All posts by: technovision

About technovision

The Relationship Between U.S. High School Science Teacher’s Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Use of Technology in Classrooms

Zahrah Hussain Aljuzayri

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 87, size: 0, date: 16.Jan.2021

Abstract: There have been a limited number of studies that examined the relationship between professional development (PD) and self-efficacy with technology tool use, specifically concerning high school science teachers. The main goal of this quantitative study was to identify any specific correlations between science teacher self-efficacy and the professional development science teachers received for those specific classroom technologies. Participants were comprised of a randomized sample set of high school science teachers throughout 46 different US States. The data was collected by using an online survey via the Qualtrics survey platform. The survey was sent to 3000 science instructors and 104 in total completed it. The results suggest that science teachers’ efficacy was high with course management systems and student wireless or digital devices, but not for social networking/media. There was no significant connection between technological self-efficacy and PD for related technology tools. However, it is possible that science teachers are already highly efficacious in terms of technology, and observational studies are recommended to see when and how teachers actually use technology in their classrooms.

Keywords: professional development; relationship; science teacher’s; self-efficacy; technology tools.

Please Cite: Aljuzayri, Z. (2021). The Relationship Between U.S. High School Science Teacher’s Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Use of Technology in Classrooms. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 45-62.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.414            

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (2004). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.120-136). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bandura, A. (2005). Evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.) Great Minds in Management. (pp. 9-35) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26(1), 13- 22.

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(1), 22-43.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology39(5), 775-786.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947-967.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.

Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in US Public Schools: 2009. First Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics.

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-based nursing, 18(4), 66-67.

Hanover Research (HR). (2014). Trends in higher education marketing, recruitment, and technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from.

Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self- efficacy on teachers' technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343-367.

Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 museum edition. The New Media Consortium.

Koh, J. H., & Frick, T. W. (2009). Instructor and student classroom interactions during technology skills instruction for facilitating preservice teachers' computer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(2), 211-228.

Killion, J. (2013). Establishing Time for Professional Learning. Learning Forward.

Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadiel’apprentissage et de la technologie, 37(3).

Marwan, A. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of teaching with computer technology: reasons for use and barriers in usage. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 5(6), 35-42.

McCormick, J. & Ayres, P. L. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and occupational stress: A major Australian curriculum reform revisited. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(4), 463-476.

Miles, K. H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., Archibald, S., & Gallagher, A. (2003). Inside the black box of school district spending on professional development: Lessons from comparing five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing elementary and secondary education. Retrieved January 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs 2003/tech_schools/chapter7.asp#2

Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 43- 61.

Pimentel, J.L. (2010). A note on the usage of Likert Scaling for research date analysis. USM R&D journal, 18(2), 109-112

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of research on technology in education, 38(3), 329-348.

Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-Service Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, & Web 2.0 Tools for Integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28-40.

Powell-Moman, A. D., & Brown-Schild, V. B. (2011). The Influence of a Two-Year Professional Development Institute on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Use of Inquiry- Based Instruction. Science Educator, 20(2), 47-53.

Siebert, M. C. (2006). An examination of students’ perceptions of goal orientation in the classroom and teachers’ beliefs about intelligence and teacher efficacy. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Kansas State University.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and teacher education, 25(3), 518-524.

Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes in teacher self-efficacy from the student teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 128.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Watson, J. (2006). Can an ethic of caring be maintained? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54(3),257-259.

Yidana, I. (2007). Faculty perceptions of technology integration in the teacher education curriculum: A survey of two Ghanaian universities. (Ph.D., Ohio University).

  

Vol. 4 Iss. 1

Addressing Student Diversity in Science Classroom: Exploring Topic-Specific Personal Pedagogical Content Knowledge of High School Teachers

Saiqa Azam

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 202, size: 0, date: 15.Sep.2020

Abstract: The student diversity in today’s science classrooms presents challenges as well as learning opportunities for students and teachers. This research examines topic-specific personal pedagogical content knowledge (pPCK) of high school teachers as it relates to addressing student diversity in their science classrooms. A narrative inquiry approach was adopted to study four science teachers’ experiences of teaching science, considering teachers’ pPCK as an accumulation of experience. Narrative data were collected through interview conversations with these teachers about their experiences of conceptualizing and teaching force and motion topics to diverse groups of students in their science classrooms. The focus of these conversations was the day-to-day practice of participant teachers about making force and motion topics accessible to diverse learners. Using pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a conceptual framework, the narrative data were analyzed to explore how these teachers negotiated their content knowledge and knowledge of student diversity in shaping their professional knowledge of science teaching. The findings revealed that topic-specific pPCK of participant teachers was sourced in student diversity present in their science classroom, and its development underpins various processes to connect different types of knowledge. This research suggests considering teachers’ knowledge of student diversity and how this impacts their planning and teaching of specific science content as an aspect of their topic-specific pPCK. Implications for science teacher education are included.

Please Cite: Azam, S. (2020). Addressing student diversity in science classroom: Exploring topic-specific personal pedagogical content knowledge of high school teachers. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(3), 141-163.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.333           

References

Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1105-1149). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267

Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560077

Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2016). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through: Two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1259-1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21271

Azam, S. (2015). Stories of teaching force and motion: A narrative inquiry into pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://doi:10.11575/PRISM/27884     

Azam, S. (2018). Physics for teaching high school physics: Views of prospective physics teachers and teacher educators about undergraduate physics study. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 7(2), 147-163. http://jtee.org/document/issue16/article4.pdf

Azam, S. (2019). Distinguishing topic-specific professional knowledge from topic-specific PCK: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 14(5), 281-296. http://www.ijese.net/makale_indir/IJESE_2122_article_5d42f3cf31913.pdf

Azam, S. (in Press). Locating personal pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers within stories of teaching force and motion. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration / inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08856250210129056

Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.739.3592&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Developments, dimensions, and challenges. The Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (1), 22-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405019

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1986). An investigation of teachers’ professional craft knowledge. In D. McIntyre (Ed.), Teachers’ professional craft knowledge: Stirling Educational Monographs, No 16: University of Stirling.

Carlson, J., & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77–92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5898-2

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston & M. H. J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). Macmillan. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed400230

Chou, V., & Sakash, k. (2007). Troubling diversity. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Fiemam-Nemser, J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring issues in changing context. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00421.x

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493–522. http://doi.org/10.2307/1163321

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272. http://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022487193044004004

Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50 (1), 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989

Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Terms for inquiry into teacher thinking: The place of practical knowledge and the Elbaz case. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 6(2), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3687(2013)0000019007

Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Understanding research on teaching as feminist research. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Windsor, Ontario.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. Teacher College Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories - stories of teachers - school stories - stories of school. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025003024

Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research (1st Ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Damianidou, E., & Phtiaka, H. (2018). Implementing inclusion in disabling settings: the role of teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(10), 1078-1092. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13603116.2017.1415381

diSessa, A.A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of physics. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 5-33). Erlbaum.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. Rutledge.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1981.11075237

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. Croom Helm.

Florian, L., & Graham, A. (2014). Can an expanded interpretation of phronesis support teacher professional development for inclusion? Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 465-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.960910

García, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.). Teachers College Press.

Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770603

Geddis, A., & Wood, E. (1997). Transforming subject matter and managing dilemmas: A case study in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 611-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)80004-2

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). PCK: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining PCK: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3-20). Kluwer.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735665

Grossman, P. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91(2), 191-207.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Ways of seeing are ways of knowing. The pedagogical content knowledge of an expert English teacher. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(5), 409-421. https://doi-org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/10.1080/0022027910230503

Halloun, A., & Hestenes D. (1985) Common-sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(1), 1056- 1065. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031

Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(87)90012-6

Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 11(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500105502

Hong, L., & Scott, P. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385-89. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0403723101

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like, and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031005003

Howard, T. C., & Aleman, G. R. (2008). Teacher capacity for diverse learners. In. M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 157-174). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938690.ch10

Huanshu, Y. (2018). Preparing teachers for diversity: A literature review and implications from community-based teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 8 (1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v8n1p9

Kaljo, K. (2014). Exposing the brilliant facets of pedagogical content knowledge: a collective case study (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. http://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1617&context=etd.

Kind, V. (2015). On the beauty of knowing then not knowing: Pinning down the elusive qualities of PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 170-196). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735665

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-94. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.55.2.56142234616x4352

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12–21.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027004012

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Erlbaum.

Lee, E., & Luft, J. A. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1343-1363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187058

Loreman, T., Lupart, J., & Andrews, J. (2015). Introduction: A thematic preview. In Andrews, J. & Lupart, J. (Eds.), Diversity education: Understanding and addressing student diversity. Nelson Canada.

Loughran, J., Milroy, P. Berry, A. Gunstone, R. &Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through Pap-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013124409567

Loughran, J. J., Berry, A. K., & Mulhall, P. J. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Sense.

Lyons, N., & LaBoskey, V. K. (Eds.) (2002). Why narrative inquiry or exemplars for a scholarship of teaching? In N. Lyons & V. K. LaBoskey (Eds.), Narrative inquiry in practice: Advancing the knowledge of teaching (pp. 11-27). Teachers College Press.

Magnusson, S., Krajacik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of PCK for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining PCK: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-120). Kluwer Academic Press.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719004100302

Mavhunga, E. (2014). Improving PCK and CK in preservice teachers. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, M. Askew, & J. Loughran (Eds.). Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: Windows into teacher thinking (pp. 31-48). Routledge.

Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2016). Teacher- or learner-entred? Science teacher beliefs related to topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge: A South African case study. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 831-855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9483-9

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6

Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103

Sagner-Tapia, J. (2018). An analysis of alterity in teachers' inclusive pedagogical practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(4), 375-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1370735

Saravia-Shore, M (2008). Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners. In R. Cole (Ed.), Educating everybody’s child: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners (pp. 41-97). ASCD.

Shapiro, B. (2015).  Understanding and addressing diversity in elementary science. In J. Andrews & J. Lupart, (Eds.), Understanding and addressing student diversity in Canadian schools (pp. 362-392). Cengage Nelson.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90011-X

Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & DeVos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2

Vanthuyne, A., & Byrd Clark, J. (2015). Teaching for change and diversity. In L. Thomas & M. Hirschkorn, (Eds.), Change and progress in Canadian teacher education: Research on recent innovations in teacher preparation in Canada (pp. 525-550). Canadian Association for Teacher Education. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3yy1OPnpomCdVFhal9KaU1KRUk/view

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J. H., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4

Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies [Electronic version]. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7615/5382.
Vol. 3 Iss. 3

Is There any Impact of Teaching Vector Spaces From Real Problems? The Case of First Year Engineering Students

Fernández-Cézar, Raquel*  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9013-7734

 Herrero, Henar   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8598-0217

Pla, Francisco  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7767-7894

Solares, Cristina

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 159, size: 0, date: 15.Sep.2020

Abstract: In some linear algebra courses at the university level in engineering majors, the vector spaces are presented to students in an abstract way with scarce connections with other subjects and real problems. The goal of this study was to examine the effectiveness, regarding content knowledge and motivation, of a didactic proposal based on a problem based learning and the necessity principle, PBL-NP, modelling real engineering problems through homogeneous systems of linear equations, to introduce the concept of vector space. A quasi-experiment (post-test) was designed with a convenience sample composed of two groups: the experimental group, EG, amounting 33 students who were taught using the PBL-NP, and the control group, CG, composed by 79 students, taught by following an abstract approach. Inferential statistics was used to compare the learning outcomes between groups, by using as contrast variable an external test. The results show that the students in the EG group felt more relaxed and put less effort than CG students, while both groups gather the abstract concepts in a similar extent. Also the percentage who passed the course is higher in the EG compared with CG. Although both groups value positively the subject, a percentage of students in the CG group add some comments referred to the lack of practice related with real problems in the algebra courses taught with the abstract approach.

Please Cite: Fernández-Cézar, R., Herrero, H., Pla, F., & Solares, C. (2020). Is There any Impact of Teaching Vector Spaces From Real Problems? The Case of First Year Engineering Students. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(3), 125-139.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.332    

References 

Bayat, S., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). Assessing cognitive and metacognitive strategies during algebra problem solving among university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences8, 403-410.

Burgos, J. de, (2000). Algebra lineal [Linear algebra]. McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.

Clark, R. M., & Dickerson, S. J. (2018). Assessing the impact of reflective activities in digital and analog electronics courses. IEEE Transactions on Education62(2), 141-148.

Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist28(1), 25-42.

Day, R. S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 22, (pp. 261-305). Academic Press

Dorier, J. L. (1998). The role of formalism in the teaching of the theory of vector spaces. Linear algebra and its applications275, 141-160. doi.: 10.1016 /S0024-3795(97)10061-1

Dorier, J. L. (Ed.). (2000). On the teaching of linear algebra (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business Media.

Dorier, J.-L. & Sierpinska, A., (2001). Research into the teaching and learning of linear algebra, In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study, (pp. 255-273). Kluwer .

Dorier, J.-L., Robert, A., Robinet, J., & Rogalski, M. (2000). On a research programme concerning the teaching and learning of linear algebra in the first-year of a French science university. International Journal of Mathematics Education, Science and Technology31(1), 27-35.

Grossman, S. I. (1995). Álgebra lineal [Linear algebra]. McGraw-Hill

Harel, G. (2000). Three principles of learning and teaching mathematics. In J-L. Dorier (Ed.) On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 177-189). Springer.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

House, J. D., & Telese, J. A. (2008). Relationships between student and instructional factors and algebra achievement of students in the United States and Japan: An analysis of TIMSS 2003 data. Educational Research and Evaluation14(1), 101-112.

Jing, T. J., Tarmizi, R. A., Bakar, K. A., & Aralas, D. (2017). The adoption of variation theory in the classroom: Effect on students’ algebraic achievement and motivation to learn. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology15(2), 307-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.42.16070

Julian, P. K. (2017). The effects of a project-based course on students’ Attitudes toward mathematics and students’ achievement at a two-year college. The Mathematics Enthusiast14(1), 509-516.

Kirshner, D. (1989). The visual syntax of algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 274-287.

Konyalioglu, A. C., Ipek, A. S., & Isik, A. (2003): On the teaching linear algebra at the university level: The role of visualization in the teaching vector spaces. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 7(1), 59-67.

Konyalioglu, S., Konyalioglu, A. C., Ipek, A. S., & Isik, A. (2005). The role of visualization approach on student’s conceptual learning. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning47, 1-9.

Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education56(4), 430-435.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48-58.

Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education3(2), 2-16.

Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: There is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 190-192.

Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education64(6), 508.

Rojas, F., & Deulofeu, J. (2015). El formador de profesores de matemática: un análisis de las percepciones de sus prácticas instruccionales desde la tensión estudiante-formador. [The math teacher trainer: an analysis of the perceptions of his or her instructional practices from the student-trainer tension]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias: Revista de Investigación y Experiencias Educativas, 33(1), 47-71.

Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education67(3), 253.

Smith, S. F. (1983, August). Flexible learning of problem-solving heuristics through Adaptive Search. IJCAI, 83, 422-425.

Tarmizi, R. A., & Bayat, S. (2010). Assessing meta-cognitive strategies during algebra problem solving performance among university students. International Journal of Learning16(12).

Ting, J. J., Ahmad Tarmizi, R., Abu Bakar, K., & Aralas, D. (2018). Effects of variation theory approach in teaching and learning of algebra on urban and rural students’ algebraic achievement and motivation. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology49(7), 986-1002. DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2018.1435915  

Toussaint, M. J. (2016). The impact of "real world" experiences through academic service learning on students' success rate, attitudes, and motivation in intermediate algebra at a public university. ProQuest LLC.

Wang, Tse-Wei. (1989). A course on applied linear algebra. Chemical Engineering Education, 23(4), 236–241.

Watson, A., Spyrou, P., & Tall, D. (2003). The relationship between physical embodiment and mathematical symbolism: The concept of vector. The Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics Education1(2), 73-97.

Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive science21(2), 179-217.

