International Journal of Education Vol.33, No.3, July.-September., 2010 pp. 138-154
Case studies: Enhancing Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of Zoo-Based Science, Technology, Society, and Environment (STSE) Approach through a Professional Development Program Sasithep Pitiporntapin1, Naruemon Yutakom1, Kantimanee Pradermwong2, and David Anderson3
Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand 2 Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University, Thailand 3 Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Canada Email: sasithep@hotmail.com 1
Abstract This professional development (PD) program aimed to enhance the views and practices of two volunteer teachers regarding the zoo-based STSE approach and to examine the factors that constrained and facilitated their views and practices. Throughout the PD program data were collected from group discussions, observations, interviews, and reviewing of documents, and were analyzed using within-case and cross-case analysis methods. The findings showed that these two teachers had developed their views to be more in line with the zoo-based STSE approach. In their practices, they designed their activities to be more concerned with STSE issues and linked to the zoo field trip. They changed their roles from being information providers to be facilitators for students’ inquiry. They assessed students’ learning in all domains with various methods including awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment and the application of knowledge in daily life. However, there were some indications of their old teaching styles. The factors that affected their views and practices were the teachers’ academic backgrounds and teaching experiences, teachers’ characteristics, the limits of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, students’ entrance examinations, and media in the zoo. Further research should focus on identifying the most effective PD strategies for promoting sustainable changes in teachers’ views and practices using a STSE approach. Keywords: Elementary Science Teachers, PD program, STSE approach, Zoo Field Trip
© 2010 Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Introduction At present, Thailand is experiencing rapid scientific and technological changes. These changes that have been occurring over the last twenty years are a response to accelerate economic development which, in turn, promotes and supports a harvesting of natural resources and especially a high rate of wildlife extinction. The development of knowledge and participation of local people, especially young people, in natural resource and environment management is considered to be an alternative way to increase local natural resources and environmental awareness (ONEP, 2008). Under educational reform, all learners are regarded as being the most important stakeholders (Office of the Education Council [OEC], 2000). The content of teaching and learning of each educational level place emphasis on knowledge about the relationship between oneself and society, knowledge of science, management, conservation, and utilization of natural resources to ensure that the environment is balanced and sustainable (Office of the National Education Commission [ONEC], 2003). Therefore, the STSE approach appears to be in line for Thai educational reform. The main goal of this approach is to promote social responsibility. It includes the development of scientifically and technologically literate citizens (Pedretti, 2003: 219). For a lifelong learning, the current National Education Act implies that learning does not only occur inside the classroom but also outside the classroom (OEC, 2000). A zoo is one of informal resources where students can enjoy studying animals because they have an opportunity to observe animal behavior in a real context, as opposed to just studying animals in textbooks (Melber, 2001). This learning in the zoo can promote formal education, especially at the elementary level, and help raise awareness of conservation by providing information about animal lives and their natural habitats (OEC, 2005). Although science and technology teacher standards exist in Thailand, some teachers continue to maintain old or traditional ways (Pillay, 2002). Especially, with respect to teachers in schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, they lack science teaching skills as they have too many responsibilities, have too little time to attend to current issues and educational news, and to prepare relevant teaching materials (Meinoratha, 1997; Khotchasila, 2000; Chaihongkum. 2005; Ponvijit, 2005). In fact, teachers’ practices in general can also generate their views of teaching (Guskey, 2002). On the other hand, if they change their views, it will be the most influence to their practices (Pillay, 2002). Therefore, teachers are expected to develop their views and practices of new teaching and learning strategies (Bell, 1998). A professional development [PD] program is considered to be an effective way to promote teachers’ views and practices (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, and Hewson, 2003). PD programs are not new in Thailand, but there is a difference between the purpose, content, and process that have been used in the past and the contemporary knowledge which is required by Thai society. In order to cope with the aforementioned problems, the researcher had developed a PD program to enhance elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The use of this zoo-based STSE approach was considered as a means of changing teachers’ views and practices to be in line with educational reform. The implementation of the program should result in the teachers developing positive views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. 139
Research questions In order to examine how the aforementioned specially developed PD program have an influence on the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach, this research is answered according to two main research questions: (1) What changes in elementary science teachers’ views and practices occurred as a result of participating in the PD program?, and (2) What are the factors that constrain or facilitate the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach? Research methodology The methodological perspective of this research study has its roots in interpretive paradigm which attempts to understand and explain human and social reality (Crotty, 1998: 67). With the lens of an interpretive perspective, the researcher’s interpretation in this study is important to examine how the teachers change their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach as a result of participating in the PD program as well as to examine the factors that have constrained and facilitated their views and practices. Context of the study Context of the study concerned with development of PD program. This program was designed and based on the characteristics of successful programs such as: (1) Using more than one strategy for development (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003), (2) Development based on teacher prior knowledge and promoting their construction of new knowledge (Bell, 1998), (3) Using activities in the same ways as they teach in classrooms (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003), (4) Providing situations for teacher reflections on practices (Richardson and Placier, 2001), and (5) Having sufficient time to encourage meaningful changes (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). For strategies in this PD program, the researcher used various kinds of strategies in this program such as discussion, presentation, field trip, self-reflection, observation, interview, and invitation of guest speakers who had shared some ideas. Before the implementation, the program had to receive an approval from three experts work as a research team. For doing activities, there were three parts of development which was adapted from Chin (2000). In part I, teachers were acknowledged an introduction of zoo-based STSE content and an example of zoo-based STSE units. This part composed of seven meetings providing content about: (1) science teaching according to educational reform, (2) the nature of science, (3) the nature of technology, (4) the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, (5) science teaching according to the STSE approach, (6) using the zoo as a learning resource, and (7) demonstration of an example of a zoo-based STSE lesson. In part II, teachers developed their lesson plans which infused STSE approach to use the zoo as a learning resource in topic related to animal. In part III, each teacher was asked to teach such lesson plans in their classrooms. Participants For selecting research participants, there was one school under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration selected to study based on three criteria: (1) the teachers volunteered to participate in this program, (2) they already planned an excursion to the zoo in the second semester of the 2009 academic year in order to examine the real phenomenal of excursions to the zoo, and (3) the number of elementary science teachers who taught 140
animal content should be at least two or more at the upper elementary level. Maree and Somchai, their pseudonyms, were two case studies who were selected to participate in this PD program in order to promote the views and practices about zoo-based STSE approach. Case I: Mrs. Maree She was a 34-year-old woman with a bachelor’s degree in education (biology teaching) from one of public universities in Bangkok. She had six years of experience in science teaching at the elementary level. In the academic year 2009, she taught grade five science subject regarding animal classification topic. The number of periods per week that she taught was seventeen and there were around 25 students in each classroom. Most of her students had lower achievement scores. For excursions to the zoo, she always took her students to the zoo once a year. However, she did not have any professional development experience in using the zoo as a learning resource or the STSE approach. She was a teacher who was enthusiastic to learn new things. She expressed her appreciation on the opportunity to participate in this PD program by agreeing to participate in it quickly. She would like to get new knowledge that can apply to her teaching for the most benefit of students. Case II: Mr. Somchai He is an elementary science teacher assistant with ten years of experience in science teaching in a private school and one year of working experience in this school. His age was 35 years old. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Education (general science teaching) from the same public university as Maree. At the time of this study, he had responsibility for teaching science to grade six regarding animal topics about animal behavior. The numbers of his teaching periods per week were eighteen. In each classroom there were around 30 students. Many of them were not very attentive to the lessons. Consequently, the average achievement scores in science were low. For excursions to the zoo, he had the same experience as Maree who took students to the Dusit zoo once a year. However, he did not have any professional development experience in both the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. His desire to participate in this program was mainly to receive some new experiences to design learning activities that can link the lesson and using the zoo as a learning resource. Data collection Before starting the PD program in the first semester of academic year 2009, the researcher had made a contact with participants to make agreements about the date, time, places, and framework of activities in the program. In order to get a deep understanding of the elementary science teachers’ views and their practices of the zoo-based STSE approach, multiple data sources including group discussion, interviews, observations, and document review had been used for triangulation. For discussion, the teachers were assigned to discuss their experiences on the specific topic based on the content in each meeting. The researcher acted as a facilitator who asked questions to clarify any points that participants did not understand. Typically, the discussion took at least one hour per meeting. The researcher also asked each teacher for permission to video-tape the discussion. Concerning interviews, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews both before and after participating in the PD program to examine their change of views on the zoo-based STSE approach. In addition, the researcher used an informal interview to clarify some points that the researcher did not understand. 141
Typically, the interview took 25-30 minutes per person. Regarding observations, the researcher devised observing the teaching practice into two dimensions: (1) classroom observations, and (2) field trip observations. In the classroom observations, the researcher focused on how teachers practiced the zoo-based STSE approach and any factors that constrained or facilitated their practices in the classroom. In field trip observations, the researcher focused on teachers used the zoo as a learning resource for linking to activities in the classroom and any factors that constrain or facilitate their field trip. To avoid inaccurate interpretations, the researcher recorded contextual details in field notes such as names of participants, location, duration, activities and opinions. For document review, the teachers were asked by the researcher to write journals, lesson plans, and worksheets. The teachers were also encouraged to explain what they wrote, and expand on their thoughts and ideas if the researcher still had some unclear points. Data analysis This study was analyzed by within-case and cross-case analysis methods. The within-case analysis was conducted by using the constant comparative method. The process of data analysis from using constant comparative method was composed of four steps: comparing incidents applicable to each category; integrating categories and their properties; delimiting the theory; and reducing and refining categories and their properties (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). After finishing the within-case analysis, the cross-case analysis was started to make comparisons across the two cases. The researcher read and summarized the relevant themes that emerged with respect to each participant. The similarities and differences were identified based on research questions. Furthermore, there are four criteria of trustworthiness in this study which are outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). The researcher increased dependability by describing and explaining the assumptions and theory behind the study, and how data were collected in detail. Moreover, the dependability occurred through an independent audit process of the research by educational experts. For confirmability, the details about the data collecting, coding and analysis were examined and reviewed by experts to give the researcher feedback on their points of view of the accuracy. To achieve transferability, the researcher provided rich details about their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. Findings and discussions 1. Changes of Teacher’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Due to the Influence of the PD Program The teachers changed to focus more on enhancing the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment. The findings from the two teachers revealed that, before participating in the PD program, their views and practices of the teaching objectives were rarely concerned with promoting students’ affective domains. For example, Maree stated that the objective of the zoo-based STSE teaching is, “The approach aims to promote students’ modern scientific knowledge and process skills.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) This view also was revealed in her lesson plans which were indicated only cognitive and psychomotor domains as a course requirement. From observations, she put her emphasis on skills for doing activities to confirm the students had received knowledge. For Somchai, his main goal of teaching was 142
to promote students’ long term memory in science concepts. He explained that: “Students have to develop strong knowledge which will stick with them everywhere. They will then live in society happily.” (Informal interview from July 21, 2009) These finding are similar to Yutakom and Chaiso (2007) who found that many teachers still have views which do not take into account the aims of science teaching concerning awareness of the interactions between science, technology, society, and environment. From direct discussion with other teachers and science educators in the PD program, both of them gradually developed their views on the objectives of science teaching according to the current educational reform For instance, Maree reflected in her journal that: “The objectives of science teaching have to consider both the positive and negative effects of using science and technology on society and the environment.” (The fourth meeting journal, September 12, 2009) In her developed zoo-based STSE lesson plans, she also mentioned about the effect of society and the environment on animal extinction and promoting students to use scientific process skills for investigating what they doubt. Similar to Maree, Somchai developed his deeper understandings of the objectives of teaching based on the STSE approach. In particular, he felt that it was also important for teachers to promote students’ application of knowledge in daily life. Interestingly, he indicated that “The main goal of his developed lesson plan actually needed my students to be aware of animal extinctions in Thailand.” (Post-class interview from December 9, 2009) Therefore, these views and practices are in line with the goals of teaching according to the STSE approach, which has the main goal of promoting scientific and technology literacy and awareness of the effects of science, technology, society, and environment (Pedretti, 1996). Teachers changed from focusing only on science concepts to also focusing on integration and linking of science to student daily life. Before participating in the PD program, the content in their lesson plans did not concern very much on real life and local areas, as well as students’ interest. For classroom observations, Maree played a major role in dealing with content. She also seldom integrated any disciplines. Her students always answered her questions, listened, and then jotted down the content that she provided. Like Maree, Somchai did not create any chances for students to learn based on their daily life experience. The content of learning in his teaching was similar to that which appeared in the textbook. Amazingly, both of them accepted that they lacked the necessary knowledge of STSE issues for integration in their teaching. The findings were also found in Tedman’s (2005) research. While participating in the PD program, Maree and Somchai seemed to have more understanding on the content of teaching according to the National Education Act that teaching has to relate to daily life or the students’ interests. This is demonstrated by Maree’s statement, “The content of learning should be concerned with students’ interest and link to their daily lives.” (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009) In addition, she had a creating handbill activity concerning animal conservation that aimed to integrate science content with various other disciplines such as Art, Thai language, Social studies, and foreign languages. With regard to Somchai, he asked each group of students to create a cartoon book by using the animals that they were interested in to be the player in their story. Interestingly, he found that most of students’ stories in the cartoons are related to 143
an impact of human beings on the animals such as deforestation, hunting, or illegal selling. He also thought that “A creation of a cartoon book was the way to connect my students to the real situations.” (Interview after finishing the PD program from January 31, 2010) Thus, these findings revealed that their views and practices on content of learning more concerned with the STS[E] approach in that science content is more than concepts which only exist for students to master on tests (NSTA, 1993). Teachers changed their roles from the information provider to a facilitator for students’ inquiry of knowledge as scientists. Initially, Maree and Somchai had views that were related to the features of the STS[E] approach, whereby teacher seeks out and uses student questions and ideas to guide the lessons and the whole instructional unit (NSTA, 1993). However, from their real practices, they acted as a transmitter of information by lecturing and asking questions to fulfill science concepts. Maree stated, “Some students cannot learn from listening to what is being said, so I have to summarize the ideas for them to read.” (Informal interview from July 15, 2009) For Somchai, he reflected that, “My students did not have much presentation skills. The way to cope with this problem is that the teacher has to explain more clearly about the scientific concepts.” (Informal interview from August 4, 2009) The findings obviously showed that some of the teachers’ views and practices were not consistent. These teachers’ practices also supported the claim that “The educational system places an emphasis on technical