducted with the teachers, after they had finished teaching their nanotechnology module, and follow-up semistructured interviews that were conducted 2 years after the teachers had taught the nanotechnology module , and teachers’ assessment and evaluation of their own teaching method, determining how the nanotechnology modules influenced the students who learned according to this program. The data collection process continued for 5 years. Most of the teachers indicated that they continued teaching the nanotechnology module that they designed and all of them stated that they integrated the unique teaching methods into their teaching of chemistry. High efficacy beliefs were built based on the self-evaluation process that was part of the teachers’ professional development program. Teaching self-efficacy beliefs and organization efficacy beliefs was found to contribute to teachers’ sustainable changes. The findings in the current research are only limited to the topic of nanotechnology; however, we believe that similar results can be obtained for any modern scientific topic that is outside the high school science curriculum. We suggest that more research should be done to determine whether the same findings emerge by using the same approach but on another topic.

Key words

chemistry teachers nanotechnology education professional development reflection self-efficacy sustainable change teaching efficacy variety of teaching methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2); 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2); 122–147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3); 359–373. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2); 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, vol. 4 (pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (1996). Assessing teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22(3); 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blonder, R. (2010). The influence of a teaching model in nanotechnology on chemistry teachers’ knowledge and their teaching attitudes. Journal of Nano Education, 2, 67–75. doi: 10.1166/jne.2010.1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blonder, R. (2011). The story of nanomaterials in modern technology: An advanced course for chemistry teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 49–52. doi: 10.1021/ed100614f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blonder, R., Benny, N. & Jones, M. G. (2014). Teaching self-efficacy of science teachers. In R. H. Evans, J. Luft, C. Czerniak & Pea, C. (Eds.), The role of science teachers’ beliefs in international classrooms: From teacher actions to student learning (pp. 3–15): Dordrecht, Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. Blonder, R. & Dinur, M. (2011). Teaching nanotechnology using student-centered pedagogy for increasing students’ continuing motivation. Journal of Nano Education, 3, 51–61. doi: 10.1166/jne.2011.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blonder, R., Jonatan, M., Bar-Dov, Z., Benny, N., Rap, S. & Sakhnini, S. (2013). Can You Tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their efficacy beliefs. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 269–285. doi: 10.1039/c3rp00001j.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blonder, R., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). Increasing science teachers’ ownership through the adaptation of the PARSEL modules: A “bottom-up” approach. Science Education International, 19(3); 285–301.Google Scholar
  16. Blonder, R. & Sakhnini, S. (2012). Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary school by using a variety of teaching methods. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 500–516. doi: 10.1039/C2RP20026K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connelly, F. M. & Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teacher’s role in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(2); 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daly, S. & Bryan, L. A. (2010). Model use choices of secondary teachers in nanoscale science and engineering education. Journal of Nano Education, 2, 76–90. doi: 10.1166/jne.2010.1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eilks, I., Markic, S. & Witteck, T. (2010). Collaborative innovation of the science classroom by Participatory Action Research—Theory and practice in a project of implementing cooperative learning methods in chemistry education. In M. Valenčič Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating effective student learning through teacher research and innovation (pp. 77–101). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Friedman, I. A. (2003). Self-efficacy and burnout in teaching: The importance of interpersonal-relations efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 191–215. doi: 10.1023/a:1024723124467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman, I. A. & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675–686. doi: 10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00027-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavish, B. & Friedman, I. A. (2011). Novice teachers as organisational people: Expectations of a professional work environment, collegiality, recognition and respect. Educational Studies, 37, 451–467. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2010.540891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4); 569–582. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  27. Guskey, T. R. & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M. & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teachers Education, 13(3); 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison, J. & Globman, R. (1988). Assessment of training teachers in active learning: A research report. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  30. Hofstein, A., Mamlok, R. & Rosenberg, O. (2006). Varying instructional methods and students assessment methods in high school chemistry. In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Sommers, D. DeBaets & F. Crawley (Eds.), Assessment in science (pp. 139–148). Arlington, Virginia: NSTA press.Google Scholar
  31. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7); 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hofstein, A., Shore, R. & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62. Google Scholar
  33. Holly, P. (1991). Action research: The missing linking the creation of schools as centers of inquiry. In A. L. L. Millaer (Ed.), Staff development for education in the 90’s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 133–157). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvements, 4, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, M. G., Blonder, R., Gardner, G. E., Albe, V., Falvo, M. & Chevrier, J. (2013). Nanotechnology and nanoscale science: Educational challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9); 1490–1512. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.771828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1983). Power and staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  37. Kane, R., Sandretto, S. & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the reaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228. doi: 10.3102/00346543072002177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kremer-Hayon, L. & Ben-Peretz, M. (1986). Becoming a teacher: The transition from teachers’ college to classroom life. International Review of Education, 32, 413–422. doi: 10.1007/BF00597551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loucks-Horsley, S. & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5); 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. & Hewson, P. W. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
  41. Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Eilks, I. (2012). Different types of action research to promote chemistry teachers’ professional development—a joint theoretical reflection on two cases from Israel and Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3); 581–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. & Penick, J. (2007). Involving teachers in the STS curricular process: A long-term intensive support Framework for science teachers. Journal of Science Teachers Education, 18(4); 497–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Research Council, (1996), National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  44. Nichol, C. A. & Hutchinson, J. S. (2010). Professional development for teachers in nanotechnology using distance learning technologies. Journal of Nano Education, 2, 37–47. doi: 10.1166/jne.2010.1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Obaya, O. (2003). Action research: Creating a context for science teaching and learning. Science Education International, 14, 37–47.Google Scholar
  46. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pajares, F. (1993). Preservice teachers’ beliefs: A focus for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 15(2): 45–54.Google Scholar
  48. Planinšič, G. & Kovač, P. (2008). Nano goes to school: A teaching model of the atomic force microscope. Physics Education, 43, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15. doi: 10.3102/0013189x029001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Riquarts, K. & Hansen, K. H. (1998). Collaboration among teachers, researchers and inservice trainers to develop an integrated science curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6); 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sabar, N. & Shafriri, N. (1982). On the need for teachers training in curriculum development. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 7(3); 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching—foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R. & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of identifying and defining the operational meaning of 'chemical literacy'. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 323–344. Google Scholar
  55. Swanborn, P. G. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taitelbaum, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Carmeli, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). Evidence for teachers’ change while participating in a continuous professional development programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5); 593–617. doi: 10.1080/09500690701854840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tatar, M., Ben-Uri, I. & Horenczyk, G. (2011). Assimilation attitudes predict lower immigration -related self-efficacy among Israeli immigrant teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 247–255. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0044-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tobin, K., Capie, W. & Bettencourt, A. (1988). Active teaching for higher cognitive learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tomasik, J. H., Jin, S., Hamers, R. J. & Moore, J. W. (2009). Design and initial evaluation of an online nanoscience course for teachers. Journal of Nano Education, 1, 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2); 202–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Usher, E. L. & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796. doi: 10.3102/0034654308321456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  64. Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Davis, H. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In F. P. T. Urdan (Ed.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117–137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations