Vol. 3 Iss. 3

In this issue:
• 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
• Is There any Impact of Teaching Vector Spaces From Real Problems? The Case of First Year Engineering Students
• Addressing Student Diversity in Science Classroom: Exploring Topic-Specific Personal Pedagogical Content Knowledge of High School Teachers

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

Saiqa Azam

Download: 181, 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           


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=

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: 145, 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    


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: 121, 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               



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