Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Exploratory Analysis of Constructivist Teaching Practices and Science Teaching Interactions in Earth Science Classes

  • Received : 2010.08.02
  • Accepted : 2010.09.20
  • Published : 2010.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to explore how to characterize the earth science inquiry in schools in terms of science teaching interaction and constructivist teaching practice. The constructivist teaching practices were analyzed with Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) in three aspects including (1) student oriented class implementation, (2) subject knowledge and representation, and (3) classroom communication. Fourteen earth science classes were observed and scored with RTOP. The class was evaluated to be transitional stage in terms of constructivist teaching, e.g., moving toward student-centered teaching practice. Especially, Korean teachers tend to lean their classes more on propositional knowledge than procedural knowledge. To interpret science teaching interactions, an earth science teacher with a RTOP top rank was selected. Her class was then videotaped for detailed analysis. I adopted the analytical framework of communicative approaches and discourse patterns among the five aspects of interactions presented by Mortimer and Scott (2003). It was found that this earth science teacher used more authoritative patterns than the dialogic. In addition, she used IRE discourse pattern more frequently. Interestingly, teachers interacted with their students more frequently in the form of repeated (or IRE chain pattern), that is IRFRF (teacher initiation-student response-teacher feedback-student response-teacher feedback) in the context of dialogic communicative approaches, while simple IRE occurred in an authoritative approach. In earth science classrooms, typical interaction may well be constructed in the form of IRFRF chains to allow students free conjectures and abduction.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, R.D., Anderson, B.L., Varanka-Martin, M.A., Romagnano, L., Bielenberg, J., Flory, M., Mieras, B., and Whitworth, J., 1994, Issues of curriculum reform in science, mathematics, and higher order thinking across the disciplines. The Curriculum Reform Project, (U.S. Department of Education Grant No. RR91182001), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA, 144 p.
  2. Barrow, L.H., 2006, A breif history of inquiry: from Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5
  3. Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G., 1993, In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, USA, 136 p.
  4. Brooks, M.G. and Brooks, J.G., 1999, In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Association for supervision and curriculum development. Alexandria, USA, 136 p.
  5. Cho, J.I. and Seo, H.A., 1997, Changes in high school teachers’ constructivist philosophies. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 400-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17384.x
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M.W., 1995, Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.
  7. Gold, Y., 1996, Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and education. In Sikula, J. (ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). Macmillan, NY, USA, 548-594.
  8. Joyce, B. and Showers, B., 1980, Improving in-service training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379-385.
  9. Lieberman, A. and Miller, L., 1999, Teachers-transforming their world and their work. Teachers College Press, NY, USA, 104 p.
  10. Lorsbach, A.W. and Tobin, K., 1992, Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. Research Matters-to the Science Teacher, 30, 1-3.
  11. Martin-Hauser, L., 2002, Defining inquiry. The science teacher, 69, 34-37.
  12. Minstrell, J. and van Zee, E. (eds.), 2000, Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC, USA, 496 p.
  13. Millar, R., 2004, The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for the Meeting: High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC., June 2004, 3-4.
  14. Millar, R., 1989, What is scientific method and can it be taught? (ch 3) In Wellington, J. (ed.), Skills and Processes in Science Education: A Critical Analysis. Routledge, UK, 47-62.
  15. Mortimer, E.F. and Scott, P.H., 2003, Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press, Philadelphia, USA, 160 p.
  16. Oh, P.S., Shin, M.K., and Yager, R.E., 2003, Pattern of teacher questioning discourse in Korean science classrooms. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 24, 2, 61-73.
  17. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., and Bloom, I., 2000, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-003.
  18. Polanyi, M., 1958, Personal knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK, 424 p.
  19. Ravetz, J.R., 1971, Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 449 p.
  20. Radford, D.L., 1998, Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<73::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-K
  21. Saunders, W.L., 1992, The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science Mathematics, 92, 136-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1992.tb12159.x
  22. Tobin, K.G., Tippins, D.J., and Gallard, A.J., 1994, Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In Gabel, D.L. (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, NY, USA, 45-93.
  23. Von Glaserfeld, Ernst., 1989, Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Syntheses, 80, 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869951
  24. Yager, R.E., 1991, The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 59, 53-57.
  25. Yutakom, N., 1997, The congruence of perceptions and behaviors exhibited by twelve successful middle school teachers in implementing science/technology/society/constructivist practices in Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Schools. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Iowa, 269 p.
  26. Zeichner, K.M. and Tabachnick, B.R., 1981, Are the effects of university teacher education “washed out” by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7-11.