         

Vol. 3 Iss. 3

The effects of a Full-Year Pedagogical Treatment Based on a Collaborative Learning Environment on 7th Graders’ Interest in Science and Technology and Conceptual Change

Eric Durocher & Patrice Potvin

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 135, size: 0, date: 15.Sep.2020

Abstract: The growing popularity of collaboration in our school and its possible educational potential has led us to carry out comparative research with 7th grade students. Using a longitudinal approach over an entire school year and using a cross-lag design, we were able to test the effects of this learning environment on science misconceptions and interest. Using two questionnaires, we were able to perform an analysis of the results showing a possible positive causal link between collaborative learning and the development of scientific conception. However, we found no direct connection between collaborative learning and interest.  The analysis of the cross-lag leads us to see conceptual change as a mediator of the students’ interest in science.

Please Cite: Durocher, E., & Potvin, P. (2020). The effects of a full-year pedagogical treatment based on a collaborative learning environment on 7th graders’ interest in science and technology and conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(3), 107-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.331               

 

References

Akinbobola, A. O. (2009). Enhancing students' attitude towards nigerian senior secondary school physics through the use of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-9.

Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from Qatar. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134-146.

Asghar, A., Huang, Y.-S., Elliott, K., Novak, J., & Richie, P. (2016). Assessing secondary students’ conceptual understanding of technology. Paper presented at the Supporting Active Learning & Technological Innovation in Studies of Education (SALTISE) conference, Montréal, Canada.

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 374-400. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x

Baser, M. (2006). Fostering conceptual change by cognitive conflict based instruction on students’ understanding of heat and temperature concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 96-114.

Braund, M., & Driver, M. (2005). Pupils' attitudes to practical science around the KS2/3 transition. Education 3-13, 33(2), 20-26.

Bryan, J. S., & Jan, K. (2000). Instructional strategies for promoting conceptual change: Supporting middle school students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 139-161.

Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.

Diakidoy, I.-A. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335-356. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00039-5

DiSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: threads and fault lines. In The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 265-281). Cambridge University Press.

Durocher, É. (2016). Learning science in a collaborative and technological environment. In M. Riopel & Z. Smyrnaiou (Eds.), New developments in science and technology education (pp. 11-17). Springer International Publishing.

Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015. doi:10.1002/tea.10054

Eymur, G., & Geban, Ö. (2016). The collaboration of cooperative learning and conceptual change: enhancing the students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-19.

Furberg, A., & Arnseth, H. C. (2009). Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: analyzing students' meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(1), 157-191. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9161-6

Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., & Oliver, P. H. (2009). A latent curve model of parental motivational practices and developmental decline in math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 729.

Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student's evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55-87.

Hasni, A., & Potvin, P. (2015). Student's interest in science and technology and its relationships with teaching methods, family context and self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 337-366.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Henri, F., & Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (1998). Apprentissage collaboratif et nouvelles technologies: Centre de recherche LICEF.

Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller. The Physics Teacher, 33(8), 502-502.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Hynd, C. R., McWhorter, J. Y., Phares, V. L., & Suttles, C. W. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 933-946.

Kang, H., Scharmann, L. C., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2010). Cognitive conflict and situational interest as factors influencing conceptual change. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(4), 383-405.

Kingsbury, F. (2012). Le projet SCALE-UP une révolution pédagogique qui nous vient du sud. PÉDAGOGIE COLLÉGIALE, 25(3).

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306-314.

Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualisation of interest. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(1), 5-21.

Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27-50.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353.

Küçüközer, H. (2013). Designing a powerful learning environment to promote durable conceptual change. Computers & Education, 68(0), 482-494. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.012

Leman, P. J., Skipper, Y., Watling, D., & Rutland, A. (2016). Conceptual change in science is facilitated through peer collaboration for boys but not for girls. Child Development, 87(1), 176-183. doi:10.1111/cdev.12481

Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347-368.

Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11(3), 183-200.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 26-32.

Pan, Y., & Gauvain, M. (2012). The continuity of college students’ autonomous learning motivation and its predictors: A three-year longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 92-99.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014a). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades 5 through 11. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784-802. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9512-x

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014b). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.881626

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2016). Une CAP qui s’inspire des résultats de recherche et qui en produit dans le but de favoriser l’intérêt des élèves à l’égard des sciences et de la technologie. Paper presented at the 84e congrès de l’ACFAS, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec. .

Potvin, P., Mercier, J., Charland, P., & Riopel, M. (2012). Does classroom explicitation of initial conceptions favour conceptual change or is it counter-productive? Research in Science Education, 42(3), 401-414. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9203-4

Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2002). Attitudes towards physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(1), 67-81.

Reuter, Y., Cohen-Azria, C., & Cairn. (2013). Dictionnaire des concepts fondamentaux des didactiques (3e éd. actualisée. Ed.) De Boeck.

Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 99-111.

Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 26.

Shachar, H., & Fischer, S. (2004). Cooperative learning and the achievement of motivation and perceptions of students in 11th grade chemistry classes. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 69-87. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.003

Sorge, C. (2007). What happens? Relationship of age and gender with science attitudes from elementary to middle school. Science Educator, 16(2), 33-37.

Tao †, P. K. (2004). Developing understanding of image formation by lenses through collaborative learning mediated by multimedia computer‐assisted learning programs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1171-1197. doi:10.1080/0950069032000138879

Tao, P.-K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57. doi:10.1080/095006999290822

Türkmen, H. (2008). Turkish primary students' perceptions about scientist and what factors affecting the image of the scientists. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1).

Van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede.

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 381-419. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4
Vol. 3 Iss. 3

Investigating the Perception of Senior Secondary School Students on the Role of Classroom Engagement in Mathematics Problem Solving

Iliya Joseph Bature, Bill Atweh, & Funmilola Oreoluwa

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 270, size: 0, date: 16.May.2020

Abstract: This study was designed to investigate the perception of students on the role of classroom engagement in student’s problem solving in mathematics. Specifically, the study investigated the perception of 6 students taught by 4 mathematics teachers in 2 secondary schools in Nigeria for a period of 2 years. Two research objectives were developed to guide the study. Research journal and video recordings were used to document the focus group discussions and classroom observations.  The findings of the study suggested that the mathematics teachers made positive effort to use the engagement strategy as a tool to increase students problem solving abilities during mathematics classroom instruction. In addition, the result of the study suggested a positive increase in students’ problem-solving skills. This was evident in students’ engagement in collaboration, participation, increase in positive relationships that existed between students and their teachers. The study also suggested that the mathematics teachers created positive classroom atmosphere for students’ participation in classrooms problem solving. It also suggests that teachers provided inclusive support for students’ problem solving in mathematics and provided evidence of general traditional teacher centred learning in mathematics as opposed to student-centred learning among the students.

Please Cite: Bature, I. J., Atweh, B. & OreOluwa, F. (2020). Investigating the Perception of Senior Secondary School Students on the Role of Classroom Engagement in Mathematics Problem Solving. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 73-105. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.323              

References

Abanihe, I., Ifeoma, M., John, L., & Tandi, I. (2010). Evaluation of the methodology aspect of the science teacher education curriculum in Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 170-176.

Adeyemi, T.O. (2008). The influence of class-size on the quality of output in secondary schools in Ekiti state, Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 7-14

Adiku M. U. (2008). Curriculum development in science, technology and mathematics (STM) education. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Conference of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria. Nigeria

Ajai, J. T., Imoko, B. I. & Okwu, E. I (2013). Comparison of the Learning Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Conventional Method of Teaching Algebra. Journal of Education and Practice. Vol.4(1), 131-136

Akala, J., (2000). The Agony of Teaching Mathematics, Kenya Times, 16, 1

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., eds. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives; abridged edition. NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Anthoony G & Walshaw M (2009). Characteristics of Effective Teaching of Mathematics: A View from the West.  Journal of Mathematics Education. 2(2),147-164

Attard, C. (2015). Engagement and mathematics: what does it look like in your classroom? Journal of Professional Learning (semester 2 2015)

Atweh, B. (2007). The social turn in understanding learning and its implications for facilitating learning: ripples for change. A journey of preservice teacher education reforms in the Philippines Commission for Higher Education. Print house, Quezon City.

