ENGAGING SECONDARY SCHOOL LEARNERS EFFECTIVELY IN SCIENCE: VOICES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Transcription

1 Author ID: 401 ENGAGING SECONDARY SCHOOL LEARNERS EFFECTIVELY IN SCIENCE: VOICES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS Bill MacIntyre marg gilling Tim Parkinson Dianne Gardner Helen Hughes Bob Rosemergy Educational Consultant Gordon Suddaby ABSTRACT A multidisciplinary team carried out research to help a New Zealand university understand how to better engage their learners in the sciences, particularly in transition from secondary schools to tertiary institutes in Aotearoa New Zealand. The aim of the research is to develop a framework that will facilitate the transition of science education learners between secondary schools and tertiary institutes while maintaining key elements of engagement. A survey instrument was developed to collect quantitative evidence of engagement from four different groups: Year 12 (age 17) students and their teachers, first year university students and their lecturers. Analysis of the survey data for Year 12 students and teachers indicates that there is a significant difference between the students and teachers perceptions on some key elements of engagement in science. Keywords: secondary, students, teachers, engagement, science. 1. INTRODUCTION This paper will present one part of an Ako Aotearoa research funded project titled - Engaging learners effectively in science, technology and engineering: the pathway from secondary to university education. A multidisciplinary team with members from the College of Sciences, College of Education and College of Humanities and Social Sciences, conducted research to help this New Zealand university understand how to better engage their learners in first year sciences courses, particularly in transition from secondary schools to tertiary institutes in Aotearoa New Zealand. The intent is (a) develop a framework that will facilitate the transition of science education learners between secondary schools and tertiary institutes while maintaining key elements of engagement; (b) increase student retention in first year university science courses and (c) increase the number of students taking Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-related subjects. 2. BACKGROUND Concerns about student decline in secondary science and tertiary science courses have been expressed since In 2003, Fullerton, Walker, Ainley and Hillman s reported a marked decline in the number of students enrolled in science classes 1

2 of their last year of secondary schooling in Australia. A European Commission (2004) report noted the decline in recruiting, retention of students studying science, engineering and technology. Lyons (2006) in his comparison of three studies in Australia, Sweden and England of secondary school science students identified core themes linked to decline in interest and enrolments in secondary and universities. Panizzon and Westwell (2007) and Tytler (2007) also noted in their reports the decline and engagement of students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics in Australia was not unique and is similar to many OECD countries. A common factor in the literature on engagement appears to centre on students attitude and the pedagogical approach taken by teachers. Hattie (2003), in his meta-analysis of student achievement, indicated that 30% of student achievement was dependent on the teachers impact with students. He identified different aspects of quality teaching that had positive affects on students. The focus on the teachers of science was acknowledged by Tytler (2007) when he stated that changes in science education has been resisted because of science teachers silent choice for the status quo while Osborne and Dillon (2008) draw our attention to the pedagogy of school science using the conduit metaphor transmission of science knowledge and understanding by teachers. The New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) report (2006) to Ministry of Research, Science and Technology supports this focus on teachers. Hipkins, Roberts, Bolstead and Ferral found in their research that approximately one-third of the Year 13 (age 18) students taking sciences found their subjects were sometimes taught in a boring way. In identifying science engagement for secondary or first year university students, the goals of science education (Years 1 13) in Aotearoa New Zealand need to be acknowledged as that is what the teachers are focusing on in their teaching. The goals of science education can be identified in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007:28) document with the question Why study science? By studying science, students: develop an understanding of the world, built on current scientific theories; learn that science involves particular processes and ways of developing and organizing knowledge and that these continue to evolve; use their current scientific knowledge and skills for problem solving and developing further knowledge; use scientific knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about the communication, application, and implications of science as these relate to their own lives and cultures and to the sustainability of the environment. The rationale for engaging with these science goals is to be commended, as they will hopefully provide Aotearoa New Zealand with scientifically literate citizens. Therefore as fewer and fewer students enroll in science (secondary and university) and the engagement rate lowers, College of Sciences recognized the need to identify specific aspects of the teaching and 2

