Abstract
Globalization, changing demographics, and technological advancements are some of the key driving forces of the future. Our students will have to be prepared to face these challenges and seize the opportunities brought about by these forces. Teaching and learning science can no longer be focused on acquisition of knowledge. Instead, a future-ready individual should develop discipline-specific and interdisciplinary ways of problem-solving. Instilling a range of cognitive and meta-cognitive skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and self-regulation, as well as the right attitude and values such as motivation, trust, respect for life, and diversity, become key elements of science learning. To achieve these learning goals, the Singapore Science Curriculum has made scientific inquiry as its pedagogical underpinning. Structures have been put in place to encourage teachers to try out different inquiry-based activities that develop these twenty-first century competencies. This chapter presents three innovative science and STEM learning approaches – image-to-writing approach (a model-based inquiry), spiral model of collaborative knowledge improvement (an argumentation approach), and microbial fuel cell (a design-based pedagogy) – adopted by science teachers to prepare their charges for the future and discusses how these pedagogical approaches contribute to the development of these competencies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for preclinical years. New York: Springer.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.
Berland, L. K., McNeill, K. L., Pelletier, P., & Krajcik, J. (2017). Engaging in argument from evidence. In C. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 229–257). Arlington, TX: NSTA.
Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20, 103–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5
Bouyias, Y., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). Peer-monitoring vs. micro-script fading for enhancing knowledge acquisition when learning in computer-supported argumentation environments. Computers & Education, 59(2), 236–249.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Chen, W. L., Looi, C. K., & Wen, Y. (2013). Empowering argumentation in the science classroom with a complex CSCL environment. In S. C. Tan et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st international conference on computers in education. Indonesia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2012). Evaluation of students’ understanding of thermal concepts in everyday contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1509–1534.
Chue, S., & Lee, Y.-J. (2013). The proof of the pudding?: A case study of an “at-risk” design-based inquiry science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2431–2454.
Danahy, E., Hynes, M., Schneider, L., & Dowling D. (2012, April). The aggregation tool: Toward collaborative inquiry in design-based science and engineering projects. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Northeast Section Conference, University of Massachusetts Lowell. April 27–28, 2012. Retrieved November 16, 2016 from https://www.asee.org/documents/sections/northeast/2011/The-Aggregation-Tool-Toward-Collaborative-Inquiry-in-Design-Based-Science-and-Engineering-Projects.pdf
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8., 35–37. http://www.designbasedresearch.org/reppubs/DBRC2003.pdf
Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.
Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The role of theories and their importance. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Contemporary trends and issues in science education (Vol. 43, pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Model-based teaching in science. Switzerland: Springer.
Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–38). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Gooding, D. C. (2004). Envisioning explanations–the art in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(3), 278–294.
Jävelä, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2014). Designing for learning: Interest, motivation, and engagement. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 668–685). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 51(1), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.012.
Jime’nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v39n3/kolodner.html
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547.
Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science Scope, 35(7), 6–8.
Ministry of Education, Singapore [MOE]. (2012). Science syllabus primary 2014. Retrieved on 28 June 2015 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-primary-2014.pdf
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2013). Science by design: Construct a … Boat, catapult, glove, and greenhouse/developed by TERC. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Nersessian, N. (1992). Constructing and instructing: The role of “abstraction techniques” in creating and learning physics. In R. Duschl & D. Hamilton (Eds.), Cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 48–68). New York: State University of New York Press.
Newstetter, W. C. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 243–246.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.
Paik, S. H., Cho, B. K., & Go, Y. M. (2007). Korean 4- to 11-year-old students conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 284–302.
Poon, C. L. (2012). Five decades of science education in Singapore. In A. L. Tan, C. L. Poon, & S. Lim (Eds.), Inquiry into the Singapore science classroom (pp. 1–25). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x.
Singham, J. K. (1987). An investigation of the science process skills in the intended and implemented PSP of Singapore. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, UK.
Thang, F. K., & Koh, J. H. L. (2017). Deepening and transferring twenty-first century learning through a lower secondary integrated science module. Learning: Research and Practice, 3(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1335426.
Thomaz, M. F., Malaquias, I. M., Valente, M. C., & Antunes, M. J. (1995). An attempt to overcome alternative conceptions related to heat and temperature. Physics Education, 30(1), 19.
Tytler, R., Hubber, P., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2013). A representation construction approach. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 31–49). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Yun, S. M., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Changes in students’ participation and small group norms in scientific argumentation. Research in Science Education, 45(3), 465-484.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.
Zohar, A., & David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yeo, J., Chen, W., Tan, T.T.M., Lee, YJ. (2021). Innovative Science and STEM Pedagogies in Singapore. In: Tan, O.S., Low, E.L., Tay, E.G., Yan, Y.K. (eds) Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation. Empowering Teaching and Learning through Policies and Practice: Singapore and International Perspectives, vol 1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-1356-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-1357-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)