knowledge too much that is not enough of knowledge to help students become acknowledged and qualified citizens.” (Pillay, 2002). After participating in the PD program, Maree and Somchai agreed that students should learn science through hands-on and mind-on activities which are based on inquiry processes. As Maree stated that, “The teacher should start the lessons by motivating students to ask questions. This should be followed by planning, exploring related data, reflecting and sharing opinions, and applying the knowledge to take actions.” (The fifth meeting journal, September 19, 2009) Impressively, Somchai commented that, “My developed lesson plan was designed to promote students to investigate the answers by themselves. If students work collaboratively in the same way as scientists do, this lesson plan will have a successful implementation.” (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009) To practice, they allowed students to work in groups for planning, observing, note taking, and summarizing data together. While students were doing activities, both in the classroom and the zoo, the teachers always walked around to observe and guided their students. These views and practices were concerned with the same features of STS[E] instruction in which there are both hands-on and minds-on activities. Students can use scientific process skills to test their own ideas. Both teachers and students can learn from each other (NSTA, 1993). Teachers had some links of what is learned to daily life that are more concerned with the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. Before engaging in the PD Program, they had some views that aligned to teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach which used current issues to motivate students’ interest. In practice, they rarely used these issues in their classes. Maree accepted that “Typically, I struggled about how to teach science to promote students’ awareness of 144
these interactions. Therefore, I would like to know the characteristics or techniques for promoting students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.” (Maree’s worksheet, September, 12, 2009) For Somchai, he typically started his class by asking general questions, checking students’ answers, and giving them extra marks. He also said that, “My teaching activities are not concerned with the STSE approach. I do not set any situations for students to encounter with any STSE issues in seeking information to use in problem resolutions.” (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) Differently, learning activities which were based on the STS[E] approach did not focus on science concepts that have been discovered from scientists, but instead they focused on science concepts that occurred in everyday life (NSTA, 1993). As the PD program progressed, they recognized the benefits of using STSE issues to promote the development of scientifically and technologically literate citizens. Consequently, they used some media such as pictures that are related to STSE issues to motivate students’ interest as part of their lessons. In case of Maree, she expressed her positive views on the features of the zoo-based STSE approach for promoting students’ awareness of taking action and being good citizens that, “It focuses on the students applying knowledge in daily life, solving problems, thinking critically, having habit of mind, and having more qualities of being good Thai citizens.” (Post-class interview from December 16, 2009) In case of Somchai, he also found that this approach was a challenge to enhance his students to take action in sharing what they learned with others as his following statements show: “The students can have clear views about these from the related STSE news that I bring to the class. When they found problems they always shared ideas together for finding the solutions.” (Somchai’s worksheet, November, 31, 2009) This finding supported the suggestion that this practice was involved the feature of the STS[E] approach which promoted students to make their own decisions about their daily situations (Pedretti et al., 2006). Teachers used the zoo as a learning resource more effectively to promote student learning. Initially both of the teachers viewed that learning resources, both inside and outside school, could promote student learning. However in practice, they mainly used textbooks or themselves as learning resources. Maree stated that, “I have not prepared to use the knowledge that students get from the zoo in my teaching because the topics that I am teaching now are not related to the knowledge from the zoo.” (Informal interview from August 3, 2009) Similar to Maree, Somchai revealed that, “When I teach about animals, I always ask my students to view the pictures in the textbook or the reading sheet.” (The second group meeting, August 18, 2009) Therefore, their practices are not related to teaching which is based on the STS[E] approach, whereby STSE teachers always use resources outside the classroom in order to consider the long-term needs of humanity with respect to environmental sustainability (NSTA, 1993; Pedretti, 2003). To support these practices, Griffin (2007) found that many teachers had not emphasized the student learning processes and knowledge that students would get from outside classroom trips. 145
Due to their clear views on the positive results in using learning resources such as the zoo, they developed more purposeful and linking preparations and follow up activities. Students worked in groups by exploring to gather data to answer their own questions and enthusiastically shared their findings with their friends while learning at the zoo. Moreover, their students expressed their feelings that they were happy, enjoyed the activities, and got a lot of knowledge from the zoo. Maree impressively stated this about her students: “My students learned by themselves during doing activity in the zoo. I know because I observed that when they have doubts they will ask questions to another person or find their own way to find the answers.” (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009) With regard to Somchai’s using the zoo as learning resource, he showed his positive views that, “The school does not have a learning resource like this. By taking students to the zoo, students can learn with real animals.” (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009) This finding is supported by Moussouri (1997) who claimed that visitors who have a plan and a goal before they visit the zoo will gain more knowledge than those who have no agenda. Teachers used various methods to assess student learning including awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment and application of knowledge in daily life. Before participating in the PD program, their views and practices were attempted to assess their students’ learning in cognitive domains by mainly using questions, and examining exercises. Maree stated that, “The teachers always assign the students to answer questions in the exercise book or in student worksheets that are handed in after class. Moreover, the students have tests at the end of the lesson and the end of the semester.