Atweh et al. (2011) (eds.), Mapping Equity and Quality in Mathematics Education, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 35,

Atweh B. (2014) Improving teaching through Productive Pedagogy. A paper presented at the Department of Mathematics Education in the College of Education research and Innovation week, university of South Africa

Azuka, B. (2006). Active learning in the mathematics classroom implications to secondary mathematics and UBE. Proceeding of Annual national conference of MAN, 181-187.

Bajah, S. I. (1999). The challenges of science technology and teacher education in Nigeria; beyond the year 2000. African Journal of Education, 1(91), 43-49.

Ball, D. L. 2003. Mathematical proficiency for all students. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation

Bature, I. J. (2014) Productive Pedagogies for Reforming Secondary School Mathematics Classroom Practice in Nigeria. Curtin University PhD Thesis Online.

Bature, I. J., & Atweh, B. (2020). Mathematics teacher’s reflection on the role of productive pedagogies in improving their classroom instruction. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 319-335.

Bature, I. J., & Atweh, B. (2019). Collaboration: A collective bargain for achieving quality mathematics classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(3), 347-361.

Bature, I.J., & Atweh, B. (2016). Achieving quality mathematics classroom instruction through productive pedagogies. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 2(1), 1-18.

Bature, I. J. Atweh B. & Treagust D. (2016). Inclusivity: An Effective Tool for Achieving Quality Mathematics Classroom Instruction in Nigerian Secondary Schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(1): 173-180,

Bature, I. J., & Bundot, G. B. (2009). Setting the classroom climate for effective teaching and learning process: implications for classroom environment and learning. International Journal for Contemporary Issues in Education (Special edition), 198-201.

Bature, I. J., & Bature, F. S. (2005). Attitude of teachers and students towards teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal of Educational Studies, Institute of Education, 11(1), 64-70.

Bature, I. J., & Bature, F. S. (2006). Effect of maths-phobia on students’ attitude towards mathematics. Journal of Educational Studies, Institute of Education, 12(1), 6-12.

Bature, I., Jackson, J., Kemi, A., Shol, D. & Sabo, N. (2015). Introducing productive pedagogies to Nigerian mathematics classroom through collaborative action research using community of practice approach. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11(3), 41-58.

Bature, I. J., & Igwe, O. (2010). An investigation into the factors affecting Junior Secondary School 3 students understanding of mathematics language in Gombe metropolis: African Journal of Educational Research and Administration, 3(1), 47-52.

Bature, I.J. & Jibrin, A.G. (2015). The perception of preservice mathematics teachers on the role of scaffolding in achieving quality mathematics classroom instruction. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(4), 275-287.

Black & Solomon (2008). Talking to learn and learning to talk in mathematics classroom. @: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/41125144.

Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.

Board of Studies New South Wales. (2012). Mathematics K-10 syllabus.   Retrieved from http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.

Briggs M. I, McCaulley, M. C, Quenk, M. H, & Hammer, A.L., (1998), ‘MBTI Manual. A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator’. 3rd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. Palo Alto.  21.

Bristow, S.F. & Patrick, S. (2014), “An international study in competency education: Postcards from abroad”, International Association for K–12 Online Learning, Competency Works Issue Brief, CW-An-International-Study-in-Competency-EducationPostcards-from-Abroad.

Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of Classroom Management: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In H. J. Freiberg, & J. E. Brophy (Eds.), Beyond Behaviourism: Changing the Classroom Management Paradigm. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cavin, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to Learning in Science and their implications for Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3, 193 – 206.

Choy, B. H. (2013). Productive mathematical noticing: What it is and why it matters. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Proc. 36th annual conference of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (186-193). Melbourne, Victoria: MERGA.

Choy, B. H. (2014). Teachers’ Productive Mathematical Noticing During Lesson Preparation. In Nicol, C., Liljedahl, P., Oesterle, S., & Allan, D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36(2), 297-304. Vancouver, Canada: PME.

Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. (2000) Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Colgan L (2014). Making maths children Will Love: Building Positive Mathematics to improve student’s achievement in Mathematics. Queens University.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

D’Ambrosio, U. (2006). Ethno-mathematics: Link between traditions and modernity. ZDM, 40(6), 1033-1034.

Davis, R.B., Maher, C.A., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1990). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston,

de Bono, E, (1991) "Why Do Quality Efforts Lose Their Fizz?" Quality is No Longer Enough, The Journal for Quality and Participation,

Dweck C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY: Random House.

Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: where to next. Learning and Instruction, 43, 71–75.

Egeberg, H. M., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom Management and National Professional Standards for Teachers: A Review of the Literature on Theory and Practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7).

Emaikwu, S. O. (2012). Assessing the effect of prompt feedback as a motivational strategy on students’ achievement in secondary school mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 371-379.

Ernest, l (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education: Studies in mathematics education. London: Falmer Press.

Ernest, P. (2001). ‘Critical Mathematics Education’. In Gates, P. (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching, 277-293. Routledge/Falmer.

Esan F. (2015). Cooperative Problem-Solving Strategy and Students’ Learning Outcomes in Algebraic Word Problems: A Nigerian Case. International Journal for Infonomics (IJI), 8(1), 986 – 989.

Eso, O.T. (1998). Assessment procedure and student locus of control as determinants of achievement in Integrated Science. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Fair Go Team NSW Department of Education and Training. (2006). School is for me: pathways to student engagement. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.

FGN. (2004). National Policy on Education (4th Ed.). Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council Press.

FME, (2006). Federal ministry of education operation reaches all secondary schools: Report on the state of secondary schools in Nigeria. Abuja: Federal Inspectorate Service Publication.

Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: a multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 327–335

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.

Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher from the students' view. Research in Higher Education, 5(3), 243-288.

Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematical education. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on Multiple Intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, & Practice.  New York: Teachers College Press.

Glasersfeld, E. (1987). ‘Learning as a constructive activity.’ In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillslade, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W. & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711-735

Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics, edited by J. Kilpatrick, W.G. Martin, and D. Schifter, 1-23. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Huerta M, O. (2008), “Managing change in OECD governments: An introductory framework”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance.12, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Ingram, N. (2013). Mathematical engagement skills. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia). Melbourne: MERGA.

Jaworski B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 187-211.

Jensen, B. et al. (2016), Beyond PD: Teacher Professional Learning in High-Performing Systems, National Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, D.C., www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BeyondPD Webv2.pdf.

Johnson, K. (2004). The role of field palaeontology on teachers’ attitudes toward inquiry science. Novation’s Journal, 2f.

Julius, E, Abdullah, A., & Suhairom, N. (2018) Attitude of Students Towards Solving Problems in Algebra: A Review of Nigeria Secondary Schools.” IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME), 8(1), 26-31.

Kaka, M. O. (2007). Games assisted instructional materials – A strategy for enhancing students’ achievement in integrated sciences. Journal of Research in Curriculum and Teaching, 2 (1), 120 – 128.

Klegeris, A., Bahniwal, M., & Hurren, H., (2013). Improvement in generic problem-solving abilities of students by use of tutor-less problem-based learning in a large classroom setting. CBE-life science Education. 12, 73 – 79

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for learners and Teachers. Chicago, Illinois: Follert Publishing.

Kusure, L. P. & Bashira K (2012). Instruction in Science and Mathematics for the 21st century proceedings of the first national science and mathematics teachers conference, Bindura university of science education (BUSE), Bindura

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal (27), 29-63.

Lave, D., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lerman, S. (1996). Inter-subjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 133-150.

James, A. O. & Adewale, O.A. (2015). Relationship between senior secondary schools’ students’ achievement in mathematical problem solving and    intellectual abilities tests. European Scientific Journal, 8(15): 169-179.

Mayer, R.  E. & Wittrock, R.C. (2006). Problem solving. In Handbook of educational psychology 287–304. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

McDonald, T. (2013). Classroom Management: Engaging students in learning. (2nd Ed.) Australia & NZ: Oxford University Press

Montessori, M. (2003). Montessori Method Book. Berne Nobles

Morganett, L. (1991). Good teacher-student relationships: A key element in classroom motivation and management. Education, 112(2), 260-264.