3 learning in science that influence the engagement and retention. Identifying those impact factors associated with the teacher / lecturer would assist with reversing the trend but also guide College of Science in repositioning their science papers for the 21 st century. With that in mind, the research team set about investigating the secondary and tertiary experiences of students (Figure 1) and teachers / lecturers (Figure 2) in science education. Figure 1. Comparison of student experience in secondary and tertiary science education Figure 2. Comparison of teachers / lecturers experience in secondary and tertiary science education 3. METHODOLOGY The research team employed a qualitative and a quantitative approach to collect the data from the four participant groups: (i) Year 12 (age 17) high school students, (ii) high school science teachers of the Year 12 students, (iii) Year 1 university students enrolled in a science course and (iv) university staff who teach or have responsibility for Year 1 science programmes. The qualitative approach used focus groups or one-to-one interviews. Similar focus questions (Table 1) were used for secondary or tertiary students and secondary teachers or lecturers. The quantitative approach used a questionnaire, which the authors will focus of this paper, for all participant groups. Table 1. Focus questions for students and teachers 3

4 Students 4 Teachers Q1. What do you like most about science? Q1. Write three things that turn on your students in your science class Q2. When I am in science class: Q2. When your students leave school, what knowledge, skills and attitudes in science do you hope that they will have learnt in your classes? (a) I really like it when Q3. To achieve this goal, what do you think your current students should (i) continue, (ii) stop / do less of, (iii) start / do more of? (b) I really don t like it when Q4. To achieve this goal, what do you think you or the school should (i) continue, (ii) stop / do less of, (iii) start / do more of? (c) It would be better if Q5. If you could give one piece of advice to university teachers, what would it be? Q3. What are your plans for science next year? 3.1 Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of 100 questions using a five point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often and 5 = always). In order to identify patterns and trends in the data, similar questions were used for the students (high school and university) and for teachers (high school and university). The design of the questionnaire was to link to literature on engagement in science (Lyons 2003, Hipkins et al 2006, Tytler 2007, Osborne and Dillon 2008 and Panizzon and Westwell, 2009), the nature of science (Ministry of Education, 2007) and the pedagogy for teaching science effectively in the classroom (Tytler 2003). Questions were identified that linked to (a) to the broad range of affective experiences the students / teachers might encounter in a secondary or tertiary setting; (b) to the declarative / procedural experiences the students / teachers might encounter in a secondary or tertiary setting and (c) to effective science teaching in classrooms (Tytler, 2003 School Innovation in Science Project). The questions were grouped into two broad sets. One set of questions (n = 50) placed an emphasis on extrinsic factors - the teacher is directing the science engagement. An example question (Q.32) is provided from the teacher and student questionnaire. Note that the experience is being directed pedagogically from the teacher. Question 32: Teacher questionnaire - I give students the opportunity to influence the way that they are taught Student questionnaire - I am given the opportunity to influence the way that I am taught The focus of the other set (n = 50) of similar questions places an emphasis on personal intrinsic factors. A teacher and student example (Q.91) is provided to demonstrate the subtle difference from the previous questions above. Student initiative is being emphasised although the stem of the question is basically the same as question 32. Question 91: Teacher questionnaire - Students take opportunities to influence the way that they are taught Student questionnaire - I take opportunities to influence what topics I am taught Due to time restrictions placed on this project the questionnaire has not been validated through normal statistical procedure.

5 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The total number of participants who completed the questionnaire in each group is identified in Table 2. Table 2. Total number that completed the questionnaire University students 707 University academic staff 69 Secondary school students 460 Secondary school teachers 33 Although the authors will present statistical data for the survey questions of the four groups (Table 7), the main part of this section will focus on the quantitative data of the secondary school students and teachers (one small part of the larger project). It would be equally important to discuss the data of the university students and lecturers but the submission regulations has directed the authors to focus on more detailed discussion at this time for one group. Therefore the key question for this section is: are these two groups responding to the same questions in the same way about aspects associated with engagement in science? 4.1 Demographic data of the secondary school participants Five secondary schools participated with 460 Year 12 students and 33 Year 12 science subject teachers completing the survey (see Table 3). The student size of the schools varied from 350 (Co-ed B) to 1600 (Boys single sex). Table 3. Number of students and teachers participating in the survey and focus groups Y 12 Student Survey Y 12 Student Focus Group Y 12 Teacher Survey Y12 Teacher Focus Group Boys single sex Girls single sex Co-ed A Co-ed B [low decile] Co-ed C TOTAL (N = 51) 33 5 (N = 39) Tables 4, 5, and 6 identify the nationality, the gender, and number of students studying the different disciplines in Year 12 respectively. Table 4. Nationality of students and teachers in Year 12 (N = 493) European / Pakeha 327 Maori (indigenous) 43 Pacific Islander 14 Other 109 NB Some students ticked more than one nationality 5

6 Table 5. Gender of students and teachers in Year 12 Female Male Student Teachers Table 6. Number of students studying different science disciplines in Year 12 Agriculture / Horticulture 32 Biology 258 Chemistry 279 Physics 265 Science (all science disciplines) Factor Analysis Data A factor analysis of the four groups of participants for the two sets of questions identified five scales for questions 1-50 and three scales for questions (Table 7). As noted above the first fifty questions placed an emphasis on extrinsic influences while the second fifty questions looked at intrinsic influences - student initiative. Table 7. General description of the scales derived from the extrinsic and intrinsic influences questions General description Total number Cronbach s Alpha of questions involved in the scale Extrinsic influences Teacher qualities Students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings Students are encouraged to engage with science ideas and evidence Student s individual learning preferences are catered for Learning technologies are exploited for their learning potentials Intrinsic influences Commitment to high performance in science Learning science with excitement Developing meaningful understandings of science The scales of engagement Student engagement in secondary school science is very complex and many factors influence the active engagement (Lyons 2003, Hipkins et al 2006, Tytler 2007, Osborne and Dillon 2008 and Panizzon and Westwell, 2009). The eight scales identified in the two sets of questions (Table 7) attest to the complexity. Analysis of the eight scales and their respective questions identified four scales that direct links to Tytler s (2003) effective classroom teaching components. In addition those four scales also focus on experiences associated with science, science ideas and the nature of science. Table 8 illustrates the links between the four scales of engagement and a corresponding component for 6

7 effective classroom teaching, whereas three of the scales have links to the science / the nature of science experiences. Table 8 Scales of the engagement questionnaire, effective classroom teaching components and the science ideas and nature of science Scales of engagement component Effective classroom teaching component (from Tytler, 2003) Science ideas & nature of science Students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings 2. Students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings nature of science notions Students are encouraged to engage with science ideas and evidence 1. The learning environment encourages active engagement with ideas and evidence science ideas Learning technologies are exploited for their learning potentials 8. Learning technologies are exploited for their learning potentials Developing meaningful understandings of science 2. Students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings nature of science notions 4.4 Secondary students and teachers responses If student s experience in science were important to engagement, one would expect both the students and teachers to recognize their importance. Therefore the frequency of responses by the teachers and students should be similar. Further analysis of the questions that make up each scale identified eight questions where there was a definite difference in the response betwen teachers and students. The frequency of the response to those questions is shown in Table 9. Table 9 Frequency of response by teachers and students Questions Frequencies - percent (teachers / students in bold) never rarely sometimes often always Q21 My lecturers relate science to things that interest me 0 / 8 0 / / / / 8 Q47 I am asked to learn how science impacts people, society 0 / / / / / 5 and technology Q11 I am asked to learn about how science relates to contemporary issues 3 / 7 6 / / / 15 6 / 2 Q35 I am expected to plan the investigations that I undertake 6 / 6 12 / / / / 10 Q45 I am expected to use data/evidence to develop a logical scientific argument 0 / 5 6 / / / / 6 7