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) Similarly, Somchai stated that, “The teacher can examine the student learning by asking questions. If they answer correctly, then that shows their correct understanding.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) These views and practices were different from STS[E] teachers who assessed and evaluated student learning that focused on how students develop their understanding, rather than scoring only for the purposes of grading students (Solomon, 1994: 148). As a result of experiencing the PD program, they began to assess student affective domains concerning the awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, and being good citizens. Importantly, they examined their students taking action on science related issues to discuss and share knowledge with others by creating handbills or cartoon books. Therefore, their views and practices were in line with the characteristics of assessment based on the STS[E] approach that it should not occur at the end of teaching and learning, but should occur along with the teaching and learning processes to show the development of students’ learning. Moreover, there are many methods to assess student learning that are based on the STS[E] approach, not only by the teachers but also by the students (Yutakom, 1999). Students got more benefit from the zoo-based STSE approach than from their old style of teaching. After implementation of zoo-based STSE lessons, both cases showed that their students had developed in all domains of student achievement. Regarding the excursion 146
to the zoo, he also perceived that his students also had a lot of knowledge from the trip. Although some students felt tired, most of them had fun doing the activities. Maree revealed that, “My students participated in learning activities more than before. Students learned to plan their work, have discussions in their groups, and complete their own tasks.” (Post-tried out class interview from December 16, 2009) After Somchai’s teaching practice, he also noted that, “My students learned by themselves by asking questions, working in groups for planning and exploring answers, sharing ideas together, and applying knowledge in daily life. Their knowledge will be sustainable for them. If the teacher only tells them information, the students will forget easily.” (Somchai’s journal, December, 15, 2009) This is the same as the outcomes that were found by many researchers. They reported that students who learned with the STS[E] approach not only learned more on basic science concepts, but also had better group work skills, better application of their knowledge in daily life, and were more aware of the interactions among science, technology, and society (Yager and Yager, 2006). Due to the good student learning outcomes, they still taught science with some features of the STSE approach even though the PD program was over. 2. The Factors that Affected Teacher’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach There were seven factors which had the potential to influence the views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach of these two case studies. These were the teachers’ academic background and teaching experiences, teachers’ characteristics, the limits of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, students’ entrance examinations, and media in the zoo. Teachers’ academic background and teaching experiences Before participating in the PD program, both of these two teachers did not know much about the National Education Act. Their teaching styles typically were concerned with undergraduate knowledge. Maree expressed that, “I had learned a lot concerning teaching based on National Education Acts and the Basic Education Curriculum. I graduated long time ago, so I forgot them.” (The first meeting journal, August 18, 2009) Somchai also accepted that, “Based on unclear knowledge and experiences about educational reform, I wrote poor lesson plans … now I have learned more about how to write an effective lesson plan.” (Informal interview after the first meeting from August 15, 2009) This has been confirmed by Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) who indicated that teachers’ academic backgrounds have an effect on their practices. Moreover, the main reason that they hardly linked STSE issues in their teaching was because they lacked the necessary knowledge, as well as other disciplines concerning these issues (Tedman, 2005). During doing activities in the PD program, they could develop their views and tried to change their teaching by providing features of this approach in their activities. Maree revealed that, “I learned more about teaching with this approach. I had more confidence in teaching and could be a good student consultant for their learning.” (Informal interview from November 13, 2009) Similarly, Somchai mentioned that, “I have already had experience in science teaching based on the zoo-based STSE approach, I know how to adjust some activities for the best learning of my students.” 147
(Post-tried out class interview from November 20, 2009) This finding agreed with Tsai (2001), who found that teachers whose practice science based on an STS[E] approach in the classroom could increase their views on features of this approach and their understanding about student learning. Teachers’ characteristics Before participating in the PD program, these two cases had different characteristics which affected the style of student learning. In case of Maree, she was active and enthusiastic. She actively told her students contents knowledge. Therefore, most of her students always waited for her explanations. These details were supported with her statement that, “I always talk too much in the classroom for explaining the scientific content to my students. They will learn from my explanations because they understand my wording better than the textbook.” (Informal interview from July 15, 2009) In case of Somchai, he was not active and focused on external motivations. He did not bring science related issues that could be found in daily life for discussion in the classroom. Typically, he always lectured according to content in textbook or reading sheets. His students had to listen to what he taught. If they did not pay attention in his class, he would use extra scores to motivate their learning. From their real practice in the third part of the PD program, these two cases adapted their teaching style from explanations to using more questions to motivate the students’ thinking. When the students perceived that the teachers had reduced their roles as information providers, the students had to share more ideas. These details were supported with their statements. Maree stated, “I tried to use my knowledge that I got from the PD program. I promoted my students to share their ideas.” (Informal interview from December 9, 2009) Like Maree, Somchai mentioned, “I tried to be a learning facilitator who motivates them to do activities so they could construct their own knowledge.” (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009) These findings agreed with many researchers who found that the students who learned based on STS[E] approach with