Explicit Teaching Approach Versus ASEI-PDSI Approach in Teaching Science in Swaziland

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EXPLICIT APPROACH AND ASEI-PDSI APROACH IN TEACHING SCIENCE IN SWAZILAND SECONDARY SCHOOL

ByMoses G. Mabuza128529

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Dvlpt of students’ NOS views – important curr. and instr. goal - Vhurumuku (2010).

SGCSE – aim to dvlp. ablilities that enhance scientific knowledge and understanding.

Understanding NOS – important in dvlpt of scientific literacy.

Literacy – perennial goal of sc. ed. (Seung, Bryan & Butler ,2009)

INTRODUCTION CONT.

Explicit and implicit curr. & instr. approaches – compared.

Explicit approach – recommended (Dekkers, 2006)

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Understanding of NOS difficult to

learners. Early research – inadequate NOS

understanding(Iqbal, Saiqa & Rizwan, 2009)

Therefore, efforts to improve

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Investigate changes in learners understanding of NOS.

Compare ASEI-PDSI and Explicit tg. Approaches.

1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To determine participants’ NOS ideas before and after an instr. intervention.

2. To determine the changes brought by the instr. intervention in participants’ NOS ideas.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the students’ NOS ideas before and after an instr. Intervention?

2. What changes (if any) does the intervention bring in students’ NOS ideas?

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

There is no significant difference between the ASEI-PDSI and the Explicit approaches to teaching the nature of science.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Awareness of NOS conceptions Utilize effective teaching approach

1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS (OPERATIONAL) Nature of science:

- epistemology of science in relation to nature of scientific knowledge and dvlpt of scientific knowledge

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual frameworkSeung, Bryan & Butler (2009) – conception of NOS has changedNOS – epistemology of science

- values, beliefs and assumptions- ideas about science

LITERATURE REVIEW CONT.

Components of NOS – empirical- inferential- subjective- tentative

(Khishfe & Lederman, 2006; Lederman, et.al., 2002; Urhahne, kremer & Mayer, 2011)


Khishfe & Adb-El-Khalick (2002) – naïve and informed NOS views.Lederman et.al., (2002) – inadequate and adequate NOS understandings.


Empirical studiesDekkers (2006) Explored how inquiry & reflection

contribute to NOS understanding. Purpose – find starting point for tg

NOS Sampling – 22 science teachers and

79 learners (grade 7, 8, 9 & 11)

LIT. REVIEW CONT.

Intervention – engaged in inquiry and products compared with work of scientists.

Data collection – pre-post questionnaire

Data analysis – responses categorised, views established and frequencies determined.

Findings – sensible NOS views- after intervention views

improved

LIT. REVIEW CONT.

Khishfe & Lederman (2006) Compared 2 instr. approaches –

integrated & non-integrated. Purpose – investigate effectiveness of

2 instr. approches. Sampling – Urban high school in

Chicago.- 42 ninth grade st. from 2 intact

classes

LIT. REVIEW CONT.

Data collection – two intact groups- 5-item questionnaire- random interviews - intervention- questionnaire & interviews

Instruments – examined by experts and piloted

LIT. REVIEW CONT.

Data analysis – participants profiles- profiles categorised (naïve

or informed)- views compared

Findings – non-integrated approach effective

LIT. REVIEW CONT.

Paraskevopoulou & Kiliopoulos (2010) Investigated teaching NOS through

Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Design – pre-experimental Sampling – 24 students (2nd grade of

high school) - Physics and chose natural

sciences.

LIT. REVIEW CONT.

Instruments – open-ended questionnaire (modified)

Findings – after intervention NOS ideas improved.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Design: pre- post-instructional interventionSampling Purposive volunteer sampling 20 Form 4 learners doing natural sciences. 10 female and 10 maleInstrumentation Form C (VONS) adapted by Vhurumuku (2010) Validity and reliability established already Permission to use instrument .

METHODOLOGY CONT.

Data collection Two equivalent groups 5-item open ended questionnaire Teaching ‘Atomic structure’ to both

groups Pre- and post-intervention

questionnaire Random interviews (5 participants in

each grp)5-item objective test

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Mixed methodsqualitative Ideas classified as naïve or informed

- according to NOS aspects (i.e. empirical, tentative, inferential) Pre- and post-intervention responses

tabulated Interview response from transcripts

interpreted

DATA ANALYSIS CONT.

Quantitative Student t-test

ETHICAL ISSUES

Explain purpose of study to learners Participation voluntary Consent to conduct study

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

NOS ASPECT

PARTICIPANTS’ IDEA

Pre-Instr. IdeasFrequency

Post-Instr. IdeasFrequency

n % n %

1. What is science?

Naïve ideas

1a. Study of natural of physical world only 9 45 3 15

1b. Developed knowledge based on experiments and observations only

4 20 2 10

1c. Science is based on proof only 4 20 0 0

1d. Other disciplines (e.g.history) do not use the scientific method

2 10 1 5

Informed ideas

1e. Science is a body of knowledge and a way of finding things

0 0 5 25

1f. Science is based on observation and experiments and testing hypotheses (empirically based)

