nach oben

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Erschienen in:

01.08.2007

Involving Science Teachers in the Development and Implementation of Assessment Tools for “Science for All” Type Curricula

verfasst von: Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, Avi Hofstein, John E. Penick

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Ausgabe 4/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We describe a workshop in which 10 teachers from 10 schools, located in central Israel, participated in the development of alternative assessment tools in the context of implementing a new science curriculum for senior high-school students, namely “Science for All” (an STS type curriculum). In order to assist a group of teachers (who began teaching the “Science for All” program) in both teaching and assessment strategies, it was decided that the Department of Science Teaching at the Weizmann Institute of Science would sponsor a workshop for them. An evaluation study was conducted during the workshop and at its completion. The main goal of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of the workshop and to determine whether its objectives were attained. The research tools consisted of (a) an attitude questionnaire administered to participating teachers, (b) structured interviews with the teachers, (c) structured interviews with students, and (d) an attitude questionnaire administered to the students. Based on the results of the questionnaires and the interviews, it seems that all the teachers who participated in the workshop gained self-confidence in using the teaching strategies and assessment methods of this new interdisciplinary curriculum. The interviews with students revealed that their active involvement in their own assessment improved their sense of responsibility for their achievements. The variety of assignments enabled them to be at their best with certain assignments and to succeed less with others. In conclusion, we found that running a new interdisciplinary curriculum requires a professional development program that will stimulate teachers’ creativity and diversify the instructional strategies that they use in the classroom. Such skills should improve their ability to understand the goals, strategies, and rationale of the curriculum, as well as their students’ learning difficulties.

Vorheriger Artikel Elementary Teachers’ Teaching for Conceptual Understanding: Learning From Action Research

Nächster Artikel Pre-service Teachers’ Experiences with a Science Education Module

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Aikenhead, S. G., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on “Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.CrossRef

Aikenhead, S. G., Ryan, A. G., & Desautels, J. (1989). The development of multiple-choice instrument foe monitoring views on science-technology-society topics. Ottawa, Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Ben-Zvi, R. (1998). Energy and the human being. Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science (in Hebrew).

Ben-Zvi, R. (1999). Non-science oriented students and the second law of thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1251–1267.CrossRef

Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R. F. (1977). Modes of instruction in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 433–439.CrossRef

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). Teachers as curriculum makers. In T. Husen & N. T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 6089–6092). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bodzin, A. M., & Mamlok, R. (2000). STS issues-based approach simulations. The Science Teacher, 67(9), 36–39.

Bowyer, J. (1990, March). Scientific and technological literacy for education for change: A special study for the “World conference on education for all”. Jometian, Thailand; UNESCO, Paris.

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Meeting the challenges of achieving scientific literacy. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science Education: Globalization of Science Education, Seoul, Korea, May 1997.

Bybee, R. W., & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: Transforming goals to practices. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 487–498). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bybee, R. W., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Supporting change through professional development. In B. Resh (Ed.), Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools (pp. 41–48). Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Byrne, M., & Johnstone, A. (1988). How to make science relevant? School Science Review, 70, 43–45.

Cohen, D. (2000). Brain, medicines, and drugs. Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science (in Hebrew).

Cohen, D., Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., & Rahamimoff, R. (2004). On brain, medicines, and drugs: A module for “Science for All” program. The American Biology Teacher, 66(1), 9–19.CrossRef

Conant, J. B., & Nash, L. K. (1964). Harvard case histories in experimental science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Connelly, F. M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teachers’ role in the using and doing research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12, 95–107.

Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2000). The development, implementation and initial research findings of ‘Science for All’ in Israel. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April 2000.

Enger, S., & Yager, R. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science: A standards-based K-12 handbook. Iowa City: The University of Iowa.

Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10, 581–593.CrossRef

Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 101–130.CrossRef

Fensham, P. (1992). Science for All. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: MacMillan.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin &Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47–78). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Gilmer, P. J., Grogan, A., & Siegel, S. (1996). Contextual learning for premedical students. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers from the 7th National Conference on College Teaching and Learning (pp. 79–89). Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community College at Jacksonville.

von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRef

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawhorne, NY: Aldine.

Harms, N. C., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher, Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.

Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teachers Education, 13, 171–187.CrossRef

Harrison, J., & Globman, R. (1988). Assessment of training teachers in active learning: A research report. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).

Hofstein, A., Aikenhead, G., & Riquarts, K. (1988). Discussion over STS at the 4th international organization for science and technology education symposium. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 357–366.

Hofstein, A., & Mamlok, R. (2001). From petroleum to tomatoes: Attaining some of the content standards using an interdisciplinary approach. The Science Teacher, 68(2), 46–48.

