Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Explicit Teaching Approach Versus ASEI-PDSI Approach in Teaching Science in Swaziland
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

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

  • 152 views
Published

 

Published in Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
152
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EXPLICIT APPROACH AND ASEI-PDSI APROACH IN TEACHING SCIENCE IN SWAZILAND SECONDARY SCHOOL By Moses G. Mabuza 128529
  • 2. 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) 
  • 3. INTRODUCTION CONT. Explicit and implicit curr. & instr. approaches – compared.  Explicit approach – recommended (Dekkers, 2006) 
  • 4. 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 
  • 5. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Investigate changes in learners understanding of NOS.  Compare ASEI-PDSI and Explicit tg. Approaches. 
  • 6. 1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1. 2. To determine participants’ NOS ideas before and after an instr. intervention. To determine the changes brought by the instr. intervention in participants’ NOS ideas.
  • 7. 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. 2. What are the students’ NOS ideas before and after an instr. Intervention? What changes (if any) does the intervention bring in students’ NOS ideas?
  • 8. 1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS There is no significant difference between the ASEI-PDSI and the Explicit approaches to teaching the nature of science.
  • 9. 1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Awareness of NOS conceptions  Utilize effective teaching approach 
  • 10. 1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS (OPERATIONAL) Nature of science: - epistemology of science in relation to nature of scientific knowledge and dvlpt of scientific knowledge 
  • 11. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW Conceptual framework Seung, Bryan & Butler (2009) – conception of NOS has changed NOS – epistemology of science - values, beliefs and assumptions - ideas about science
  • 12. LITERATURE REVIEW CONT. Components of NOS – empirical - inferential - subjective - tentative (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006; Lederman, et.al., 2002; Urhahne, kremer & Mayer, 2011)
  • 13. LITERATURE REVIEW CONT. Khishfe & Adb-El-Khalick (2002) – naïve and informed NOS views. Lederman et.al., (2002) – inadequate and adequate NOS understandings.
  • 14. LITERATURE REVIEW CONT. Empirical studies Dekkers (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)
  • 15. 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 
  • 16. 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
  • 17. LIT. REVIEW CONT. Data collection – two intact groups - 5-item questionnaire - random interviews - intervention - questionnaire & interviews  Instruments – examined by experts and piloted 
  • 18. LIT. REVIEW CONT. Data analysis – participants profiles - profiles categorised (naïve or informed) - views compared  Findings – non-integrated approach effective 
  • 19. LIT. REVIEW CONT. Paraskevopoulou & Kiliopoulos (2010)  Investigated teaching NOS through MillikanEhrenhaft dispute.  Design – pre-experimental  Sampling – 24 students (2nd grade of high school) - Physics and chose natural sciences.
  • 20. LIT. REVIEW CONT. Instruments – open-ended questionnaire (modified)  Findings – after intervention NOS ideas improved. 
  • 21. 3.0 METHODOLOGY Design: pre- post-instructional intervention Sampling  Purposive volunteer sampling  20 Form 4 learners doing natural sciences.  10 female and 10 male Instrumentation  Form C (VONS) adapted by Vhurumuku (2010)  Validity and reliability established already  Permission to use instrument .
  • 22. 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
  • 23. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES Mixed methods qualitative  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 
  • 24. DATA ANALYSIS CONT. Quantitative  Student t-test
  • 25. ETHICAL ISSUES Explain purpose of study to learners  Participation voluntary  Consent to conduct study 
  • 26. 4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS PARTICIPANTS’ IDEA NOS ASPECT Pre-Instr. Ideas Frequency Post-Instr. Ideas Frequency n n % 9 4 45 20 3 2 15 10 4 2 20 10 0 1 0 5 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 What is science? % 1e. Science is a body of knowledge and a way of finding things 1. 0 0 4 20 5 4 25 20 2 0 10 0 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 Naïve ideas 1a. Study of natural of physical world only 1b. Developed knowledge based on experiments and observations only 1c. Science is based on proof only 1d. Other disciplines (e.g.history) do not use the scientific method Informed ideas 2.The role and purpose of experiments in science Naïve ideas 2a. Experiments prove theory 2b. Experiments are the only way of discovering new information Informed ideas
  • 27. 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 3c. Theories can be proven by experiments 4 6 20 30 2 3 10 15 3d. Theories can change or be modified in the light of new evidence 3e. Scientists always try to modify and make theories better 5 25 7 35 1 5 5 25 3f. Different scientists can come up with different theories 0 0 3 15 3 5 6 2 15 25 30 10 0 2 4 0 0 10 20 0 4e. Theories explain why things happen and laws describe what happens 4f. Laws are based on observation and experiments 0 0 6 30 4g. Law is a universal expression of relationships between variables, e.g. Newton’s laws, Boyle’s law 0 Informed ideas 4. Difference and relationship between theories and laws Naïve ideas 4a. Theories do not change but laws change 4b. Theories become laws 4c. Laws do not change but theories change 4d. Both laws and theories do not change Informed ideas 4 4 0 4 20
  • 28. 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 0 0 7 35 5 25 6 30 0 0 2 10 0 0 1 5 Informed ideas 5d. Used radiation (e.g. Rutherford), radio waves, X-rays, electron beams 5e. Developed theory from experimental evidence (e.g. experiments and observations on charges) 5f. Atomic theory is a model used by scientists to explain experimental evidence 5g. Different scientists made the same conclusion about the structure of the atom
  • 29. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT.  NOS views improved after intervention (Table 1)
  • 30. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT. Table 2a: instruction Group A participants with informed ideas of NOS pre- and postNOS ASPECT Pre-Instr. Frequency Post-Instr. Frequency n % n % EMPIRICAL 7 70 9 90 TENTATIVE 4 40 8 80 INFERENTIAL 2 20 8 80 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 4 40 9 90 TENTATIVE 2 20 7 70 INFERENTIAL 3 30 8 80
  • 31. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT. 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.
  • 32. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT. 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
  • 33. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT. 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
  • 34. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CONT. 
  • 35. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 
  • 36. 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.
  • 37. 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.
  • 38. - THE END THANK YOU! Babe Mabuza