facilitation by the teacher can develop their learning (Aikenhead, 1992; Yager and Yager, 2006). The limits of time Initially, these two cases did not have any problems about the limits of time for teaching because they used lecturing methods even though their school had many extra-curriculum activities. During the first time of the implementation of their STSE lesson plans, both of them were confronted with difficulty in controlling the time for teaching. Maree revealed, “It took too much time waiting for their answers. However, some of them gave me some answers.” (Post-tried out class interview from November 13, 2009) In case of Somchai, he accepted, “If I don’t run my lesson on time, I will assign my students to read or do exercises before explaining to them next time.” (Informal interview from July 21, 2009) It is common that the teachers who do not have experience in STS[E] teaching will take more time to plan and practice (Chin, 2000; Tsai, 2001; Tedman, 2005; Pedretti et al., 2006). To deal with this factor that they had to prepare questions, promote their students to search for some information related to the teaching content before discussion in the class, and encourage the students to brainstorm and work in groups. This finding supported the features 148
of teaching based on STS[E] approach in that the extension of learning should go beyond the class period, the classroom, and the school. The students had to be involved in their learning process (NSTA, 1993). Students’ learning styles At the beginning of the implementation of lessons according to the STSE approach, these two cases encountered the difficulty in promoting students to ask questions and share ideas. Maree expressed that, “My students were not getting used to this learning approach because they have never learned by asking questions and planning their own activities.” (Post-tried out class interview from November 13, 2009) With Somchai’s experience of teaching, he also revealed that, “At the beginning of class, students are not ready to study. Their minds are still attached with the previous class. If we teach them immediately, the outcomes of teaching will not be 100%.”(Post-tried out class interview from November 20, 2009) Therefore, many teachers view that the STS[E] approach will be more effective than a teacher-centered approach and are not comfortable using the STS[E] approach in their science teaching (Chin, 2000). However, these two teachers combined the zoo-based STSE approach with their old styles of teaching, such as using scores to motivate students to share their ideas or lecturing or explaining some part of content that the students did not understand. After their students got used to this learning style, they tended to share ideas in working groups. These two teachers seemed to reduce their dominate roles and became facilitators. For using the zoo as a learning resource, the students in this school always went to the zoo as a field trip. Field trips are successful, depending on the motivation of schools (Kisiel, 2005). To reduce boredom, the teachers had to design activities which were different from usual school excursions. The students had to plan ways to collect data in the zoo. Consequently, when the students did activities in the zoo, they had a lot of fun and got a lot of knowledge. Rudmann (1994) found that if teachers provide students with basic knowledge concerning the field trip area, the students will develop their scientific attitudes and cognitive domains. Students’ entrance examinations Due to the grade level of students, Somchai who selected the students of grade six to study according to the zoo-based STSE approach, felt the effect of this factor more than Maree who taught in grade five. Commonly, the students in grade six were preparing for studying at higher levels. The school administrators had high expectations about the number of students who would pass entrance examination tests. This was the reason why the teaching style of Somchai always emphasized content knowledge, before he participated in the PD program. He accepted that, “My school administrators expect our students to enter into the secondary school in greater numbers than last year. They set the special class for the students to do exercises related to the entrance examinations. Therefore, I have to teach that class.” (Informal interview from July 21, 2009) This finding supported that the standardized tests affected the teacher’s teaching practice (Tsai, 2001). However, Somchai got permission from his school administrators to participate in this PD program. He could plan and implement the zoo-based STSE lessons 149
in an easy way. Fortunately, these findings did not agreed with Tsai (2001) who found that the teacher lacked of support from school administrators and colleges for teaching according to STS[E] approach. School administrators’ support According to the zoo-based STSE approach, these two cases worked in the schools where their school administrators supported them in teaching. They provided places for doing activities of the PD program in their schools and adjusted teaching schedules for these two teachers to attend the program. Therefore, the teachers improved their views and practices in accordance to the features of the zoo-based STSE approach. As for using the zoo as a learning resource, the school administrators also were the main supporters of the excursion to the zoo including the budget for the zoo trip and determined the number of teachers to take care of students at the zoo. Moreover, they also contacted the zoo educator to deal with the dates, times, and activities of learning in the zoo. Maree stated that, “The students did not pay the entrance fee because the school got funds from the government. In addition, the school administrator also contacted the zoo officers about taking students to the zoo as a school project.” (The meeting in the second part of the PD program from October 13, 2009) Somchai also supported this idea that, “My school administrators have a good attitude toward learning outside classroom. I think that other schools do not have zoo excursions more often than my school. The school administrators always support the expenses for entrance fees, transportation, and food. Fortunately, they also support the number of teachers to supervise our students.” (The seventh group meeting from September 22, 2009) Unlike the finding of this study, there is another research which shows that teachers who teach science based on the STS[E] approach may have a difficulty due to the lack of the school administrators’ support (Tsai, 2001). For using the zoo as a learning resource, the school administrators are important people who have the power to manage the excursion. Griffin (2007: 37) found that teachers felt that most school administrators are not aware of science learning outside of the classroom. Therefore, teachers have indicated that there are limitations of choice about when the field trip would be conducted, the place for the field trip, and funding (Kisiel, 2005). Moreover, many teachers felt that using the zoo as a learning resource must be depended on funds, transportation, and the number of students (OEC, 2005).