Mpofu, G. & Mpofu, M. 2019. A Motivating Tool in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. International Journal of Biology, Physics & Mathematics.3(2),102 – 113

Mupa, (2015) in Mpofu, G. & Mpofu, M. (2019). A Motivating Tool in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. International Journal of Biology, Physics & Mathematics. 3(2), 102 – 113

Nagy, R (2019). The epic failure at the root of Australia's maths problem. ABC News. Online @https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-07/the-demise-of-australian-mathematics-teachers-students/11768644

National Center for Educational Achievement. (2010). Best Practice Framework. Accessed online @ http://www.just4kids. org/en/texas/best_practices/framework.cfm.

National Curriculum Framework (2005) (NCF-2005)-A Paradigm Shift-Mathematics; NCERT publications, New Delhi

Nesmith S. J. (2008). Mathematics and Literature: Educators’ Perspectives on Utilizing a Reformative Approach to Bridge Two Cultures; Wayland Baptist University

Nevid, J.  (2013).  Psychology:  concepts and applications.  Belmont CA:  Wadworth. 

Nwagbo, C. (1999). Effects of guided-discovery and expository teaching methods on the attitudes towards biology of students of with different levels of scientific literacy. Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN), 36, 43-51.

Obamanu, B.J. & Ademola, M.O. (2011). Factors related to under achievement in science, technology and mathematics education in secondary schools in Rivers state, Nigeria. World Journal of Education. 1(1), 102-109.

Odili, G.A. (2006). Mathematics in Nigeria secondary schools: A teaching perspective. Port Harcourt: Anachuna Educational Books.

Op 't Eynde, P. (2004). A socio-constructivist perspective on the study of affect in mathematics education. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 1, 118-122. Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.

Osuafor, A. M. (1999). Extent of use of research findings on instructional strategies in science education. Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria 34: 102-112.

Oyanya E. O. & Njuguna, B. M., (1999).    (SMASSE). A paper presented to Kenya National Heads Association Conference, Mombasa, Kenya.

Piggott, J. (2004,). Developing a Framework for Mathematical Enrichment. Conference Proceedings, "Critical Thinking", University of the West Indies, Trinidad.

Protheroe, N. (2007). “What Does Good Math Instruction Look Like?” Principal 7(1), 51 – 54.

Rowe, K.J. (2006). Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning difficulties: Constructivism as a legitimate theory of learning AND of teaching? Background paper to keynote address presented at the NSW DET Office of Schools Portfolio Forum, Wilkins Gallery, Sydney.

 Salman, M. F., Yahaya, L. A., & Adewara, A. A. (2011). Mathematics Education in Nigeria: Gender and Spatial Dimensions of Enrolment. 3(1), 15–20

Schoen, H. L., & Charles, L. I. (2003). (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12. Reston, VA. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Skemp, R. R. (2008). The Psychology of learning Mathematics. Hillside: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

Skemp R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.

Skovsmose, O. (2005). Travelling through education: Uncertainty, mathematics, responsibility. Rotterdam, NHL: Sense Publishers.

Smith, N.N. (2017).  A mind for mathematics: Meaningful teaching and learning in elementary classrooms.  Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Smith, N.N. (2018).  Ten Tips to Engage Students with Mathematics. Online @ https://corwin-connect.com/2018/01 /ten-tips-engage-students-mathematics/

Solomon, Y. (2007). Experiencing mathematics classes: gender, ability and the selective development of participative identities. International Journal of Educational Research   46 (1-2), 8-19

Solomon, Y. (2008). Mathematical Literacy: Developing Identities of Inclusion. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor and Francis.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research 443-466. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Ltd.

Steffe, L. P. & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or Intersubjectivity? A Reply to Lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 191- 209.

Sullivan, P., McDonough, A., (2007) Eliciting positive student motivation for learning mathematics. Acess online @ https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/eliciting-positive-student-motivation-for-learning-mathematics

Sullivan, P., Tobias, S., & McDonough, A. (2006). Perhaps the decision of some students not to engage in learning mathematics in school is deliberate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(1), 81-99.

Tun, M. (2016). "What do Math and Language have in Common? Lessons from Foreign Language Learning." Journal of Mathematics and Culture. 10(3): 148-168

UNESCO (2015), Transversal Competencies in Education Policy and Practice. (Phase 1 Regional Synthesis Report), Paris, France.

Vander Ark, T. (2016), Project or Activity? Project-Based Learning and Cousins, acess online @ http://gettingsmart. com/2016/06 /project-

Vondrová, N., & Žalská, J. (2013). Mathematics for teaching and pre-service mathematics teachers' ability to notice. In A. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proc. 37th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.4, 361-368.

Valero, P. (2009). Mathematics education as a network of social practices. Invited keynote lecture at the 6th Conference of the European Society for research in Mathematics Education (CERME6) (forthcoming proceedings). University Joseph Fourier, Lyon, France.

Watts H. M. G. & Goos M. (2017). Theoretical foundations of engagement in mathematics.   Math Ed Research Journal 29:133–142.

Williams, S.R., Ivey, K.M. (2001).  Affective Assessment and Mathematics Classroom Engagement: A Case Study. Educational Studies in Mathematics 47, 75–100.

Wu, M., & Dianzhou, Z (2006) Mathematics Education in Different Cultural Traditions-A Comparative Study of East Asia and the West. The 13th ICMI Study

Yang, Y., & Ricks, T. E. (2013). Chinese lesson study: Developing classroom instruction through collaborations in school-based teaching research group activities. In Y. Li & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching 51-65. New York: Routledge.

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case study research: design and methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Vol. 3 Iss. 2

Mathematics Curriculum Change: Identifying Parental Expectations

Kylie Palfy, Janelle McFeetors & Lynn M. McGarvey

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 262, size: 0, date: 07.May.2020

Abstract: Parents’growing concerns about the current approaches to learning mathematics in elementary school have drawn public attention in Canada. Rather than dismiss such concerns, understanding parent perceptions and garnering their support is essential to ongoing curriculum transformation and students’ success in mathematics learning. Using phenomenography, we examined parents’ perceptions of the current mathematics curriculum and their children’s experiences as expressed in community-based focus groups and individual interviews. Parents responded based on their past experiences, their views of children’s current experiences and their future aspirations for their children. Our analysis of parents’ perspectives revealed that their concerns and critiques were grounded in the expectations they held for their children’s mathematics learning. In particular, parental expectations fell into three categories: students need the opportunity to reach expected goals of mathematics learning; essential supports must be in place to reach expected goals; and, home-school communication is necessary for parent understanding and engagement. We suggest that by understanding the specific expectations that underlie parents’ concerns, teachers can engage in conversations that begin with affirming mutual expectations and respecting parents’ personal experiences to lead to partnering with parents as they realize their agency in their children’s learning.

Please Cite: Palfy, K., McFeetors, P. J., & McGarvey, L. M. (2020). Mathematics curriculum change: Identifying parental expectations. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(2), 51-72. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.322          

References

Akerlind, G. S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845

Alphonso, C. (2013, December 3). Canada’s failing math rankings renews push for national standards. The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadas-falling-math-rankings-renews-push-for-national-standards/article15755434/#dashboard/follows/

Aytekin, C., Baltaci, S., & Yildiz, A. (2018). Investigation of parents’ expectations from matheamtics education in Turkey. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(3-4), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.11.3-4.5

Baroody, A. J. (1999). Children’s relational knowledge of addition and subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 17(2), 137-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI170201

Bartlo, J., & Sitomer, A. (2008). Exploring parents’ experiences with standards-based mathematics curricula. Adults Learning Mathematics: An International Journal, 3(2b), 6-22.