Hofstein, A., Mamlok, R., & Carmeli, M. (1997). Science teachers as curriculum developers of Science for All. Science Education International, 8(1), 26–29.

Hofstein, A., Mamlok, R., & Rosenberg, O. (2006). Varying instructional methods and students assessment methods in high school chemistry. In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Sommers, D. DeBaets & F. Crawley (Eds.). Assessment in Science (139–148). Arlington, Virginia: NSTA press.

Hofstein, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B. J. Fraser &H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 70–89). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power and staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Krajcik, J. S., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Modern content and the enterprise of science: Science education in the 20th century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume (pp. 205–238). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

Lawrenz, F. (2001). Evaluation of teacher leader professional development. In C. R. Nesbit, J. D. Wallace, D. K. Pugalee, A., Country-Miller & W. J. DiBiase (Eds.), Developing teacher leaders. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearing House.

Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5, 301–325. Retrieved April 6, 2005, from http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258–271.CrossRef

Mamlok, R. (1998). Science: An ever-developing entity. Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science (in Hebrew).

Mamlok, R., Ben-Zvi, R., Menis, J., & Penick, J. E. (2000). Can simple metals be transmuted into gold? Teaching science through a historical approach. Science Education International, 11(3), 33–37.

Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1987). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351–369.CrossRef

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neathery, M. F. (1997). Elementary and secondary students’ perceptions toward science: Correlations with gender, ethnicity, ability, grade, and science achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(1). Retrieved April 6, 2005, from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRef

Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 773–789.CrossRef

Penick, J. (Ed.) (1984). Focus on excellence: Science/technology/society. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Priesner, C. (1991). How the language of chemistry developed. Chemistry in Action, 33, 11–21.

Rayner-Canham, M., & Rayner-Canham, G. (1998). Women in chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society and the Chemical Heritage.

Sabar, N., & Shafriri, N. (1982). On the need for teacher training in curriculum development. Studies in Educational Assessment, 7, 307–315.

Seybold, P. G. (1994). Provocative opinion: Better mousetraps, expert advice, and the lessons of history. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 392–399.CrossRef

Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 22–27.CrossRef

Sweeney, A. E. (2001). Incorporating multicultural and science/technology/society issues into science teacher education courses: Successes, challenges and possibilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 1–28.CrossRef

Tamir, P. (1974). An inquiry oriented laboratory examination. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11, 23–33.CrossRef

Tobin, K. (1995, April). Issues of commensurability in the use of qualitative and quantitative measures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Tobin, K., Capie, W., & Bettencourt, A. (1988). Active teaching for higher cognitive learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 17–27.

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan.

Tomorrow 98: Report of the superior committee on science mathematics and technology in Israel (1992). Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture (English Edition: 1994).

Trowbridge, L. W., & Bybee, R. W. (1996). Teaching secondary school science. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Weiss, I. R. (1987). Report of the 1985–86 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, school science; friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 363–372.

Westerlund, J. F., Garcia, D. M., Koke, J. R., Taylor, A. T., & Mason, D. S. (2002). Summer scientific research for teachers: The experience and its effects. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 63–83.CrossRef

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Wu, D. G., Cahen, D., Graf, P., Naaman, R., Nitzan, A., & Shvartz, D. (2001). Direct detection of low-concentration NO in Physiological solutions by new GaAs-based sensor. Chemistry – A European Journal, 7, 1743–1749.CrossRef

Yager, R. (1993). Make a Difference with STS; Should we toss out the textbook? The Science Teacher, 45-48.

Yager, R. E. (Ed.) (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-School biology curriculum. Journal of Biology Education, 35(4), 190–195.

Zuzovsky, R. (1997). Assessing scientific and technological literacy among sixth graders in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 231–256.CrossRef

Titel: Involving Science Teachers in the Development and Implementation of Assessment Tools for “Science for All” Type Curricula
verfasst von: Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
Avi Hofstein
John E. Penick
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2007
Verlag: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education / Ausgabe 4/2007
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9046-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2007

Preservice Teachers’ Research Experiences in Scientists’ Laboratories

To What Degree Do the Currently Used Physics Textbooks Meet the Expectations?

Innovative Training of In-service Teachers for Active Learning: A Short Teacher Development Course Based on Physics Education Research

Demythologizing Science Teacher Education: Conquering the False Ideal of Open Inquiry

Workplace as Community: Perspectives on Science Teachers’ Professional Learning

Whole-School Collaborative Sustained Professional Development and Science Teacher Change: Signs of Progress

Premium Partner