1 5 5 25

1g. Science demands evidence 0 0 4 20

2.The role and purpose of experiments in science

Naïve ideas

2a. Experiments prove theory 5 25 2 10

2b. Experiments are the only way of discovering new information

4 20 0 0

Informed ideas

2c. Experiments are a way of testing hypotheses under controlled conditions

0 0 4 20

2d. Experiment is a method of collecting data or evidence 5 25 4 20

2e. Experiments are not the only way used by scientists to develop new knowledge

0 0 4 20

2f. Experiments are done to test new ideas

6 30 6 30

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT.3. Development of scientific theories

Naïve ideas

3a. Theories never change because they have been proven

4 20 0 0

3b. Theories never change but get modified 4 20 2 103c. Theories can be proven by experiments 6 30 3 15

Informed ideas

3d. Theories can change or be modified in the light of new evidence

5 25 7 35

3e. Scientists always try to modify and make theories better

1 5 5 25

3f. Different scientists can come up with different theories

0 0 3 15

4. Difference and relationship between theories and laws

Naïve ideas

4a. Theories do not change but laws change 3 15 0 04b. Theories become laws 5 25 2 104c. Laws do not change but theories change 6 30 4 204d. Both laws and theories do not change 2 10 0 0

Informed ideas

4e. Theories explain why things happen and laws describe what happens

0 0 6 30

4f. Laws are based on observation and experiments 4 4

4g. Law is a universal expression of relationships between variables, e.g. Newton’s laws, Boyle’s law

0 0 4 20

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT.

5. Development of atomic structure – inference and theoretical entities

Naïve ideas

5a. They saw atom using a microscope and other gadgets 3 15 0 0

5b. Scientists are certain that the atom is small and round like a ball

4 20 2 10

5c. Proved that atom is there using experiments 8 40 2 10

Informed ideas

5d. Used radiation (e.g. Rutherford), radio waves, X-rays, electron beams

0 0 7 35

5e. Developed theory from experimental evidence (e.g. experiments and observations on charges)

5 25 6 30

5f. Atomic theory is a model used by scientists to explain experimental evidence

0 0 2 10

5g. Different scientists made the same conclusion about the structure of the atom

0 0 1 5

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT. NOS views improved after intervention

(Table 1)


Table 2a: Group A participants with informed ideas of NOS pre- and post-instruction

Table 2b: Group E participants with informed ideas of NOS pre- and post-instruction

NOS ASPECT

Pre-Instr.Frequency

Post-Instr.Frequency

n % n %

EMPIRICAL 7 70 9 90

TENTATIVE 4 40 8 80

INFERENTIAL 2 20 8 80

NOS ASPECT

Pre-Instr.Frequency

Post-Instr.Frequency

n % n %

EMPIRICAL 4 40 9 90

TENTATIVE 2 20 7 70

INFERENTIAL 3 30 8 80


Interviews Questionnaire item: Does the development of scientific knowledge require experiments?

P5: pre-instruction response: Yes it does, because you need tangible proof to be sure that something in science is true.

P5: post-instruction response: Experiments are not a requirement, but one way of generating necessary evidence.

Interviewer: Would scientific knowledge exist without experiments?

P5: interview response: Yes it would exist, because there are other ways of generating evidence besides experiments such as observation of phenomena and making inferences.

Interviewer (probing): But, in your first questionnaire response you said experiments were a requirement. What did you mean?

P5: interview response: No, I thought like that, but now after the lesson we had, I have changed hence my response in the second questionnaire.


Quantitative Table 3: Participants’ scores in the objective test

Group A scores (x1) Group E scores (x2)4 3

3 5

5 4

3 2

5 3

3 2

2 4

5 4

3 3

4 4

37 34


Table 4

4 0.3 0.09 3 -0.4 0.16

3 -0.7 0.49 5 1.6 2.56

5 1.3 1.69 4 0.6 0.36

3 -0.7 0.49 2 -1.4 1.96

5 1.3 1.69 3 -0.4 0.16

3 -0.7 0.49 2 -1.4 1.96

2 -1.7 2.89 4 0.6 0.36

5 1.3 1.69 4 0.6 0.36

3 -0.7 0.49 3 -0.4 0.16

4 0.3 0.09 4 0.6 0.36

37 0 10.1 34 0 8.4


Standard deviation: = 1.122 = 0.933F-test – stat. diff. btn variances of the 2 data sets

, and for and at the 95% confidence level.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

t-test: , where

since , there is no stat. difference between the two teaching approaches.

5.0 CONCLUSION, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary Both ASEI-PDSI and Explicit approaches

improved NOS understandings. More improvement in grp A than in grp

E. However, t-test – no significant

difference between the two approaches.

SUMM., CONC. AND RECOM. CONT.

Conclusion ASEI-PDSI and Explicit teaching

approaches almost equally effective in teaching NOS.

Recommendations Further research which will consider

multiple topics in science syllabus.

- THE END -

THANK YOU!

Babe Mabuza

Explicit Teaching Approach Versus ASEI-PDSI Approach in Teaching Science in Swaziland

Technology

Transcript of Explicit Teaching Approach Versus ASEI-PDSI Approach in Teaching Science in Swaziland