Barwell, R., & Abtahi, Y. (2017). Mathematics concepts in the news. In E. De Freitas, N. Sinclair, & A. Coles (Eds.), What is a mathematical concept? (pp. 175-188). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316471128.011

Bates, A. B., Latham, N. I., & Kim, J. (2013). Do I have to teach math? Early childhood pre-service teachers’ fears of teaching mathematics. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 5, 1-10. http://www.k-12prep.math.ttu.edu/journal/5.attributes/volume.shtml

Bekdemir, M. (2010). The pre-service teachers’ mathematics anxiety related to depth of negative experiences in mathematics classroom while they were students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 311-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9260-7

Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97

Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bright, G. W. (1973). Some remarks on Levine’s study of attitudes. Journal for Researchin Mathematics Education, 4(2), 126-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/749039

Chernoff, E. (n.d.). MatthewMaddux education [Digital repository tagged Math Wars]. http://matthewmadduxeducation.com/tagged/math%20wars

Civil, M., & Bernier, E. (2006). Exploring images of parental participation in mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 309-330. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_6

Deringol, Y. (2019). Parents’ expectation of mathematics education and their engagemetn in education ahd homework habits of children. Acta Educationis Generalis, 9(3), 16-40. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2019-0012

De Abreu, G., & Cline, T. (2005). Parents’ representations of their children’s mathematics learning in multiethnic primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 31(6), 697-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500314869

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Lösel (Eds.), Social intervention: Chances and constraints (pp. 121-136). New York, NY: De Gruyter.

Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Erlwanger, S. H. (1973/2004). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. In T. P. Carpenter, J. A. Dossey & J. L. Koehler (Eds.) Classics in mathematics education research (pp. 48-58). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Reprinted from Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 1-26.)

Finlayson, M. (2014). Addressing math anxiety in the classroom. Improving Schools, 17(1), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214521457

Froiland, J. M., Peterson, A., & Davison, M. L. (2013). The long-term effects of early parent involvement and parent expectation in the USA. School Psychology International34(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312454361

Gellert, U. (2005). Parents: Support or obstacle for curriculum innovation? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 313-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270412331314438

Ginsburg, L., Rashid, H., & English-Clarke, T. (2008). Parents learning mathematics: For their children, from their children, with their children. Adult Learning, 19(3-4), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515950801900305

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206

Gurwitsch, A. (1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Henry, V. J., & Brown, R. S. (2008). First-grade basic facts: An investigation into teaching and learning of an accelerated, high-demand memorization standard. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 153-183. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034895

Hopper, T. (2014, February 28). Does ‘discovery learning’ prepare Alberta students for the 21st century or will it toss out a top tier education system? The National Post. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/28/does-discovery-learning-prepare-alberta-students-for-the-21st-century-or-will-it-toss-out-a-top-tier-education-system/

Houle, T. (2013). Petitioning the Minister of Education for the Province of British Columbia. Mastering the basics of mathematics in BC schools. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/mastering-the-basics-of-mathematics-in-bc-schools.html

Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. School Community Journal, 15(1), 51-73. http://www.adi.org/journal/ss05/Jackson%20&%20Remillard.pdf

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22(3), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1993.12085668

Kilpatrick, J. (2012). The new math as an international phenomenon. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44(4), 563-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0393-2

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny can’t add: The failure of the new math. Random House.

Lazarides, R., Viljaranta, J., Aunola, K., Pesu, L., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2016). The role of parental expectations and students’ motivational profiles for educational aspirations. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.024

Levine, G. (1972). Attitudes of elementary school pupils and their parents toward mathematics and other subjects of instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3(1), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.207/743788

Lightfoot, D. (2004). “Some parents just don’t care”: Decoding the meanings of parental involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903259290

Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Parents as participating partners. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(3), 25–32.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589189

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053690

McFeetors, P. J., & McGarvey, L. M. (2019). Public perception of the baisc skills crisis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 19(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0016-1

McFeetors, P. J., McGarvey, L. M., Yin, I., & Pinnegar, E. (2016). Parents’ perceived communication about math curriculum. In M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. A. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North American Chpater of the International Group for the Psycholoyg of Mathematics Education (pp. 1349-1352). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona. http://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2038%202016%20Proceedings.pdf

McMullen, R., & de Abreu, G. (2011). Mothers’ experiences of their children’s school mathematics at home: The impact of being a mother-teacher. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2011.550727

Meier, C., & Lemmer, E. (2015). What do parents really want? Parents’ perceptions of their children’s schooling. South African Journal of Education, 35(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n2a1073

Murray, T. (2013). Petitioning Honourable Liz Sandals. Parents would like to see changes to math education in Ontario. http://www.change.org/petitions/honourable-liz-sandals-parents-would-like-to-see-changes-to-math-education-in-ontario-we-would-like-a-more-structured-system-and-a-solid-foundation-in-arithmetic-and-problem-solving

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Research Council. (1990). A Challenge of numbers: People in the mathematical sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1506

Ntow, F. D., & Tackie, N. A. (2015). Parental expectations for high school students in mathematics. In T. G. Bartell, K. N. Bieda, R. T. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Pscyhology of Mathematics Education (p. 589). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. https://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2037%202015%20Proceedings.pdf

OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do–Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Vol. I). PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en

Papadopoulus, I. (2017). Opening inquiry mathematics to parents: Can they be engaged as teachers’ partners in mathematical work? Journal of Pedagogical Research, 1(1), 1-20. https://www.ijopr.com/article/opening-inquiry-mathematics-to-parents-can-they-be-engaged-as-teachers-partners-in-mathematical-work-6365

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1039-1101. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325185

Peressini, D. (1997). Parental involvement in the reform of mathematics education. Mathematics Teacher, 90(6), 421-427. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27970215

Peressini, D. D. (1998). The portrayal of parents in the school mathematics reform literature: Locating the context for parental involvement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 555-583. https://doi.org/10.2307/749733

Pesek, D. D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 524-540. https://doi.org/10.2307/749885

Polanyi, M. (1964/1969). The logic of tacit inference. In M. Greene (Ed.), Knowing and being: Essays by Michael Polanyi (pp. 138-158). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Remillard, J. T., & Jackson, K. (2006). Old math, new math: Parents’ experiences with standards-based reform. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 231-259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_3

Rose, H. & Betts, J. R. (2004). The effect of high school courses on earnings. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 497-513. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323031076

Russell, G. L., & Chernoff, E. J. (2013). The marginalization of Indigenous students within school mathematics and the math wars: Seeking resolutions within ethical spaces. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(1), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0064-1

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260042

Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L., & Galindo, C. L. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership climate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 27-48. doi:10.1080/15700760802702548

Simon, B. S., & Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Linking theory to practice. In D. B. Hiatt-Michael (Ed.), Promising practice for family involvement in schools (pp. 1-24). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Thompson, D. R., Kaur, B., Koyama, M., & Bleiler, S. K. (2013). A longitudinal view of mathematics achievement of primary students: Case studies from Japan, Singapore, and the United States. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0485-7

Tran-Davies, N. (2013). Petitioning Honourable Jeff Johnson. Back to basics: Mastering the fundamentals of mathematics. https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/back-to-basics-mastering-the-fundamentals-of-mathematics

     

Vol. 3 Iss. 2

Impact of Fathom on Statistical Reasoning among Upper Secondary Students

Nanteni Ganesan

Kwan Eu Leong

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 145, size: 0, date: 07.May.2020

Abstract: The teaching and learning of statistical reasoning is becoming challenging due to the change in the perspective emphasizing on the deeper understanding rather than basic statistics computations. As suggested by researchers, implementing technologies able to develop student interest in the topics leads to deeper understanding. Hence, this study used dynamic software, Fathom for teaching statistical reasoning. The purpose of this study is to examine the statistical reasoning understanding among upper secondary students after using dynamic software, Fathom. The sample consists of seventy-two students randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. The experimental group underwent an intervention where they learnt statistical reasoning using Fathom while the control group learnt statistical reasoning using traditional learning method not involving Fathom. Statistical Reasoning Assessment (SRA) was used in this study as the instrument for measuring statistical reasoning. The research hypothesis data were analyzed using MANCOVA test.  The findings showed a significant difference across four statistical reasoning constructs namely Describing Data, Organizing Data, Representing Data and Analyzing and Interpreting Data between students in the control and experimental groups. Furthermore, the results of the analysis emphasized that the students who learned statistical reasoning using Fathom performed better than students in the control group. In brief, the upper secondary students’ statistical reasoning enhanced after implementing Fathom.