8 Q90 I consider ethical issues surrounding science 3 / / / / 13 3 / 6 Q74 I learn how scientific ideas have developed over time 0 / 7 18 / / / 16 6 / 4 Q81 I learn about how science relates to contemporary issues 3 / 7 16 / / / 16 3 / 3 The eight questions have been grouped according to the scales and reflect a difference in response from the teachers and students. The first question (Q21) sits within the teacher qualities scale while the next two (Q47 and Q11) are grouped in the students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings scale. Q35 and Q45 belong to the students are encouraged to engage with [science] ideas and evidence scale with the last three (Q90, Q74 and Q81) linked to the developing meaningful understandings of science scale. Seventy-six (76) percent of the teachers responded often / always to Q21 while only 43 percent of students responded in that manner. This difference in response may signal the boring way science is presented (Hipkins et al, 2006). We also see a marked difference between teachers and students in Q47 and Q11. The teachers responded 48% for often / always in Q47 whereas just 18% of the students responded that way. A similar pattern emerges with Q11 47% of teachers and 17% of students responded as often / always. The lack of challenging experiences to develop understanding is evident in the students responses. The two questions, Q35 and Q45, also show a difference in response. In Q35 the teachers appear to acknowledge that students are lacking the experience in planning their own investigations (66% response for never / rarely / sometimes) whereas the students do believe they are involved in planning their own science investigations (77% responded sometimes / often / always). Only 6% of the teachers responded never / rarely to Q45 whereas 18% of the students responded in a similar way. Perhaps as with Q35 students perceptions of what they are experiencing with science ideas and evidence are not based on a foundation of science understanding and cannot recognize the experiences. The last three questions (Q90, Q74 and Q81) are part of the scale linked to intrinsic factors around personal development of meaningful understandings. The differences in teacher - students responses for often / always range from 42% - 18% in Q90, 39% - 20% in Q74 and 37% - 19% in Q81. With these three questions, teachers believe that that are providing the students with experiences but the results suggest otherwise. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This paper has attempted to identify factors that influence the engagement and experiences of secondary science students. The perceptions of student engagement and experiences from the student and teacher were elicited via a questionnaire. The questions were designed to cover some of the complex interactions occurring in the classroom between the teacher and the student. Five scales were identified from the set of questions that focused on extrinsic factors. These five scales centre on the teacher the personal qualities, their content knowledge and their pedagogical knowledge. The other three identified scales centred on student initiative or intrinsic elements of engagement. Four of the eight scales can be aligned with four components of Tytler s effective classroom teaching as well linking to the goals of science education in New Zealand. There are specific questions from the different scales where significant differences occur in student - teacher responses. The questions align with Tytler s (2003) School 8

9 Innovation in Science project, the recommendations of Osborne and Dillon (2008) and the focus on science experiences that are in real-life contexts. The scales derived from the questionnaire do have implications for secondary school science teachers. Their importance is centred on the engagement or we would call active learning. The notion of the student becoming an active participant in their learning is at the heart of some of the student s responses but data indicates that the same cannot be said of the teacher s response. The authors would like to suggest that the questions be used to guide the classroom science teaching and learning, act as a guide to professional development in science departments / faculties as well as providing feedback to the teachers from the students. Differences in response from the teacher s and student s provide a starting point towards an interactive dialogue in teaching and learning and permits the student to take an active role in their engagement with science ideas, the nature of science and scientific literacy. Although the focus of this paper used the questionnaire data from the secondary students and teachers to reach some conclusions about active learning and engagement in science experiences the project will be analysing the qualitative data from the focus groups to validate the assumptions made here and those made for the Year 1 students and their lecturers group. The authors anticipate that tertiary lecturers will use the responses of the students to modify their teaching and learning programme so as to assist students in making the transition from secondary to tertiary easier. Knowing where the students start and what thinking they bring with them to the university can be used to align existing tertiary science courses to meaningful science experiences. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the support from Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. REFERENCES Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J. and Hillman, K. (2003). Patterns of participation in year 12. (Longitudinal Studies of Australian Youth Research Report 33) Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Education Research. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? Paper delivered to the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference. Retrieved 18th April 2008 from df Hipkins, R., Roberts, J. Bolstead, R. and Ferral, H. (2006). Staying in Science 2: Transitions to tertiary study from the perspectives of New Zealand Year 13 science students. Research carried out for Ministry of Research, Science and Technology by New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Wellington, New Zealand. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students experience of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), Ministry of Education, (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Osborne, J. and Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. A report for The Nuffield Foundation. London, England. Panizzon, D. and Westwell, M. (2009). Engaging students in STEM-related subjects. What does the research evidence say? Flinders Centre for science Education in the 21st century, Adelaide: South Australia Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: developing a framework for describing effective science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education. 33,

10 Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia s future. Australia Education Review. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Education Research Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K. and Clark, J.C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transitions. Commissioned by the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Melbourne, Victoria 10