Media in the zoo There were a variety of media that were provided in the zoo to help these two teachers to design zoo-based STSE lessons. Maree agreed with using the zoo as a learning resource because there were many animals that could be linked to her lessons, and the media in the zoo could promote the students’ application of knowledge to daily life. She stated that, “I think that animal living conditions, concerning the STSE issues, are a factor that relates to teaching based on this approach. If students watch television, they will see much news about hunting animals, animal abuse, or the “hot” issues about animals.” (Initial interview from July 20, 2009) In case of Somchai, he thought that there are many media in the zoo that could be learned by students. Moreover, these media could guide them about animal conservation, as his statement indicates, “Taking students to the zoo makes the students 150
know what these animals look like, how they behave, and how they live. There is much information provided in the zoo. This data will guide them in future conservation.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) However, they thought that there were not enough animals and information about animals to provide in the zoo. Maree’s indicated that, “There are not so many signs or information boards about animals. Moreover, there are also not enough zoo curators provided for asking questions.” (Informal interview from September 19, 2009) Similarly, Somchai pointed out that, “Some animals did not behave as in nature. The zoo does not have all kinds of animals. Therefore, teachers who want to plan their lessons by using the zoo as a learning resource have to survey the media in the zoo before going there with their students.” (The sixth group meeting from September 19, 2009) These ideas are supported from the OEC (2005), which found that many teachers perceived that learning in a zoo was different from learning inside the classroom because the students can study real animals and this idea changes the setting of learning. Students get information of the zoos on television, advertisement boards, newspapers, and handouts, but they have been shown for the zoos to have more information regarding interesting wildlife animals. However, most teachers suggested that the zoo should have many kinds of animals and should provide enough information of these animals. Summary and implications The findings regarding the effectiveness of the PD program showed that these two teachers had developed their own views on the objectives of teaching, teaching activities, using learning resources, and learning assessment which was more in line with the STSE approach. In their practices, there were some clues of their old styles of teaching, even though they had to design their activities to be more concerned with STSE issues, integration to various disciplines, and giving their students more chance to participate in the learning activities. Interestingly, their roles changed from being information providers to become more as facilitators in the students’inquiry of knowledge. Moreover, teachers’ academic background and teaching experiences, teachers’ characteristics, the limits of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, students’ entrance examination tests, and media in the zoo were factors that affected their views and practices according to the zoo-based STSE approach. For implications of the study, this PD program showed the potential to help the elementary science teachers acquire more views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach and eliminate the gap between formal and informal education. Consequently, the students also benefited from these changes. For using activities in the same ways as they teach in classrooms, the teachers role played as students and this made them perceive the ways to design their learning activities based on the zoo-based STSE approach. However, the small number of science teachers who taught in the upper elementary levels was limited in terms of variation of ideas. The PD program should offer opportunities for school administrators, parents, or experts in the community to join with teachers for planning the lessons and teaching practices. In order to support the sustainability of changing teachers’ views and practices, the PD program must be undertaken further with ongoing processes, due to the fact that these changing processes always take time to occur. 151
For application of the zoo-based STSE approach to be done more fruitfully, the teachers had to prepare their students to be familiar with exchanging ideas. After that, they can reduce their role when the students have more understanding of this approach. This may be useful to others who begin using this approach in a classroom. In addition, the effectiveness in promoting students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment are concerned with the teachers’ effective lesson planning for their students seemed to be a meaningful learning in the zoo. To take action, the students in this study paid more attention to these activities. Moreover, they showed their attempts to be good citizens by proposing the ways to solve problems. Therefore, the zoo-based STSE approach might promote the students’ awareness of the issues which are related to learning content. Recommendations for future research This study points out some interesting issues for further studies. This PD program was not long enough to achieve the ultimate changes for these two teachers. Further research should focus on identifying the most effective PD strategies for promoting sustainable changes in teachers’ views and practices using a STSE approach. Because this study focuses on especially the elementary science teachers’ views and practices, there are not many details concerning the students. Therefore, future research should study about the students’ achievements as well as their application of knowledge to be good citizens from the teaching through this approach. Due to the context of the PD program of this study, which took place in a school, it studied a limited group of teachers for development. In the next study, the researcher should study about how to design a PD program for the zoo. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the research fund of Graduate School, Kasetsart University and the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST), Thailand. References Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Integrating STS into science education. Theory into Practice, 31(1), 27-35. Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B.J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin. (eds.). (pp.168-693). International Handbook of Science Education. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chaihongkum, P. (2005). Current situation and problems in teachers development of primary schools in accordance with the 6th educational development plan of bangkok metropolitan administration. Master Thesis in Educational Administration, Kasetsart University. Chin, C-C. (2000). Science teachers’ development of museum-based STS modules-What do their perceptions and practices tell us?. Proceeding National Science Council ROC(D), 10(3), 155-125. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Australia: Allen & Unwin. 152
Griffin, J. (2007). Students, teachers, and museums: Toward an intertwined learning circle. In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking and S. Foutz. (eds.). In principle, In practice: Museums as learning institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira press, 31-42. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391 Kisiel, J. F. (2005). Understanding elementary teacher motivations for science fieldtrips. Science Education, 89, 936-955. Khotchasila, P. (2000). Utilization of external audit results for school improverment towards primary school standards under the bangkok metropolitan administration. Master Thesis in Educational Administration, Kasetsart University. Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Loucks-Horsley, S., N. Love, K.E. Stiles, S. Mundry and P.W. Hewson. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. The National Institute for Science Education. California: Corwin Press, Inc. Meinoratha, J. (1997). Science instruction organization in schools under the project for extension of educational opportunity at the lower secondary level of the Bangkok metropolitan administration. Master of Arts in Teaching Thesis in Teaching Science, Kasetsart University. Melber, L. M. (2001). Why are they doing that?: Animal investigations at the local. Science Activities, 37(4), 10-14. Moussouri, T. (1997). Family agendas and family learning in hands-on museums. Ph.D. University of Leicester. National Science Teacher Association (NSTA). (1993). Science/Technology/Society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all. In R.E. Yager. (ed.). The science, technology, Society movement. Washington, DC: The National Science Teacher Association, 3-5. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). (2008). Community map: Product of the children. Thailand’s Nature and Environment, 4(1),16-19. Office of the Education Council (OEC). (2000). Learning reform: Learner-centered approach. Bangkok: OEC. ______. (2005). Research report about instruction with life-long learning resources: zoo. Bangkok: OEC. (in Thai). Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (2003). National education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and amendments (second national education act B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Pimdeekanpim Co., Ltd. Pedretti, E. (1996). Learning about Science, Technology, and Society (STS) through an action research project: Co-constructing an issue-based model for STS education. School Science and Mathematics, 96 (8), 439-432. ______. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. L. Zeidler. (ed.). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. 153
______, L. Bencze, J. Hewitt, L. Romkey and A. Jivraj. (2006). Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 941-960. Pillay, H. (2002). Teacher development for quality learning: The thailand education reform project. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Ponvijit, S. (2005). Current situation and problems of instructor development of primary school under the Bangkok metropolitan administration. Master Thesis in Educational Administration. Kasetsart University. Richardson V. and P. Placier. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson. (ed.). (pp.905-947). Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan. Rudmann, C. (1994). A review of the use and implementation of science field trip. S chool Science and Mathematics, 94(3), 138-141. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1-19. Tsai, C-C. (2001). A science teacher’s reflections and knowledge growth about STS instruction after actual implementation. Science Education, 86, 23-41. ______. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771-783. Tedman, D. K. (2005). Science teachers’ views on Science, Technology and Society issue. In S. Alagumalai, D. Curtis and N. Hungi. (eds.). (pp.227-249). Applied rasch measurement: A book of exemplars. Netherland: Springer. Yager, S. O., G., Lim and R. E. Yager. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 105(5), 248-60. Yutakom, N. (1999). Science teaching experiences using STS approach. Kasetsart Educational Review, 14(3), 29-48. ______, and P. Chaiso. (2007). Inservice science teacher professional development in accordance with the national education act of B.E. 2542 (1999). Report to the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology, September, 2007. Bangkok: Kasetsart University.
154