Please Cite: Ganesan, N., & Leong, K.E. (2020). Impact of Fathom on Statistical Reasoning among Upper Secondary Students. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 35-50. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.321              

References

Accrombessy, F. (2006). An evaluation study of the process of reform of statistics teaching at the secondary level in Benin: Assessment and perspectives. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics.

Ben-Zvi, D., Gravemeijer, K., & Ainley, J. (2018). Design of Statistics Learning Environments. In D. Ben-Zvi, K. Makar, & J. Garfield (Eds.), International handbook of research in Statistics Education (pp. 473-502). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Brahier, D. J. (2016). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bruno, A., & Espinel, M. C. (2009). Construction and evaluation of histograms in teacher training. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(4), 473-493. doi: 10.1080/00207390902759584

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Chan, S. W., Ismail, Z., & Sumintono, B. (2016). A Framework for Assessing High School Students' Statistical Reasoning. PloS One, 11(11), e0163846.

Chance, B., & Rossman, A. (2006). Using simulation to teach and learn statistics. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics.

Chua, Y. P. (2012). Effects of computer-based testing on test performance and testing motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1580-1586.

Ciancetta, M. A. (2007). Statistics students reasoning when comparing distributions of data. Citeseer.  

Clark, J., Kraut, G., Mathews, D., & Wimbish, J. (2007). The fundamental theorem of statistics: Classifying student understanding of basic statistical concepts. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from

   http://www1. hollins. edu/faculty/clarkjm/stat2c. pdf

Cooper, L., & Shore, F. (2008). Students’ misconceptions in interpreting center and variability of data represented via histograms and stem-and-leaf plots. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(2), 1-13.

DelMas, Garfield, J., & Ooms, A. (2005). Using assessment items to study students’ difficulty reading and interpreting graphical representations of distributions. Paper presented at the Fourth Forum on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy (SRTL-4).

Eichler, A., & Zapata-Cardona, L. (2016). Empirical research in statistics education. In Empirical Research in Statistics Education (pp. 1-37). Springer.

Franklin, C., Kader, G., Mewborn, D., Moreno, J., Peck, R., Perry, M., & Scheaffer, R. (2005). A curriculum framework for K-12 statistics education. GAISE report, American Statistical Association.

Gal, I., & Garfield, J. B. (1997). The assessment challenge in statistics education (Vol. 12). IOS Press.

Galotti, K. M. (2008). Cognitive psychology in and out of the laboratory (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Garfield, Joan. (2002). The challenge of developing statistical reasoning. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3), 58-69.

Garfield, Joan, & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Developing students' statistical reasoning. Springer.

Hall, & Heyde, C. C. (2014). Martingale limit theory and its application. Academic Press.

Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Langrall, C. W., Mooney, E. S., Perry, B., & Putt, I. J. (2000). A framework for characterizing children's statistical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(4), 269-307.

Lane, D. M., & Peres, S. C. (2006). Interactive simulations in the teaching of statistics: Promise and pitfalls. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics.

Lane-Getaz, S. J. (2006). What is statistical thinking, and how is it developed. Thinking and reasoning about data and chance: Sixty-eighth NCTM Yearbook (pp. 273-289). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Loveland, J., & Schneiter, K. (2014). Teaching Statistics with Lectures or Activities: A Comparative Study. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS9, July, 2014), Arizona, USA.

Meletiou, M., & Lee, C. (2002). Student understanding of histograms: A stumbling stone to the development of intuitions about variation. Paper presented at the The Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS6). https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/1/10_19_me.pdf

Meletiou, M., & Stylianou, D. A. (2003). Graphical representation of data: The effect of the use of dynamical statistics technological tool. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3463/fc7cbe9424dd8b4608e4466b4904e50c3052.pdf

Mevarech, Z. R. (1983). A deep structure model of students' statistical misconceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(4), 415-429. doi: 10.1007/bf00368237

Mills, J. D. (2004). Students' attitudes towards Statistics: Implications for the future College Student Journal, 38(3).

Mooney, E. S. (2002). A framework for characterizing middle school students' statistical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(1), 23-63.

Pollatsek, A., Lima, S., & Well, A. D. (1981). Concept or computation: Students' understanding of the mean. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 191-204. doi: 10.1007/bf00305621

Pratt, D., & Ainley, J. (2008). Introducing the special issue on informal inferential reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 3-4.

Saldanha, L., & Thompson, P. (2002). Conceptions of sample and their relationship to statistical inference. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(3), 257-270.

Sorge, C., & Schau, C. (2002). Impact of engineering students’ attitudes on achievement in statistics: A structural model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans.
Vol. 3 Iss. 2

Are we accidentally teaching students to mistrust science?

William W. Cobern

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 161, size: 0, date: 06.Jan.2020

Almost 60 years ago Jawaharlal Nehru speaking about the future of India’s economy and society observed that it is “science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of sanitation and literacy, of superstition and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people… The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science.”

 

References

Editors. (2017). School daze: As US states turn the screw on science education, researchers everywhere should pay more attention to how their subject is presented. Nature, 543, 149.

Nehru, J. (1960). Science Quotes by Jawaharlal Nehru. Dictionary of Science Quotations Scientist Quotations Index. Retrieved from https://todayinsci.com/N/Nehru_Jawaharlal/NehruJawaharlal-Quotations.htm
Vol. 3 Iss. 1

Teachers and Museum Educators’ Views About Inquiry Practices: The Aftermath of a Joint Professional Development Course

Maria Karnezou & Anastasios Zoupidis

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 59, size: 0, date: 25.Jan.2021

Abstract: Current science curricula adopt inquiry as a basic component in their proposals, and at the same time they place emphasis on the non-formal aspect of education, due to the fact that inquiry is easier to be implemented in science centers and museums. In this context, both teachers and museum educators’ roles are viewed with a common lens, as though both groups of professionals have critical roles in the success of a school museum visit, they do not necessarily share the same agenda for the visit. In the present small-scale qualitative research, we studied two Greek science teachers and two museum educators who attended a joint professional development course on the Tinkering approach in Milan in the context of an EU funded project. We looked into the impact of the joint course on their views about inquiry and specifically their views about inquiry before and after being exposed to inquiry based Tinkering activities. We also studied their views about the joint course per se. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews and the participants’ notes. The results point both to some different and common points between teachers and museum educators’ views. The opportunity to exploit the results in a broader non-formal science education context is also being discussed.

Please Cite: Karnezou, M. & Zoupidis, A. (2020). Teachers and Museum Educators’ Views About Inquiry Practices: The Aftermath of a Joint Professional Development Course. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 3-14.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.311   

References

Allen, L.B., & Crowley, K.J. (2014). Challenging Beliefs, Practices, and Content: How Museum Educators Change. Science Education 98, 84-105.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21093

Astor-Jack, T., McCallie, E., & Balcerzak, P. (2007). Academic and Informal Science Practitioner Views About Professional Development in Science Education. Science Education, 91(4), 604-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20205

Ash, D. B., Lombana, J., & Alcala, L. (2012). Changing practices, changing identities as museum educators. In E. Davidsson, A. Jakobsson, (eds.), Understanding Interactions at Science Centers and Museums: Approaching Sociocultural Perspectives, 23–44. Sense Publishers

Buehl, M.M., & Beck, J.S. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In H. Fives & M.G. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs, (pp. 66-84). Routledge, NewYork. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203108437.ch3

Bevan, B., & Xanthoudaki, M. (2008). Professional development for museum educators: Underpinning the underpinnings. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 107 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2008.11510592

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning Through STEM-Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21151

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abington, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1997). Research Methods in Education. 4th ed. London: Routledge.

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A Short Review of School visits: Key Findings from the Past and Implications for the Future, Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355562

Fitzgerald, A., Dawson, V., & Hackling, M. (2013). Examining the beliefs and practices of four effective Australian primary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9297-y

Gess‐Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.) Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158

Janssen, F.J.J.M., Westbroek, H., & Van Driel, J.H. (2014). How to make guided discovery learning practical for student teachers? Instructional Science, 42(1), 67-90. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/167982/.

Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing Future Teachers to Science Beyond the Classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9288-x

Kisiel, J. (2005). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural history museum. Science Education, 90(3), 434 – 452. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20117

National Research Council (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, and M. A. Feder, (Eds.) Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/12190

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Skayia, A., Avraamidou, L., & Evagorou, M. (2019). How Preservice Elementary Teachers Develop Their Personal Philosophies About Science Teaching: The Role of Informal Science Approaches. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 71-84. doi:10.31756/jrsmte.222

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research, grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage publications. 

Τran, L.U. (2008). The work of science museum educators. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(2), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770802012219

Tsaliki C., Malandrakis G., Zoupidis A., Karnezou M., & P. Kariotoglou (2016). Science teachers’ profile changes concerning non-formal education design. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future, Part 14 Strand 14 In-service science teacher education, continued professional development, Co-editors: Amanda Berry & Digna Couso, (pp. 2370-2377). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. ISBN 978-951-51-1541-6.

Tseng, C.H., Tuan, H.L., & Chin, C.C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9292-3

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Vol. 3 Iss. 1

Attempting to Develop Secondary Student’s Interest for Science and Technology Through an In-Service Teacher Training Initiative Based on the Principles of the Learning Community

Patrice Potvin, Abdelkrim Hasni, & Ousmane Sy

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 305, size: 0, date: 06.Jan.2020

Abstract: This article presents the results of a quasi-experimental research that has been conducted by the (Infrastructure of the authors) for two years. This research aimed at increasing student’s interest for science and technology (ST) by enhanced pedagogical interventions, designed by their teachers in the context of a learning community. It also aimed at measuring this possible increase. Results show that three of the four intervention types (scientific inquiry, context-based and project-based learning) had positive effects of various strengths on students’ interest, but that collaborative teaching did not. Hypotheses to explain these results and recommendations are formulated.

Please Cite: Potvin, P., Hasni, A., & Sy, O. (2020). Attempting to Develop Secondary Students’ Interest for Science and Technology Through an In-service Teacher Training Initiative Based on the Principles of the Learning Community. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 15-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.312   

References

Akinbobola, A. (2009). Enhancing students' attitude towards nigerian senior secondary school physics through the use of cooperative, competitive ans individualistic learning strategies. Australian journal of teacher education, 34(1), 1-9.

Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J. G., & Klinger, D. A. (2011). Influence of Motivation, Self-Beliefs, and Instructional Practices on Science Achievement of Adolescents in Canada. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 14(2), 233-259. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9144-9

Barmby, P., Kind, M. P., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing Attitudes in secondary school science. International journal of science education, 30(8), 1075-1093. doi:  10.1080/09500690701344966

Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Instructional-Design Theories and models (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cavas, P. (2011). Factors affecting the motivation of Turkish primary students for science learning. Science education international, 22(1), 31-42.

Chanier, T., & Cartier, J. (2006). Communauté d’apprentissage et communauté de pratique en ligne : le processus réflexif dans la formation des formateurs [Online learning community and community of practice: the reflective process in training trainers]. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 3(3), 64-82.

Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, Attitudes and Images Related to Science: Combining Students' Voices with the Voices of School Science, Teachers, and Popular Science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(2), 141-159.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (second ed.): Routledge.

Couture, C., Dionne, C., Savoie-Jazc, L., & Aurousseau, E. (2012). Ajustements de pratique d’enseignants de l’élémentaire en sciences et technologie [Adjustments in the practice of elementary science and technology teachers]. Formation et profession, 20(3), 1-13.

Daele, A., & Charlier, B. (2006). Pourquoi les communautés d’enseignants aujourd’hui? Comprendre les communautés virtuelles d’enseignants. Pratiques et recherches [Why the teacher communities today? Understanding virtual communities of teachers. Practices and research] (pp. 83-104). Paris: L'Harmattan.

Dionne, L., Lemyre, F., & Savoie-Jazc, L. (2010). Vers une définition englobante de la communauté d’apprentissage (CA) comme dispositif de développement professionnel [Towards an all-encompassing definition of the learning community (CA) as a device for professional development]. Revue des sciences de l'éducation, 36(1), 25-43. doi: 10.7202/043985ar

George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of science. International journal of science education, 28(6), 571-589. Doi: 10.1080/09500690500338755

Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., & Oliver, P. H. (2009). A latent curve model of parental motivational practices and developmental decline in math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 101(3), 729-739. doi : 10.1037/a0015084

Gouvernement du Québec. (2004). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise, Enseignement secondaire, Premier cycle. Québec [Quebec school training program, Secondary education, First cycle] Les publications du Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec.

Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An Intervention Study To Enhance Girls' Interest, Self-Concept, and Achievement in Physics Classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870-888. doi: 10.1002/tea.10048

Hasni, A., Belletête, V., & Potvin, P. (2018). Les démarches d’investigation scientifique. Un outil de réflexion sur les pratiques de classe. Sherbrooke [Scientific investigation procedures. A tool for reflecting on class practices] Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences / Chaire de recherche sur l’intérêt des jeunes à l’égard des sciences et de la technologie.

Hasni, A., & Potvin, P. (2015). L'intérêt pour les sciences et la technologie à l'école: Résultats d'une enquête auprès d'élèves du primaire et du secondaire au Québec [Interest in Science and Technology in Schools: Results of a Survey of Elementary and Secondary Students in Quebec]. Retrieved from Montréal: http://www.crijest.org/sites/crijest.org/files/Hasni-Potvin-Rapport-CRIJEST-2015-VF.pdf

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. doi : 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Labelle, J., Freiman, V., Barrette, J., Cormier, M., & Doucet, Y. (2014). Communauté d’apprentissage professionnelle et formation professionnelle en matière de douance [Professional Learning Community and Vocational Training in Giftedness]. Formation et profession, 22(3), 24-36.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

OCDE. (2005). Declining Student Enrolment in Science and Technology: Is It Real? What Are The Causes? What Can Be Done? Paris: Publications de l'OCDE.

OCDE. (2006). Évolution de l'intérêt des jeunes pour les études scientifiques et technologiques, rapport d'orientation [Evolution of young people's interest in scientific and technological studies, orientation report]. Paris: Publications de l'OCDE.

Osborne, J., Simon, C., & Collin, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International journal of science education, 25(9), 1049-1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199

Pan, Y., & Gauvain, M. (2012). The continuity of college students’ autonomous learning motivation and its predictors: A three-year longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 92-99. doi : 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.010

Potvin, P. (2018). Faire apprendre les sciences et la technologie à l'école. Épistémologie, didactique, sciences cognitives et neurosciences au service de l'enseignant [Teaching science and technology at school. Epistemology, didactics, cognitive sciences and neurosciences at the service of the teacher]. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval.

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014a). Analysis of the Decline in Interest Towards School Science and Technology from Grades 5 Through 11. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784-802. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9512-x

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014b). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in science education, 50(1), 85-129. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.881626

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2013). Développer et implanter des interventions pédagogiques favorisant l'intérêt en science et technologie en se basant sur la recherche [Developing and implementing educational interventions promoting interest in science and technology based on research]. Spectre, Revue de l'Association pour l'Enseignement de la Science et de la Technologie au Québec, 43, 8-12.

Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2002). Attitudes towards physics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(1), 67-81. doi: 10.1080/02635140220130939

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.587723

Schaap, H., Louws, M., Meirink, J., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., Van Der Want, A., Zuiker, I, Zwart R., & Meijer, P. (2019) Tensions experienced by teachers when participating in a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education, 45 (5), 814-831, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2018.1547781

Shachar, H., & Fischer, S. (2004). Cooperative Learning and the Achievement of Motivation and Perceptions of Students in 11th Grade Chemistry Classes. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 69-87. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.003

Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. Journal of educational research, 95(6), 323-332. doi: 10.1080/00220670209596607

Turner, S., & Ireson, G. (2014). Fifteen pupils’ positive approach to primary school science: when does it decline? Educational Studies, 36(2), 119-141. doi: 10.1080/03055690903148662

Vossen, T.E., Henze, I., De Vries, M.J. & Van Driel, J.H. (2019). Finding the connection between research and design: the knowledge development of STEM teachers in a professional learning community. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Online first doi :10.1007/s10798-019-09507-7
Vol. 3 Iss. 1